Hallo conlangers!

On Monday 30 May 2011 23:25:34, And Rosta wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 30/05/2011 14:52:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > [...] 
> > I explicitly spoke of "fictional human *natlangs*".  There is
> > nothing wrong with a fictional society which has adopted a
> > loglang as their community language (for instance, it has been
> > commented that the Vulcans from Star Trek could be expected
> > to speak a loglang) - but that's still not a fictional natlang.
> 
> Yes, but why is a fictional natlang loglang not a good idea?

Because I consider it very, very unlikely that the kinds of
change natlangs undergo come up with a loglang.

> Also, the example of Livagian raises the questions of whether a natlang
> shaped by deliberate planning and prescriptive pressure -- as some
> natlangs indeed are -- remains a natlang, and whether a language that is
> actively used, but learnt only through education, such as Latin and
> Sanskrit are or have been, is a natlang.

"A natlang shaped by deliberate planning" - what?  We are
obviously using the word "natlang" in different meanings!
To me (and probably to everyone else on the list save you)
a natlang is a language that grew out of centuries of
*unplanned* linguistic evolution.  The adoption of a
conlang by a community as the first language to be passed
down to their children (so far hasn't happened, unless one
counts Ivrit as a conlang, but it *could* happen) doesn't
yet make that conlang a natlang.  It *may* gradually move
towards natlang status if it is left to evolve for several
centuries - but that evolution would probably turn a loglang
into something that could no longer be considered a loglang.
(I'd even expect it to cease being a loglang after the first
generation because loglangs are not really suitable to the
kind of communicational needs natlangs have evolved for.)

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1