Watch my reply-to!

Another consideration would be how the language is used. Natlangs are
mostly (obviously) used for real world uses--business, conversation,
and the like. But the grey area emerges when Trekkies have
conversations in Klingon, and Esperantists speak Esperanto for just
about anything.

On 12/27/05, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:07:05 -0500, Jörg Rhiemeier
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say that a conlang is a language deliberately designed by
> > > an individual or a (small) group; a natlang is a language that
> > > evolved from another language during centuries of usage by a
> > > community.
> >
> > This overlooks the pidgin/creole situation, where a complete language can
> > emerge more or less fully formed in a matter of a couple of generations
> > over a reasonably small (depending on your domain) group of people,
> > without much if any planning.
> >
> > Also, there are natlangs that consist of a very diverse set of dialects
> > that are deliberately engineered, codified and koinized. Koine being the
> > obvious example, but if my brain isn't playing tricks on me, I seem to
> > recall Bahasa Indonesia kinda fits the bill, too.
> >
> > It's a hard set to define. I'm tempted to go with the "second-generation
> > L1 speakers" thing, but that I suspect locks out dying or dead languages
> > going through a resurgence.
>
> You are right, there are borderline cases and a "gray area" between
> natlangs and conlangs. It's rather like a spectrum than like a
> black-and-white binary. The extremes are vernacular dialects on
> one end and a priori conlangs on the other; many languages fall
> somewhere between.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jörg.
>