Print

Print


>"constructed" ... "having been constructed" = "having been deliberately
put
>together / shaped / engineered with the goal of making a language";
whether
>it's from scratch or from existing language(s) doesn't matter here.
>No, there aren't characteristics inherent to conlangs AFTER their
>construction that seperate them from natlangs. Theoretically it should be
>possible to make an *a-posteriori* conlang that passes for a natlang. But
>I'd say there are plenty of a-priori and semi-a-priori langs that wear
their
>constructedness visibly.
>However, having been deliberately constructed (usually by one person) is
>itself a very different way for a language to come about than having
>developed over generations of speech without deliberate creation. THAT is
>the unique characteristic.

To me, this is not a phenomenon unique to languages designated as
conlangs.  There are many instances of intentional language creation and
permutation throughout recorded history-- prescriptivist reforms, creation
of new writing systems and other varying degrees of intentional
contrivance by groups or individuals.  Since even a designated, a
posteriori conlang is a contrived permutation of a designated natlang, the
distinction does not hold for me.  An intentional permutation is an
intentional permutation.  *Every* language has degrees of intentional
permutation.

As to your thought on a priori conlang genesis being a distinguishing
feature, I find this argument to be invalid as well (And perhaps this
should have been my fourth assertion).  I do not believe that an a priori
language can exist.  All language stems from language -- even so called L1
comes from experience with the linguistic context of the learner.  Hence,
even if it is only within the mind of one individual all language is a
posteriori.

Just my opinion :).

T. Pehrson