On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:39:53 -0700, David J. Peterson 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Harold wrote:
>1. Lexicon must be greater than 2000 (and contain essential words)
>2. Lexicon must be "a priori". (some loans are acceptible)
>3. Lexicon must be accessible on the internet.
>4. Grammar must be complete.
>5. Grammar must be able to be learned on the internet.
>6. Language must be speakable.
> >>
>One thing I've always found problematic about questions of this
>sort is that there seems to be a caveat, stated explicitly in numbers
>3 and 6 up there.  If you go to the original question:
>John Crowe:
>Which conlang is the most highly developed (in terms of lexicon,
>usability, etc.) that is not intended in any way to be an auxlang?
> >>
>Items 3 and 6 shouldn't have anything to do with the answer.

They don't, NOR were they intended to. This was not offered as
the answer to his question. It was a related topic concerning
some attempt I had made (long before he asked the question)
to apply a filter to the large number of conlangs...based on
criteria relating to completeness, my personal preference of
"a priori" and access.

>Nevertheless, it seems to be implicitly understood that it does--
>that a language doesn't "count" unless everything about it is on
>the internet (a disadvantage to those whose HTML skills are
>nonexistent, or who don't have all the time in the world--or
>who simply prefer another method of language documentation).

That is not my issue. This particular constraint was merely a
practical consideration since I could not make any determination
without the language being accessible.

This is not a "My favorite list" nor is it a condemnation of languages
that are not on it. It was simply filtering a particular set of languages
and one part was that it be learnable on the internet.

I thought it would be helpful to the original poster, because the
languages on the list are all well developed, but the list is not
inclusive or complete as other criteria were also involved.

>If only online-documentation counts, then I'd say probably
>amman-๎ar is one of the most complete (even in its incomplete
>state), as well as Tokana.  If we count *all* languages, though,
>then I'd say there's really no way to say.

amman-iar was not on the list because it was not "a priori".

>(Oh, and I always forget about the languages by that fellow
>Pehrson.  Certainly Idrani should get a mention:
> )

not "a priori"