Print

Print


On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-05-12 Daniel Bowman wrote:
>>>
>>> While I don't ever think my language will be "complete" in the sense that
>>> I'll stop developing it,
>>
>> It has always been my feeling that a conlang which
>> one can not or will not develop any further is a
>> dead conlang, or to put it in positive terms: if
>> 'alive' for a natlang means 'still used for
>> communication'[^1] then 'alive' for a conlang
>> means 'still tinkered with'.
>
> How to tell the difference between "dead" and "dormant", though? Tirelat
> survived nearly four years in a mostly dormant state until I picked it up
> again and used it in a recent relay. At any given time I only work on one or
> two languages at once, so there are bound to be some that are temporarily
> inactive. Yasaro is one of those languages that I work on only
> intermittently, with long periods of down time. Right now I'm looking at two
> languages that I stopped actively working on 20 years ago, with the idea of
> taking what I've learned since then to make a new language or languages
> based on that material.

The same kind of goes for natlangs, too, though. (see: Hebrew)