Hallo conlangers!

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

> Jrg 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
"Bsel asa m, a m atha cvanthal a cvanth atha mel." - SiM 1:1