Print

Print


On Jul 30, 2011, at 2◊10 AM, R A Brown wrote:

> I've been reading through some of the Kēlen pages this
> morning.  Yes, I must say the language has all the feel of
> an artlang and it does not seem unnatural to me either.
> 
> I've clearly put it in the wrong group on my Glossopoeia
> page  - another change to make   :(

snip

> But I should have actually looked at the language itself.
> Mea culpa!
> 
> So shall I shift to the 'Artlang or engelang?' section with
> Liva and Qþyn|gài?


It's kind of like an artlang built off an engelang principle. The main differences from an engelang are that there's a rich and detailed culture that goes with the language, and there are other goals beyond the pure instantiation of the design principle (including verisimilitude, given the constraint). So I'm not sure how you would classify that… Is it misleading to simply call it an artlang? Rather reminds me of the Esperanto question. That is, Esperanto began as a consciously constructed auxlang. Since then, though, it's become a bona fide second language for thousands, and a first language for a few. Given that it's transmitted orally from generation to generation, is it now a natlang…?

David Peterson
LCS President
[log in to unmask]
www.conlang.org