Hallo conlangers!

On 07.03.2016 23:23, BPJ wrote:

> Den 2016-03-07 kl. 21:52, skrev Jörg Rhiemeier:
>> 2. In language origins studies, a "protolanguage" is a
>> hypothetical communicative behaviour of extinct hominids that is
>> intermediate between animal communicative behaviour and human
>> language. These protolanguages would have been spoken between
>> about 2 million and about 100,000 years ago.
> That's hardly serious scholarship in my book.  There is *nothing* we 
> can know about that short of inventing time travel!

Fair. We can only make guesses at that, and there are various different 
pathways from non-language to language being proposed. Some scholars try 
to use language development in children as an analogue, but that too is 

> And anyway, what's wrong with "primordial language".
>> Also, "prototypical" sounds unnecessarily highbrow. I think "normal" 
>> is, as simple as it is, the best suggestion I have seen here. It is 
>> sometimes difficult to see the obvious when one is searching high and 
>> low ;) Thanks, Dirk!
>> So Esperanto, Occidental and Quenya are normal languages, while Fith 
>> and Lojban are not.
> Nah, "normal"/"normlang" is all to easily misconstrued as "normative" 
> even if you don't intend to.  I think "natlang-typical lang" 
> ("nattypelang"?) would be more descriptive.

Point taken. "Normative" would be something else entirely - it refers to 
entities that *establish social norms*, such as, to use a linguistic 
example, a national language academy. "Normal" may be confused with 
that, and is perhaps too fuzzy.

On 07.03.2016 23:57, David Peterson wrote:

>> On Mar 7, 2016, at 2:54 PM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I note that some quick googling tells me that I have been using
>> "natlangoid" on this list since at least 2002, and many times in the last
>> five years.
> With that meaning? So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid conlangs but Lojban and Fith would not? If so, that’s not too bad. One wonders what the companion term would be, though. If one went with “artificial”, you’d get the unfortunate artlangoid, which makes it sound like it’s a kind of artlang…

So a "natlangoid" or a "natlang-like conlang" would be a conlang that 
works like a natlang, e.g. Esperanto. Fith and Lojban would be 
"natlang-unlike", or "non-natlangoids". "Artlangoid" is a poor 
suggestion for the antonym because it 1) sounds like "like an artlang" 
and 2) "artificial" is not really the antonym to "natlang-like".

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1