Print

Print


On 7 March 2016 at 22:57, David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 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?


Variously either with that meaning or more narrowly meaning 'able to be
processed by the human language faculty in the way a natlang is'. The
narrower meaning is just the part of the broader meaning that is relevant
to loglangology, so I don't think there is a problematic polysemy.


> So Quenya and Esperanto would both be natlangoid conlangs but Lojban and
> Fith would not?


Yes, by the broader definition. By the narrower definition, which is not
the definition you're looking for a term for, Lojban and Fith both contain
elements of their grammar that are not natlangoid

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…
>

Nonnatlangoid? I suppose we want something more elegant, especially for
nonnatlangoid artlangs.

--And.