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.