Not to mention the fact that except for a very close phonetic
transcription, *all* written language departs from speech patterns.
Ask any professional writer who's taken the trouble to compare written
dialogue to transcriptions of tape-recorded dialogue -- when we are
producing spontaneous, conversational speech, we do not produce the
distinct, connected, clear sentences that we do in writing, even in
very conversational-sounding writing.

Therefore, in a sense, all written language is a "conlang" because it
is artificially different from natural speech -- which clearly is an
unacceptable stretching of the term.

Ed Heil                                    [log in to unmask]

Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Nik Taylor wrote:
> > Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > I've objected before to the tendency of classifying all classical
> > > languages as 'conlangs' - even though prescriptive grammars abounded,
> > > and some even had a measure of authority, not even Panini could arrest
> > > the development of Sanskrit.
> >
> > Well, I'd say that Classical Latin, etc., as well as even Standard
> > English, are "condialects", certainly perfectly natural developments
> > mixed with artificial introductions.
> >
> I agree with you to some measure - I don't think introducing artificial
> elements counts as constructing, since everyone who plays with language,
> and everyone appear to do, introduces a measure of artificiality, but
> those artificial elements can become part of the natural evolution of
> a language.
> Boudewijn Rempt  |