Are there any examples of semi-natural and semi-con langs?
A 50% : 50% language or anything like that?
And if yes, why do they exist?
Reconstructed modern languages are also on-topic .
Moderators:Ashucky, Dormouse559
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Are there any examples of semi-natural and semi-con langs?
A 50% : 50% language or anything like that?
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:And if yes, why do they exist?
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Reconstructed modern languages are also on-topic .
Dormouse559 wrote:SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Are there any examples of semi-natural and semi-con langs?
A 50% : 50% language or anything like that?
I can't say I've heard of such a thing, and I'm having difficulty even figuring out what "A 50% : 50% language" would look like. Are we talking about all aspects of the language, like syntax, phonology, pragmatics? Because the only area where such a division would begin to make sense to me is vocabulary.
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Reconstructed modern languages are also on-topic .
Care to elaborate? Reconstruction usually applies to dead, unattested languages. Given modern languages exist now, why would we reconstruct them?
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:
Or maybe it would be better to say: based on an ancient natural language, but with some contemporary constructed elements (simplification/etc.).
Luís wrote:SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:
Or maybe it would be better to say: based on an ancient natural language, but with some contemporary constructed elements (simplification/etc.).
Modern Hebrew?
SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Or maybe it would be better to say: based on an ancient natural language, but with some contemporary constructed elements (simplification/etc.).
linguoboy wrote:SomehowGeekyPolyglot wrote:Or maybe it would be better to say: based on an ancient natural language, but with some contemporary constructed elements (simplification/etc.).
I did once come across a conlang based on Proto-Indo-European. I think it was being proposed as an interlanguage for the EU.
Dormouse559 wrote:Ah, that reminds me of Latino sine flexione, a version of Latin with simplified inflections and the same vocabulary, and I assume, the same grammar, aside from morphology.
Regularity as in: frequency of use? Or as in: inner-language consistency?razlem wrote:I think it's hard to define naturalness in terms of linguistic structure. For me, a 'naturalistic' conlang is one that has speakers that can use the language with regularity, with a full-on natural language being one that's used as a first language.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests