I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers
than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen

<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> In an alternate universe maybe.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>
>>
>> I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has
>> native speakers.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ?
>>> Thanks,
>>>      GerardM
>>>
>>> On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial
>>>> > languages should be eligible?
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately
>>>> after Esperanto.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom