I agree, "constructed" is more precise and neutral in general, and this term's usage on the ISO 639 website is another reason to prefer it.
(And, even though it's not very important, I will mention that I don't agree with the statement on that talk page: 'A more precise term for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lingua Franca Nova, Novial and Interslavic is "planned language".' Language *planning* can be done with all languages, not only constructed ones. Modern Turkish, Hebrew, Mandarin, and many other languages that are definitely not constructed were influenced by language planning activities.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ג׳, 4 בפבר׳ 2025 ב-17:21 מאת Danny B. < Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz>:
SIL as the Language Coding Agency for ISO 639-3 (as well as the standard itself) uses "Constructed" thus we should follow the standard terminology and use that as well.
Apart from following the standard terminology being a good habit, it also makes simplier to cooperate with various databases which follow this terminology (no transformations/translations of terms needed).
Kind regards
Danny B.
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
Datum: 4. 2. 2025 15:34:52 Předmět: [Langcom] "Artificial" vs "constructed" language
On https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy as user suggested to use the term "constructed language" rather than "artificial language" in the policy. Seems decent enough to me. Any other thoughts? _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org