On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures consistency wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of unnecessary complaints.
I suppose that we will have in the near future a number of well elaborated constructed languages, no matter if their intention would be fun or taking role as a language for more useful, more likely particular than general purpose. (For example, Slovio is interesting, as it requires writers educated in Slovio, but non-educated native Slavic speakers to read it; but it has copyright issues.)
Counting that there are no copyright and similar issues, I would define it approximately in the following way: To be considered as eligible, a constructed language has to have:
1) a clear communication purpose (i.e. the intention of creation the language is not to make an art piece more elaborated, but to be used as a mean for communication; Klingon, Quenya and Dothraki would pass just with the native speakers OR with the post factum change of the intention and creation of relevant support for that language, which makes them a "regular" constructed language; I could imagine Klingon could pass based on the last rule);
2) full basic dictionary;
3) a method for creative usage (i.e. creating the new words; somebody has to be able to create an article about quantum mechanics in that language, no matter if that language doesn't have those words initially); if it doesn't allow users to create the new words, it has to have a body which would promptly deal with the needs to write an encyclopedia;
4) (add your requirement here; I suppose Michael, Jan and Andre could help here)
5) Additionally, that should be verified by at least two linguists chosen by LangCom (this is a general linguistic task; unlike in the case of verifying the content, a linguist verifying the *language* doesn't need to speak the language).