robocap's Tower of Babel Agorà

011 - ConLangs classification

(update: 31-8-2003)

As a personal opinion, ConLangs can be classified by four points of view:

1. Vocabulary
2. Grammar and syntax
3. main communication system; if by voice, phonetical system
4. target (often the actual target differs from the CL designers' intentions: in this case, I take the intentional target, that is less debatable)

Richard K. Harrison did a splendid job classifying ConLangs on the base of their vocabulary source. Thanks to Harrison, this classification is of public domain, so I will use it in this site.

Harrison wrote:

a system of classifying constructed languages

created by Richard K. Harrison, 1 July 1996
revised 1 March 1998, 18 June 2002
this page is in the public domain
 

People who collect information about planned languages sometimes need a quick way to describe them. I designed this system for use when the usual terms (such as a priori, philosophical, etc) are too long-winded or not specific enough.

This system classifies a language strictly on the basis of one criterion: the source of the majority of words in the vocabulary. Granted, there is a lot more to a language design than that one factor, but it seemed like a reasonable hook on which to hang a system of classification.

• 1. a posteriori
  • 1.1 modified or revived single natural languages
    • 1.1.1 Latin
    • 1.1.2 Modern English
    • 1.1.9 others
  • 1.2 modifications of single a posteriori artificial languages
    • 1.2.1 Esperanto reform projects
    • 1.2.9 others
  • 1.3 combinations of closely-related artificial languages
  • 1.4 blends of closely-related natural languages
    • 1.4.1 pan-(Indo-)European vocabularies
      • 1.4.1.1 Romance vocabularies
      • 1.4.1.2 Germanic vocabularies
      • 1.4.1.3 Romance-Germanic mixtures
      • 1.4.1.4 Slavic vocabularies
      • 1.4.1.9 other
    • 1.4.2 Uralic vocabularies
    • 1.4.3 Sino-Tibetan vocabularies
    • 1.4.4 Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) vocabularies
    • 1.4.5 Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan vocabularies
    • 1.4.9 other
  • 1.5 combinations of heterogenous natural languages
    • 1.5.1 words essentially unaltered
    • 1.5.2 words filtered or modified by phonotactic/morphological rules

• 2. a priori and mixed type
  • 2.1 speakable languages
    • 2.1.1 philosophical languages (categorical vocabularies)*
    • 2.1.2 a priori but non-categorical vocabularies
    • 2.1.3 mixed type (a priori-a posteriori) vocabularies
  • 2.2 unspeakable projects
    • 2.2.1 pasigraphies (symbol/icon languages)
    • 2.2.2 number languages
    • 2.2.3 pasimologies (gesture languages)
    • 2.2.9 others

---

*Read a description of Ro to see what is meant by "categorical vocabularies."

Here are examples of how the system categorizes some well-known constructed languages:

1.1.1 Latino sine Flexion [Peano]
1.1.2 Basic English [Ogden]
1.2.1 Ido
1.3 INTAL [Weferling]
1.4.1 Esperanto [Zamenhof]
1.4.1.1 Interlingua [Gode]
1.5.2 Vorlin [Harrison]
2.1.1 Ro [Foster]
2.1.2 Suma [Russell]
2.2.1 Blissymbols

---

I'll refer to this system with the letter H, in Harrison's honour: so, for example, I could write "...Interlingua (H1.4.1.1)".

As for the other classification criteria, I don't know any other work similar to that of Harrison, and the Grammar or Phonetic classification is beyond my powers: so, as an experiment, let me try the last topic, based on the ConLang target, i.e. the target audience and/or the main purpose of the CL.

ConLang classification by target

created by Roberto Capuzzo (aka robocap), 23 October 1999
revised 14 August 2003
this page is in the public domain

Warning: in this document "target" means the audience (users community) and primary goal in the CL designer's intentions.

1 UNRESTRICTED [1]

1.1 General purpose (International Auxiliary Language)

1.1.1 Planetary (for all the mankind)
1.1.2 Super-regional (e.g. Indoeuropean audience)
1.1.3 Regional (e.g. Romance audience)
1.1.4 Super-national [2] (e.g. Hebrew)
1.1.9 Other

1.2 Practical [3] (Lingua franca)

1.2.1 Biased (simplified version of a dominant language, eventually with sporadic inserts of minority languages)
1.2.2 Parithetical (common denominator among the audience linguistic skills)
1.2.3 Abstract (conceptually new for every user of the target audience)
1.2.9 Other

1.9 Other

2 RESTRICTED

2.1 Initiatic (to be used as a secret language, or lingua sapientiae)

2.1.1 Military purpose [4]
2.1.2 Initiatory purpose [4]
2.1.3 Self-protective purpose [4]
2.1.4 Ludic purpose [4]
2.1.9 Other [4]

2.2 Discipline oriented (scientific or technological)

2.2.1 Expanded jargon (to be used by discipline experts)
2.2.2 Experimental (as a sample or to test a theory)
2.2.9 Other

2.3 fiction (to render an atmosphere, no real communication)

2.3.1 Fanta-historical (Earth's languages used in an invented past)
2.3.2 Historic reconstruction (e.g. pseudo-Egyptian)
2.3.3 Science fiction
2.3.4 Gramelot (imitation of the sounds of an existing language)
2.3.9 Other

2.4 Not human (some of the users are not human)

2.4.1 Animals
2.4.2 Machines (e.g. programming languages)
2.4.9 Other

2.9 Other

Notes
[1] everyone is invited to use it
[2] when the CL is aimed to supply a common language to a Country composed by people speaking different languages
[3] the CL is not to be used for leterature creation, and has no pretension to euphonie or elegance.
[4] comprehends two sub-types: clearly cryptical (ignorants (of the CL) understand it's a secret language) and hidden (ignorants do not notice it's a secret language).

Some examples:

ConLang	Harrison's classification	Target classification
Atlango (Antonious)	1.2.1	1.1.2
Basic English [Ogden]	1.1.2	1.2.1
Esperanto (Zamenhof)	1.4.1	1.1.1
Ido (Couturat et al.)	1.2.1	1.1.2
Interlingua (Gode)	1.4.1.1	1.1.2
Klingon (Okrand)	2.1.3	2.3.3
Latino sine Flexione [Peano]	1.1.1	1.1.9
Loglan (Cooke Brown)	1.5.2	2.2.2
Mondlango (He Yafu et al.)	1.2.1	1.1.1
Neo (Alfandari)	1.2.1	1.1.2
Novial (Jespersen)	1.4.1.3	1.1.3
Volapük (Schleyer)	1.4.1.3	1.1.1

© 2003 robocap - All rights reserved

 

 

 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws