Message-Id: <199602110200.TAA07027@teal.csn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 18:49:06 -0700
To: conlang@diku.dk
From: cbogart@quetzal.com (Chris Bogart)
Subject: Re: CONLANG: "real" languages 
Sender: owner-conlang@diku.dk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cbogart@quetzal.com (Chris Bogart)
Status: OR
Content-Length: 771

Edmundo cusku di'e:
>Also, if a monolingual Turkish speaker (say) learns Glosa (say) and is 
>later able to communicate in Glosa with an English speaker, this 
>doesn't prove that Glosa isn't just coded English: the Turkish speaker 
>may have learnt English through Glosa. 

Although being coded English doesn't necessarily rule out something as being 
a real language.  That may rule it out as being interesting by some 
standard, but I think if two people can communicate ideas in some manner, 
then that manner is a language.  If it happens to be a code for another 
language, then it's a dialect of that language, but it's still a language.  
Otherwise we'd have to rule out Lojban as a language (it's a code for TLI 
Loglan), and Ido as a mere code for Esperanto.