Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Serviam
There are practically no complete artificial languages. There's Esperanto and Volapuk (ciphers rather than languages, if I understand the view Ilasir just posted), plus Quendi, Sindarin, and Klingon. And even they have minuscule vocabularies and practically no speakers compared to natural languages. Because you can spend a lifetime designing a proper language, and still not finish.
|
Esperanto and Volapuk are "auxlangs" created with intense regularization.
The issue is not that there aren't comlete languages, it's just that most are not well-known. There's one called "Itlani(eetlanee)" with over 10000 lexical entries, which is quite speakable, and Neo-Elvish is along the same lines. Klingon is also possible to speak fairly well.
Pidgins could technically be classified as naturalistic, since they develop often in real-life circumstances.
Since you seem to just want a nomenclature, a conlang is probably too much, Monkuta. I'd definitely make things up as you go along.
