User:Nicolasstraccia: Difference between revisions

<br/>

Even though my tastes have changed over the years (the main difference being an increasing emphasis in historical linguistics) most of my conlangs still fit in the definition of ''artlangs'', in particular, ''a priori naturalistic artlangs''. That is, they are ''not built upon any natural language or language family'', yet they ''strive to be not more nor less complex as any given natural language'', while ''their purpose is that of an artistic endeavour'' and their ''development is strongly driven by their particular aesthetic'' (and not, for instance, the search for a purportedly superior effectivity or the intent of making them specifically easy to learn, as is the case with other kinds of conlangs<ref>Many criteria can be used to classify constructed languages. Some good pointers towards understanding the most usual terminology can be found, for instance, [http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/classification.html here], [http://www.frathwiki.com/Conlang_terminology here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language here]</ref>). Nevertheless, even though that's the kind of conlang I ''mostly'' make, I enjoy a wide variety of styles and genres across the whole spectrum of the craft.