Cite this article as: Abuh, G. (2025). The linguistics of conlangs: A study of fictional, auxiliary, and engineered languages. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.029
THE LINGUISTICS OF CONLANGS: A STUDY OF FICTIONAL,
AUXILIARY, AND ENGINEERED LANGUAGES
By
Abuh Godswill
Department of English Language, Saint Roses College
Ogwashi-uku, Delta State, Nigeria.
Abstract
Constructed languages (Conlangs) represent a distinctive
domain of linguistic inquiry where intentional design interacts with natural
linguistic principles. While prior studies have examined individual conlangs,
such as Esperanto (Blanke, 1999; Garvía, 2015), Klingon (Okrent, 2009;
Stockwell, 2016), and Lojban (Cowan, 1997), there remains limited comparative
analysis across fictional, auxiliary, and engineered languages. This study
investigates the linguistic structures of three representative conlangs: Klingon,
Esperanto, and Lojban, corresponding respectively to artistic, auxiliary, and
engineered categories. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach situated
within structuralist and typological frameworks (Comrie, 1989; Crystal, 2003),
the study examines the phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns of
the selected languages. Data are drawn from published grammars, corpora, and
descriptive accounts.Findings reveal that Esperanto demonstrates morphological
regularity and accessibility for global communication; Klingon displays
deliberate typological deviation reflecting alien identity in fictional
contexts; and Lojban embodies logical precision and semantic transparency
designed to minimize ambiguity. The study argues that, despite their artificial
origins, conlangs exhibit systematic linguistic organization that reflects both
linguistic universals and creative divergence. Ultimately, the comparative
analysis contributes to ongoing debates on linguistic creativity, typology, and
the nature of human linguistic competence, illustrating how language design can
be intentionally manipulated, extended, and systematised.
Keywords: Conlangs, Linguistic Structure, Esperanto, Klingon,
Lojban, Constructed Languages, Typology
1. Introduction
Language is one of the most remarkable manifestations of
human creativity and cognition. While natural languages evolve spontaneously
within speech communities, constructed languages, commonly known as Conlangs,
are the product of deliberate inventions. A constructed language is designed
with specific phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic rules that
emulate or depart from natural linguistic patterns. The motivations for
creating such languages vary widely, ranging from artistic and fictional expression
to international communication and experimental linguistic modeling.
The study of constructed languages has gained increasing
scholarly attention due to their unique capacity to illuminate universal
linguistic principles and test the limits of human linguistic competence.
Conlangs, though artificial, are not mere codes; they possess systematic
grammatical structures and expressive potential comparable to natural
languages. This study focuses on three representatives Conlangs; Klingon,
Esperanto, and Lojban, each illustrating a distinct type: fictional, auxiliary,
and engineered, respectively. By examining their linguistic structures, this
paper seeks to uncover how intentional design influences phonology, morphology,
and syntax in artificial languages.
The central aim of this study is to analyse the linguistic
systems of selected Conlangs to determine the extent to which they conform to
or diverge from natural language patterns. The study also explores how the
structural features of these languages reflect their creators’ purposes, which
can be artistic, communicative, or logical. Through this, the paper contributes
to the growing discourse on the intersection between linguistic creativity and
structural typology, emphasizing that the study of Conlangs offers valuable
insights into both human language design and linguistic theories.
2. Literature
Review
2.1 Conceptualizing
Constructed Languages
Constructed languages have existed for centuries, with early
examples such as Lingua Ignota by Hildegard of Bingen in the 12th century and
Solresol in the 19th century. According to Okrent (2009), a constructed
language is one that has been consciously devised rather than naturally
evolved. Peterson (2015) expands this view, asserting that Conlangs are not
only linguistic artifacts but also cultural products that reflect the
ideologies and artistic intentions of their creators.
Contemporary linguists typically classify Conlangs into
three categories: fictional, auxiliary, and engineered (Blanke, 2001).
Fictional languages, such as Klingon or Na’vi, are typically developed to
support narrative universes, enhance fictional immersion, or embody alien
cultural identities (Adams, 2011). Auxiliary languages, such as Esperanto or
Interlingua, are designed to promote international communication, simplify
linguistic learning, and minimize political bias (Blanke, 1999; Tonkin, 2000).
Engineered languages, including Lojban and Toki Pona, are devised to test
linguistic hypotheses, explore logical or philosophical ideas, or investigate
constraints on human language design (Cowan, 1997). Each of these categories
reveals a unique interaction between linguistic form, function, and creativity.
More recent scholarship highlights the sociolinguistic
dimensions of Conlangs. Okrent (2009) and Peterson (2015) note that modern
Conlang communities function as active speech communities with conventions,
norms, and evolving usage patterns. Research in linguistic anthropology further
shows that Conlang adoption is tied to identity construction, fandom
participation, and ideological expression (Adams, 2011). These perspectives
underscore that constructed languages are not merely technical linguistic systems
but also socially meaningful cultural practices.
2.2 Linguistic
Studies on Conlangs
Previous linguistic studies have explored phonological,
morphological, and syntactic aspects of constructed languages. For instance,
Frommer (2012) notes that fictional languages often prioritize aesthetic and
cultural coherence over typological realism. In contrast, Blanke (1999)
emphasizes that auxiliary languages are built for regularity, neutrality, and
ease of acquisition. Cowan (1997) and Brown (2004) observe that engineered
languages like Lojban aim to eliminate ambiguity and align grammar with principles
of predicate logic. Esperanto’s linguistic simplicity, as described by Tonkin
(2000), demonstrates how regular morphological patterns can enhance
learnability. Klingon’s marked phonological system (Okrand, 1985) illustrates
deliberate deviation from natural language norms to evoke an alien identity,
while Lojban’s syntax, based on formal logic, represents a radical rethinking
of natural grammar (Cowan, 1997). These examples collectively suggest that
constructed languages serve as controlled environments for linguistic
experimentation.
Studies of engineered languages highlight their unique
structural motivations. Cowan (1997) argues that Lojban’s grammar, based on
predicate logic, was intentionally designed to remove syntactic ambiguity and
challenge assumptions about natural linguistic universals. Similarly, research
on Toki Pona suggests that minimalism and cognitive economy can themselves
function as grammatical principles (Kisa, 2001). Individual constructed
languages have also received dedicated linguistic attention. Esperanto has been
widely analyzed for its simplified morphology, agglutinative structure, and
regular derivational system, which Tonkin (2000) argues contribute
significantly to its learnability. Klingon studies (Okrand, 1985; Adams, 2011)
highlight its deliberately marked phonology and unusual word-order patterns
(OVS), illustrating purposeful deviation from naturalistic linguistic norms to
evoke alienness. Lojban, as described by Cowan (1997), employs an extensive
system of logical connectives and syntactic bracketing, representing a radical
rethinking of grammatical architecture.
Comparative linguistic research has also begun to examine
constructed languages in relation to natural language typology. Adams (2011)
notes that although some Conlangs mimic natural language universals, others
deliberately violate them for artistic or experimental reasons. This growing
body of literature collectively indicates that constructed languages serve as
controlled environments for linguistic experimentation, typological testing,
and theoretical exploration. Although substantial scholarship exists on
individual constructed languages and their specific linguistic features, fewer
studies offer comparative structural analyses across fictional, auxiliary, and
engineered Conlangs. Even fewer examine how this design choices reflect
differing linguistic philosophies such as naturalism, regularity, or logical
precision. This study addresses this gap by providing a comparative
phonological, morphological, and syntactic analysis of Klingon, Esperanto, and
Lojban within a unified typological framework.
2.3 Theoretical
Framework
This study adopts a structuralist and typological framework,
drawing from Saussurean principles that view language as a system of
interrelated elements. Structuralism enables the analysis of internal
linguistic organization, phonology, morphology, and syntax, while typology
allows for comparison across natural and constructed languages. This dual
framework is suitable for examining how each Conlang’s structure reflects both
universality and artificial design.
3. Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative descriptive research design.
Since constructed languages are planned linguistic systems, the research relies
on textual data rather than empirical fieldwork. The aim is to describe and
compare the linguistic structures of three selected constructed languages,
Klingon, Esperanto, and Lojban, within the domains of phonology, morphology,
and syntax. Data for this study are drawn from authoritative sources in each
language: The Klingon Dictionary by Marc Okrand (1985), Fundamento de
Esperanto by L. L. Zamenhof (1905), and The Complete Lojban Language
by John Cowan (1997). These texts provide formal descriptions, word lists, and
grammatical structures that serve as the primary linguistic data, supplemented
by academic analyses, linguistic reviews, and online corpora maintained by
respective language communities.
The study employs structural analysis to examine the
internal organization of phonemes, morphemes, and syntactic constructions.
Comparative typology is applied to identify points of convergence and
divergence between the selected constructed languages and natural language
universals. The analysis focuses on three linguistic dimensions: phonological
structure, including the inventory and patterning of sounds; morphological
structure, encompassing word formation and inflectional processes; and
syntactic structure, covering sentence formation and word order typology. The
approach is interpretive and descriptive rather than statistical, aiming to
reveal patterns of intentional design and linguistic creativity.
4. Data
Presentation & Analysis
4.1 Klingon
(Fictional Language)
Klingon (tlhIngan Hol) is a constructed language developed
by linguist Marc Okrand for the Star Trek franchise (a vast science-fiction
universe centered on human exploration of space and interplanetary diplomacy)
to sound alien yet remain pronounceable (Okrand, 1985). Designed with unusual
linguistic features, it uses an object–verb–subject (OVS) structure and
numerous affixes to convey grammatical information. Its vocabulary was
intentionally made harsh and foreign, lacking common English equivalents such as
“hello,” which is instead expressed as nuqneH—“What do you want?” (Okrand,
1985). Klingon can be written in the Latin alphabet or in its own script
(pIqaD). Though fictional, its characteristics conforms to those of other world
agglutinating languages. Thus, Agglutinative. Klingon has developed a real
community of learners, supported by the Klingon Language Institute (KLI) and
resources like Duolingo and The Klingon Dictionary. Today, several hundred
people use it worldwide, with fewer than 30 fluent speakers (Schoen, 2010;
Ethnologue, 2024).
Phonology:
Klingon phonology consists of 21 consonants and 5 vowels, characterized by
harsh, guttural sounds and uncommon articulations such as the retroflex /ɖ/ and uvular /qʼ/. Its
syllable structure follows a (C)(C)V(C) pattern, allowing a few specific final
clusters like rgh, wʼ, and yʼ. The language
uses a glottal stop (ʼ) as a full consonant and has a distinct lateral affricate
/tɬ/ represented by tlh. Vowels are simple and consistent,
forming occasional diphthongs with y and w. Stress typically falls on the final
syllable. These features contribute to Klingon’s deliberately alien and
forceful sound system (Okrand, 1985; Schoen, 2010).
Consonant
Inventory:
"b,
ch, D, gh, H, j, l, m, n, ng, p, q, Q, r, S, t, tlh, v, w, y, and the glottal
stop (ʼ)".
Notable consonants:
D →
Retroflex /ɖ/, produced with the tongue curled back.
gh →
Voiced velar fricative /ɣ/, a “gargling” sound.
H →
Voiceless uvular fricative /χ/, like ch in Bach.
Q →
Uvular plosive /qʼ/, pronounced deep in the throat.
tlh →
Voiceless alveolar lateral affricate /tɬ/, a
hallmark of Klingon’s alien sound.
S →
Voiceless retroflex fricative /ʂ/, not like
English /s/.
Vowel inventory:
Letter IPA Example Description
a
/ɑ/ as
in father Open back vowel
e
/ɛ/ as
in bet Mid front vowel
I
/ɪ/ as
in bit High front lax
vowel
o
/o/ as in more Mid back rounded vowel
u
/u/ as in boot High back rounded vowel
Morphology: The language is agglutinative, using a series of affixes
to express grammatical relations. Nouns carry suffixes that indicate number,
possession, and syntactic function, they (nouns can take up to five suffix
positions, each type conveying a different kind of meaning, example:
tlhIngan
→ Klingon
tlhInganpu’
→ Klingons (plural)
tlhInganpu’vaD
→ “for the Klingons”
Each
suffix adds one grammatical idea; plural, or dative, and the meaning builds
step by step.
Verbs
in Klingon encode subject, object, and aspectual information through multiple
affixes. They are even richer: they can take up to 10 categories (types) of
suffixes, showing things like negation, aspect, subject/object agreement, and
mood. Example:
Verb Breakdown Meaning
jlleghjl-
+ legh I - see
vlleghvl-
+ legh I - see - it (object)
vlleghbe' vl- + legh + be' I
- don't - see- it (negative)
vlleghpu' vl- + legh + pu' I
- have - seen - it (perfective aspect)
vlleghbe'pu' vl- + legh + be' + pu' I
- have - not - seen - it.
Every
added suffix clearly marks a new piece of meaning, without altering the others.
Syntax: Klingon employs an Object–Verb–Subject (OVS) word order,
one of the rarest typological patterns. This inversion enhances the alien
character of the language while still maintaining internal grammatical
consistency. The simple Klingon sentence "tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh"
translates to English as "I speak Klingon", but if broken-
"tlhIngan Hol" [Klingon language] and "vIjatlh"[speak I
it], the sentence takes the OVS order "Klingon language speak I".
Another interesting feature of the Klingon language is that it has no words for
articles (a, an, the), context takes care of that. Example:
Klingon:
HIghoS, Duj. Gloss: HIghoS (come
toward me) + Duj (ship).
So,
the same Klingon sentence "HlghoS, Duh" can mean:
"Come,
a ship!” (if you suddenly spot one approaching), or
“Come,
the ship!” (if you’re referring to the specific ship you were expecting).
Klingon’s agglutinative nature makes it systematic and
logically layered, even though it sounds alien, its grammar works like Turkish
or Japanese: one morpheme, one meaning, stacked neatly.
4.2 Esperanto (Auxiliary Language)
Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed language,
created in 1887 by Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof to promote international
understanding through a neutral and easily learned linguistic medium (Zamenhof,
1887; Forster, 1982). Its vocabulary is derived mainly from Romance languages,
with influences from Germanic and Slavic sources, and words are systematically
formed through combinations of roots and affixes (Large, 1985).
The
language follows sixteen basic grammatical rules that ensure complete
regularity. It has no grammatical gender, no irregular verbs, and uses
consistent endings to mark tense and part of speech (Zamenhof, 1887). Esperanto
is also phonetic, meaning each letter represents a single sound and words are
spelled exactly as pronounced.
Since
the first World Esperanto Congress in 1905, the language has fostered a global
community of speakers, though its growth was hindered by wartime bans in parts
of Europe (Forster, 1982). Today, estimates suggest between 30,000 and two
million speakers worldwide, including a small number of native users
(Ethnologue, 2024). Esperanto remains actively used in education, literature,
and international communication, illustrating the enduring success of a
constructed language designed for global unity.
Phonology: Esperanto’s sound system is simple and phonemic; each
letter corresponds to a single sound. This regularity eliminates the ambiguity
common in natural orthographies. It uses 28 letters (based on the Latin script)
with five vowels and consistent consonants: a, b, c, ĉ, d, e, f, g, ĝ, h, ĥ, i,
j, ĵ, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, ŝ, t, u, ŭ, v, z. It includes familiar European
sounds and a few marked ones such as /tʃ/ (ĉ),
/ʃ/ (ŝ), /ʒ/ (ĵ), and /x/
(ĥ). The vowel system is symmetrical and simple, featuring /a, e, i, o, u/ with
diphthongs /aw/ and /ew/. Each sound corresponds exactly to its written form,
making Esperanto a fully phonemic and regular language (Zamenhof, 1887; Wells,
2010; Ethnologue, 2024).
Morphology: The language is characterized by high regularity and
transparency. Words are formed through a productive system of affixes, for
example, mal- (opposite) and -in- (feminine). All nouns end in -o, adjectives
in -a, and adverbs in -e.
Examples:
Nouns:
-o → libro (book),
hundo (dog), floor (flower), patrino(mother).
Adjectives:
-a → bela (beautiful), nova (new),
granda (big), maljuna (old)
Adverbs: -e → bele (beautifully), bone (well),
silence (silently)
Verb
(present) - "as" amas (loves)
Verb
(past) -
"is" amis (loved)
Verb
(future) - "os" amos (will
love)
Conditional -
"us" mi amus (I would love)
Imperative -
"u" amu! (Love!)
Infinitive -
"i" ami to love
Esperanto’s
endings are like grammar tags, you instantly know what role a word plays,
without memorizing irregular patterns like in English (man → men, go → went).
Every rule works every time.
Syntax: Esperanto follows a Subject–Verb–Object (SVO) order,
similar to English. However, flexibility is possible due to the accusative case
marker -n, which marks the object regardless of position. This system increases
both clarity and simplicity, fulfilling Zamenhof’s goal of universality.
4.3 Lojban (Engineered Language)
Lojban is a logically constructed language developed in the
late 20th century to eliminate ambiguity and test principles of linguistic
relativity. It originated from Loglan, a language created by James Cooke Brown
in 1955, and was later reformed by the Logical Language Group in 1987 to remove
copyright restrictions (Brown, 1960; Logical Language Group, 1997).
Lojban’s
grammar is based on predicate logic, allowing precise and unambiguous
expression. Its vocabulary draws from six natural languages—Chinese, English,
Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic—to create culturally neutral word roots.
The language uses regular morphology, phonetic spelling, and a simple phoneme
system of 6 vowels and 17 consonants.
Lojban
emphasizes logical structure over cultural idiom, enabling flexible word order
and consistent grammar rules. Though not widely spoken, it has an active online
community and is used in linguistics, computer science, and AI research for its
potential applications in human–machine communication (Logical Language Group,
1997; Ethnologue, 2024).
Phonology:
Lojban’s phoneme inventory is moderate, with 6 vowels and 17 consonants,
closely aligned with cross-linguistic norms. Lojban’s phonology is phonemic,
regular, and culturally neutral, comprising 17 consonants, 6 vowels, and 16
diphthongs. Words follow predictable (C)V(C) patterns with penultimate stress.
Each letter corresponds to one sound, ensuring unambiguous pronunciation and
consistent speech-to-text mapping (Cowen, 1997; Logical Language Group, 2024;
Ethnologue, 2024).
The 16
diphthongs of Lojban are formed by combining basic vowels with glides i or u
(functioning as /j/ and /w/). Each diphthong counts as a single syllable
nucleus and maintains consistent pronunciation across contexts.
Morphology:
Lojban morphology is regular, logical, and self-segregating, ensuring that
every word’s structure reveals its grammatical type and pronunciation. The
system includes brivla (content words), cmavo (structure words), cmevla
(names), and fu’ivla (loanwords). Word boundaries are inherently unambiguous,
and compounding through lujvo allows creative yet rule-governed vocabulary
expansion (Cowen, 1997; Logical Language Group, 2024).
Syntax: The syntax of Lojban is logically structured and
unambiguous, based on predicate logic rather than traditional grammar. Each
clause (bridi) expresses a clear relation between a predicate (selbri) and its
arguments (sumti). Word order is flexible, logical connectives are formally
precise, and tense marking is optional but systematic. The syntax supports
recursion, logical negation, and unambiguous parsing, making it suitable for
both human communication and computational analysis (Cowen, 1997; Logical
Language Group, 2024).
Word
Order in Lojban: Lojban is syntactically flexible, but not arbitrary — its
structure is governed by logical roles, not by fixed sentence order as in
English.
Basic
(Neutral) Word Order: The neutral or unmarked word order is: [Sumti₁ – cu – Selbri – Sumti₂ – Sumti₃ –]
This
corresponds loosely to Subject–Verb–Object (SVO) in English, but it’s actually
based on predicate logic rather than grammar categories.
Example:
mi cu tavla do → “I speak to you.”
mi =
first argument (x₁; the
speaker)
cu =
separator marking the start of the predicate
tavla
= predicate meaning “to talk/speak”
do =
second argument (x₂; the
listener)
Flexible
Order via Place Tags
Word
order can change freely as long as place tags (fa, fe, fi, fo, fu) mark the
logical role of each argument.
Example:
fe le zarci cu klama fa mi → “To the store goes I.”
Equivalent meaning to “I go to the store.”
5. Discussion
of Findings
The comparative analysis of Klingon, Esperanto, and Lojban
reveals distinct yet convergent ways in which constructed languages embody
deliberate linguistic design. Although each language originates from different
motivations, fictional world-building, auxiliary communication, and logical
experimentation, they all demonstrate that systematic grammar can be
consciously engineered without sacrificing coherence or expressiveness. This
supports Peterson’s (2015) argument that constructed languages function as intentional
artistic and linguistic systems rather than arbitrary inventions.
From a
structural perspective, the findings show varying degrees of alignment with
natural-language typology. Esperanto and Lojban broadly conform to
cross-linguistic universals in phonology, morphology, and syntax, which aligns
with Comrie’s (1989) typological expectations for learnability and cognitive
ease. Klingon, on the other hand, intentionally violates common patterns,
including rare phonemes and an OVS basic word order—to signal cultural
distinctiveness, echoing Okrand’s (1985) observation that “markedness” can
serve narrative authenticity rather than communicative efficiency.
Morphologically,
the three languages illustrate different design philosophies: Klingon’s
agglutinative structure highlights expressive morphological complexity;
Esperanto’s derivational morphology maximizes regularity and productivity,
consistent with Blanke’s (2006) claim that auxiliary languages succeed through
redundancy and simplicity; Lojban’s predicate-logic structure foregrounds
semantic transparency and unambiguous argument mapping, echoing Cowan’s (1997)
description of engineered languages as tools for testing logical propositions.
These contrasts demonstrate that morphology is one of the most powerful domains
through which intentional design choices become linguistically visible.
In
syntax, typological convergence and divergence provide insight into how
creators negotiate naturalness and innovation. Esperanto’s relatively flexible
SVO ordering is typical of European languages and facilitates rapid acquisition
(Tonkin, 2000). Lojban’s syntax, built on predicate logic and explicit argument
structures, deviates most radically from natural patterns but offers a
controlled experimental environment for studying semantic compositionality.
Klingon’s syntax, although unconventional, remains internally consistent and
thus linguistically learnable, a point that aligns with Okrent's (2009) broader
assertion that even the most unusual conlangs must adhere to internal systemic
logic.
Taken together, these observations support the view that
constructed languages serve as “laboratories” for linguistic experimentation
(Frommer, 2012). They allow linguists to examine how phonological inventories,
morphological regularity, and syntactic structures interact under conditions of
intentional design. Moreover, the data suggest that natural-language universals
exert a strong influence even when creators aim for aesthetic or logical
extremity. Conlangs thereby illuminate the balance between creative innovation
and cognitive constraints, reinforcing the structuralist idea that all
languages, natural or constructed, operate within systematic internal networks.
6. Conclusion
This study has examined the linguistic structures of three
representative constructed languages; Klingon, Esperanto, and Lojban, with the
aim of identifying how intentional design shapes phonological, morphological,
and syntactic organisation. The findings demonstrate that while each Conlang
serves different purposes (fictional, auxiliary, and engineered) they all
exhibit systematic linguistic patterns comparable to natural languages.
Klingon’s
alien phonotactics and rare OVS syntax reflect deliberate linguistic creativity
aimed at cultural authenticity within fiction. Esperanto’s morphological
regularity and syntactic flexibility exemplify the pursuit of global
intelligibility through simplicity. Lojban’s logical precision and semantic
transparency illustrate how language can be engineered to align with formal
logic. Together, these languages reveal that human linguistic competence can be
consciously replicated and even extended beyond natural paradigms.
Ultimately,
the paper concludes that Conlangs are not linguistic anomalies but deliberate
reflections of linguistic universals. Their study enriches theoretical
linguistics by offering experimental contexts for testing hypotheses about
structure, meaning, and cognition. Further research is encouraged in areas such
as psycholinguistic processing of artificial languages, language acquisition
among Conlang speakers, and the sociolinguistic communities that sustain them.
By
bridging creativity and scientific inquiry, the linguistics of Conlangs affirms
that language, whether natural or constructed, remains humanity’s most profound
tool for expressing thought and identity.
References
Blanke, D. (1999). Planned languages: A
survey of linguistic and sociological aspects. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Blanke, D. (2001). “Language planning
and constructed languages.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 25(1),
1–26.
Brown, C. (2004). Loglan and Lojban:
Logical languages for communication. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Cowan, J. W. (1997). The complete
Lojban language. Logical Language Group.
Frommer, P. (2012). “Constructed
languages and the art of world-building.” Language Creation Society Review,
4(2), 15–29.
Okrand, M. (1985). The Klingon
dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.
Okrent, A. (2009). In the land of
invented languages. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Peterson, D. J. (2015). The art of
language invention: From Horse-Lords to Dark Elves. New York: Penguin Books.
Tonkin, H. (2000). “Esperanto and
international communication.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 24(3),
251–262.
Zamenhof, L. L. (1905). Fundamento de
Esperanto. Warsaw: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.
0 Comments