Open questions

  • I think a general principle to follow is that most tags shouldn't have "language" or "conlang" in them. Exceptions would be when it's explicitly distinguishing conlang and natlangs, or when there's already a set phrase with "language" in it. Language change is one such example, so the tag for questions on natural developments of conlangs is appropriate.

  • We've had a few questions about what is required to be a "complete" language. I'm not sure what a good tag could be for those. Idea: what about ? Too cute?

What we've settled on (though feel free to still contest these tags)

  • I don't think we need [typology] at all; anything it might be used on could already have [classification] or [terminology].
    – CHEESE
    Feb 8, 2018 at 16:08
  • @CHEESE We'll have to see which questions get asked, but I'm sure there will be ones which won't fit either classification or terminology. Questions asking for an explanation of natlang typology and how it can be adapted to conlangs for example.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 16:12
  • I find that diachronics is used wrongly here. A better name would be condiachronics or similar--diachronics refers to language with the focus on language change.
    – Duncan
    Jun 3, 2018 at 16:30

3 Answers 3


Writing a new answer because I’ve thought a bit more about the whole thing. Here’s my proposed solution:

  1. For questions related to a specific well-known language, always use a language-specific tag, e.g. . Don’t tag your own project that no one has heard of like that though. Don’t use any -language or -conlang suffixes for these, that’s just redundant. E.g. not

    a. For questions about how such a conlang was developed, changed during its development, and also how it was received or adapted by learners, seems appropriate as an additional tag.

  2. For questions about how to make a conlang, I suggest .

    a. For questions which are relevant to a specific subfield of linguistics, additional tags such as would be appropriate.

    b. I would also like to emphasize that simulating natural language change is a thing that some conlangers do, here is particularly appropriate.

  3. Various questions regarding conlanging terminology can take a tag, and similarly for classification stuff there can be

  4. Questions about creating scripts (including stuff like making fonts) get , questions about writing in general . Overlap exists, but shouldn’t be cause for worry.

    a. For certain constructed scripts such as Tengwar, specific tags might be appropriate.

    b. What is our opinion on spelling reforms? Are such discussions even on-topic? If yes, might be useful. This also in particular relates to projects like Blisssymbolics or Pan-Germanic Logograms which lie in a grey zone between writing system and conlang but ought to be on-topic here.

  • Ah! I think I get what you mean about diachronics now - rather than how speakers of a language change it naturally, do you mean that an author of a conlang used in a story covering hundreds or thousands of years may want to talk about the fictional changes to the language? I think diachronics would be a good tag name for that.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 12:58
  • 1
    One issue with neography as a tag is that the term is used even for scripts like Hangul (Korean). I don't think we need con- or neo- in front of everything creative on this site, so writing-systems is probably adequate. But lets see what everyone else thinks.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 13:01
  • 1
    I'm not convinced of the "conlang" prefix. Seems a bit redundant considering the sites topic.
    – Helmar
    Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00

is an annoyingly ambiguous name. My personal suggestion for tags of this kind would be:

  • for questions about how to make languages

  • or for questions about how conlangs changed over time through revisions seem alright, I don’t see the need to differentiate (and personally would probably favour the latter tag)

  • for how natural languages change, which is obviously a very different set of questions. Also appropriate here would be questions of the sorts of how native speakers altered a conlang (really only applicable to Esperanto at the moment)

  • I could go for language-creation (I don't like shortening it to lang). I think a plain "history" is fine - what other kind of history questions will we get? What kind of natural language diachronic questions would you imagine? Most of those should be asked at Linguistics.SE.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 11:24
  • 1
    Or conlang-creation. I just don't really like lang-creation.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 11:35
  • I think we need separate tags for the history of constructed languages as a discipline (including events like the creation of individual conlangs) and for how conlangs have changed over time, either naturally, or through top-down changes from the creator/committee. I'm not sure what would be clear tags for those two things though. I'd prefer a plain "history" for the first, and I think "language-change" might work for the second.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 11:37
  • Either way, I would just like to very clearly separate diachronics. I don’t really see a problem with shortening language to lang, that’s common slang among conlangers. As for language change, diachronic conlanging is absolutely a thing, and so questions on diachronics ought to be on topic. I’ve already asked a questions with that tag myself. Feb 8, 2018 at 11:51
  • Mind giving me a link to that question so I can get a better idea of what you mean?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Feb 8, 2018 at 11:53
  • The tags are clickable, but here ya go Feb 8, 2018 at 12:02
  • @curiousdannii - there are at least three different "histories" when it comes to conlangs: one is the rl history of the creation of the Conlang ("did Tolkien create Quenya before Syndarian?"); other is the rl history of language evolution ("is there something like a Esperanto slang?"), and the third is the con-history of the language ("when did Quenya split from Syndarian?". Mar 3, 2018 at 15:07
  • @Luis Yep, and we'd tag them as history, language-change, and diachronics.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Mar 3, 2018 at 15:09
  • 1
    @Luis Maybe a tag internal-history for the fictional history of a conlang in its fictional world can be an addition to the tag set, but only a few conlangs I am aware of have a significant internal history worth asking questions about.
    – Sir Cornflakes Mod
    Apr 10, 2018 at 12:20

TLA's (aka Three letter acronyms) aren't good tags (or part of good tags, as in the proposed ) because

  • Many people don't get them at first sight
  • TLA's usually don't have a unique resolution and conflicting usuages might be conflated in one tag
  • TLA based tags are hard to suggest: When I am looking for suitable tags for my questions I often enter a "suspicious" substring of the tag and watch the autosuggested tags from the site.
  • I agree! Gotta start brainstorming somewhere though.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Apr 10, 2018 at 12:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .