<p>It happens with sign languages - often there are two "versions" of a sign language, the first one (less official, natural) is generally used by the community and has its own grammar, the second one (more official, heavily constructed) parallels grammar (syntax) of the corresponding spoken language.</p>

<p>E.g.there is the natural <a href="https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polski_j%C4%99zyk_migowy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Polish Sign Language</a>, and a rather artificial constructed <a href="https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_j%C4%99zykowo-migowy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Signed Polish</a>, following closely the syntax of spoken Polish, so somewhat the opposite of the question, a natural language imposing its grammar over the conlang. But it could be said that the signing system (obviously) imposes its own "phonology" over the spoken language.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-25T16:27:32.740Z
Interesting :) As you say it flips the question on it's head, sort of the opposite, providing it's own nouns and verbs rather than providing it's own grammar etc…
alan2here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T20:54:50.917Z
2019-04-20T20:54:50.917Z
Radovan Garabík
<p>Are there examples of conlangs that are used by applying their structure such as grammar, sentence structure, intonation, means of combining words, etc… with other features of a given language or given member of a class of languages?</p>

<p>This has the disadvantage that for understanding one would have to know both the language in question, call this X, and the language it's adapting, call this Y.</p>

<p>For example and in particular I'm thinking that X could use the alphabet and all the single morpheme nouns and verbs of Y, but replace every other aspect of the language with its own.</p>

<p>A possible advantage could be in allowing the speaker more reachable access to an unfamiliar linguistic environment, be that a conlang or a natural language, where different modes of thought are the most natural.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-25T16:08:39.373Z
Thanks for the changes. However it's not asking the right thing now. I'll put in an edit keeping as many of your changes intact as possible.
alan2here
<grammar><verbs><conlang-learning><language-structure><nouns>
Structure only conlang? Nouns?
# Structure only conlang? Nouns?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-20)

Are there examples of conlangs that are used by applying their structure such as grammar, sentence structure, intonation, means of combining words, etc… with other features of a given language or given member of a class of languages?

This has the disadvantage that for understanding one would have to know both the language in question, call this X, and the language it's adapting, call this Y.

For example and in particular I'm thinking that X could use the alphabet and all the single morpheme nouns and verbs of Y, but replace every other aspect of the language with its own.

A possible advantage could be in allowing the speaker more reachable access to an unfamiliar linguistic environment, be that a conlang or a natural language, where different modes of thought are the most natural.

**Tags:** grammar, verbs, conlang-learning, language-structure, nouns

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the changes. However it's not asking the right thing now. I'll put in an edit keeping as many of your changes intact as possible.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-04-20. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

It happens with sign languages - often there are two "versions" of a sign language, the first one (less official, natural) is generally used by the community and has its own grammar, the second one (more official, heavily constructed) parallels grammar (syntax) of the corresponding spoken language.

E.g.there is the natural [Polish Sign Language](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polski_j%C4%99zyk_migowy), and a rather artificial constructed [Signed Polish](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_j%C4%99zykowo-migowy), following closely the syntax of spoken Polish, so somewhat the opposite of the question, a natural language imposing its grammar over the conlang. But it could be said that the signing system (obviously) imposes its own "phonology" over the spoken language.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Interesting :) As you say it flips the question on it's head, sort of the opposite, providing it's own nouns and verbs rather than providing it's own grammar etc…  

---

