From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Jun 03 06:47:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22369 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 26075 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 Received: from ci.egroups.com (10.1.2.81) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.63] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:47:46 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Why constructed languages? Message-ID: <8hb2a2+jqji@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 5815 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._T=FCting?=" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2917 coi rodo Recently, we have started a discussion on the use of 'new' (artificial) languages in our Chinese forum. I'd like to also share it with you: (Ming had mentioned ...) >From time to time, some well-meaning kind soul proposes an artificial language with the idea that it will improve exchanges among people from different countries. One such recent language is called glosa, ... The only redeeming feature of this is their selection of Zhuangzi's fish story as an illustrative example. This one is based on Greek and Latin roots. Personally, I don't think it can win friends any more than a new artificial language based on Chinese-Japanese-Korean roots. (Siu-Leung's reply ...) I agree with Ming. Any new language invented now is too late. We can only modify the current languages to a point that it is easier to understand by all. I would propose to revolutionize English by 1. leaving out the tense modifiers and replace that with an infinitive plus a time adverb, as in Chinese grammar. I go, he go, we go. I go yesterday. He go tomorrow. 2. standardizing spelling and sound of words so no more confusion with -ough (as in thought, though, through, dough, tough, ...) etc. But looks like this will never happen. :( (this is my post ...) ... I hope this will never happen. Don't like to go too far into this topic - just want to say that English *once was* a language not too bad. Modern American just is a matter of (political) *fact* in the moment (i.e. the time we - and our children/grandchildren) have to live in. I'd rather prefer some Chinese language (not Mandarin, because of its poor phonology) to be the future world language. English from its huge heterogen vocabulary is too complicated to learn - that being the reason it's already on its way to getting poorer and poorer (because used by guys like me all around the world who don't really live in this language, hence not able to fathom its depths. It's like pouring water in a jug with wine so everybody can drink of it). Unlike the French, English speaking countries do not at all try to protect their language - because wanting to sell it out to everybody. This already (i.e. not doing harm/damage to any natural language) could be a heavy reason for creating a language from the scratch. I wouldn't accept e.g. a pidgin-German, as you most probably won't like zhongwen being pidginized - so, why doing this to the (former) language of a Shakespeare, a Keats ??? Why make one's own mothertongue a harlot offered to the world! Don't you (Siu-Leung!) still realize that the English language has its very own idiomatic - very, very different to most of other languages (e.g. in Europe: linguistically very different languages like German, Italian, Hungarian etc. idiomatically are much closer to each other than to English/American!). Do you like this English 'state of mind' (the "American way of life" how it is called by themselves!) to further being spread all over the peoples on the globe! To go on with this voluntary/unvoluntary kind of brain-wash - you aren't even aware of? So 'good souls' (as Ming names them) are inventing languages from the scratch called 'Esperanto' (=3Dhope), 'Glosa' (tongue=3Dlanguage), 'WL' (World Language!), 'Lojban' (Logic Language) etc., etc.. More or less all of them want to get rid of that entire national idiomatic stuff in order to clear out the speakers brains and give them a common platform to share and exchange their ideas. Although reading the constructed language 'Interlingua' for the very first time, I could easily get e.g. the contents of a high-level text on Raeto-Roman linguistic problems. 'Glosa', a very easy and well-structured new language, is based on ancient Greek and Latin (and some English and German). Because of mainly being based on Greek, it was quite a bit harder for me to understand from the very beginning. (BTW, Ming, there also is a very good translation of Alfred de Vigny's "La mort du loup" after a German translation of Hermann Hesse on the Glosa site mentionend earlier by me!) Understanding a new language easily and without much effort though, is pretty indivual and - regarding the world's population - not the point: So the 'Lojban' language based on Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian and Arabic (in this order) lacks every non-Lojban idiomatic and has invented all the words totally from scratch (you *do* have to learn them anew, maybe(!) getting hold on some slight national language's criteria (as for myself: catra/shaatra - to kill/slaughter, from Chinese =B1=FE, Spanish 'matar' - and maybe 'slAughTeR', or 'tricu'/treeshu) from 'tree' and =BE=F0, or 'cukti'/shookti from =AE=D1, 'bOOK' and Arabic 'KITab' etc.). On my site's links page you'll find the address of an interesting site referring to 'all' existing constructed languages (CONLANG). Please also have a look on WL, a very impressing and thorough approach to create a world language based on characters, hand signs and speech (IMHO it's pretty complicated mainly with regard to the characters recognizability). It's done by a Japanese lady living in CA. Alfred =B6=F8=C0s I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. E.g., was Lojban/Loglan inventor's idea similar to Zamenhof's? (Z.'s 'Esperanto' was the *Hope* getting people(s) united in freedom, peace and 'understanding'. His basic idea had been to create a language for the Jewish people spread all over the world - Hebrew regarded as too difficult, Yiddish - being a medieval German dialect - not appropriate enough. Yet, there are indeed constructive principles adopted from Hebrew as well.) Or, was it just thought a tool to communicate with computers, created within the frame of virtual intelligence studies?! co'o mi'e .aulun.