Subject: Why constructed languages?

From: "Alfred W. Tüting" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:47:46 -0000

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' (=hope), 'Glosa' (tongue=language), '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 ±þ, Spanish 'matar' - and maybe 'slAughTeR', or
'tricu'/treeshu) 
from 'tree' and ¾ð, or 'cukti'/shookti from ®Ñ, '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 
¶øÀs

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.