# Constructed languages



## occlith

Do you speak a constructed language? Also known as planned or invented language, a constructed language is devised by an individual or group, instead of having evolved naturally.

Examples include Ido, Afrihili, Esparanto, Novial, and fictional languages like Klingon and Tolkien's languages of Arda.

I do not speak any constructed languages but I find them to be rather interesting.


----------



## Sepia

I find them interesting too, but rather useless.

If one really thinks that they are of any use in terms of being easier to learn and such, I'd even prefer stripping an existing language of all irregularities unusual phonems, substituting these with regularities and phonems that exist in the majority of languages. 

The real drawback of constructed languages is that they are spoken by so few people that it would take too long for them to develop to a level even close to languages that evolved naturally. I'd say,


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Too much regularity make a language uninteresting to me.


----------



## rusita preciosa

I do not and I have no interest in them. I guess a natural language comes with cultural aspects that lack in artificial ones.

(well, Klingon does come with cultural baggage but I'd rather not be associated with that one )


----------



## Mahaodeh

rusita preciosa said:


> I do not and I have no interest in them. I guess a natural language comes with cultural aspects that lack in artificial ones.



 I second this.


----------



## merquiades

I don't speak any constructed language but I might consider learning one someday, probably Esperanto.  I recently met a guy who spoke it and informed me that there is a huge community of about 10 million strong around the world that speaks it. He takes his holidays to different countries to meet other people who speak it. They have conferences and socialize together, correspond etc.  Apparently some even marry and their children become native speakers!  It's kind of like a society within society that goes largely unnoticed.  I have no clue about the language but apparently romance, germanic and slavic speakers learn it very easily since it kind of blends them grammatically, phonetically and with common vocabulary and no irregularities. I guess I was surprised since I thought pretty much nobody learned these languages.
Anyway, this is not advertisement at all for Esperanto.  After I learn Russian, which is my goal, I just might consider it, or maybe not.  ´
Incidentally I've never heard of those other languages.


----------



## bondia

merquiades said:


> Incidentally I've never heard of those other languages.


 
Neither have I! I have a hard enough time being (more or less) bilingual to get involved with a language some people have _constructed_. Aren't there enough established languages out there already?


----------



## Gavril

rusita preciosa said:


> I do not and I have no interest in them. I guess a natural language comes with cultural aspects that lack in artificial ones.



This is similar to how I feel about constructed languages: apart from Esperanto (and maybe a few others), they have no social or historical significance, so it's difficult for me to get excited about them.


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

So, if someone who speaks Esperanto, marries someone who also speaks it, and they rear children, and they teach their child Esperanto as a first lanugage, and others follow suit, will this language eventually transform into a nautral language? Because isn't this similar to how pidgins develop? And in the case of some (Haitian Kreyòl, for example), they turn into natural languages.


----------



## merquiades

chifladoporlosidiomas said:


> So, if someone who speaks Esperanto, marries someone who also speaks it, and they rear children, and they teach their child Esperanto as a first lanugage, and others follow suit, will this language eventually transform into a nautral language? Because isn't this similar to how pidgins develop? And in the case of some (Haitian Kreyòl, for example), they turn into natural languages.



Hola Chiflado. Well I guess so.  The 3000 odd people who acquired Esperanto from their parents speak it as a mother tongue.  It is a natural language for them. I'll have to do some research but I heard Modern Hebrew started like that as well.  At any rate, it's astonishing to think of a couple speaking only Esperanto to their children when it's the natural language of neither of them.
No, Haitian Kreyòl has another origin, a very sinister one indeed.  In the 18th century, the French took people from many different African tribes with different languages to Haiti to be slaves.  They couldn't speak to one another or to their slave masters.  They acquired French in a very strict kind of immersion program with no reading, writing, grammar courses or explanations. But it was urgent.  So they basically ended up learning it and teaching it simultaneously to one another, simplifiying it and making it their own. SInce many Haitians never had much formal schooling in French, it has slowly developed into another language.
Actually, now that I am thinking of it, maybe when Esperanto becomes divorced from its artificial book learnt language and those people make new words and slang, different accents maybe, Esperanto could become a real living language and its creators will have lost control of it.


----------



## Ben Jamin

bondia said:


> Neither have I! I have a hard enough time being (more or less) bilingual to get involved with a language some people have _constructed_. Aren't there enough established languages out there already?


 Everybody thinks that English is good enough to be used as a lingua franca for the whole world. But such a solution has quite many drawbacks. One of them is the lack of a common spoken standard. I have recently taken part in an international congress, with lecturers of varous nationalities. One may think that the participants speaking English as a second language pose a major problem because of their often heavy accent making it difficult to understand. But this time no. The most difficult to understand was a lady from New Zealand, giving a lecture in a dialect from probably the most remote village of NZ, extremely difficult to understand. And you could not even criticize her for that, as she always could answer you "I speak English, it is my mother tongue, and nobody will teach me how to speak it". A gentleman from the US (born in India by the way) on the other hand spoke a beautiful General American, where it was no problem to discern every single word.


----------



## merquiades

Ben Jamin said:


> Everybody thinks that English is good enough to be used as a lingua franca for the whole world. But such a solution has quite many drawbacks. One of them is the lack of a common spoken standard. I have recently taken part in an international congress, with lecturers of varous nationalities. One may think that the participants speaking English as a second language pose a major problem because of their often heavy accent making it difficult to understand. But this time no. The most difficult to understand was a lady from New Zealand, giving a lecture in a dialect from probably the most remote village of NZ, extremely difficult to understand. And you could not even criticize her for that, as she always could answer you "I speak English, it is my mother tongue, and nobody will teach me how to speak it". A gentleman from the US (born in India by the way) on the other hand spoke a beautiful General American, where it was no problem to discern every single word.



Interesting comment!  Is the goal of learning a language to make oneself understood or to speak as a native?  I have worked as a language facilitator in multinational conferences.  That means I accompany non-native people speaking to one another in English and intervene when communication breaks down or when someone asks for my help. Sometimes the English (from a native's perspective) is awful.  Ex) We need dat in de jellow colour. You can us to make?  No prrovlem. Vit aluminio or no?  As you wishes. I stand there silently drinking my champagne and everyone goes on with their business for an hour with no problem. Then a Brit, an Irishman or an American joins and it falls apart.  What? I said a nice mustard glaze.  What?  Aluminium.  You have a problem or you had a problem? Tensions rise.

I had not planned to defend Esperanto, but that would end all problems. Everything is regular and the accent is easy.


----------



## bondia

Ben Jamin said:


> Everybody thinks that English is good enough to be used as a lingua franca for the whole world.
> No, I don't suscribe to this way of thinking. However, it is obviously an advantage to speak English when traveling in many countries. I am obviously Anglo-Saxon physically, and although I speak fluent Spanish, am always replied to in English, for example, in South and Central America.


 


merquiades said:


> Then a Brit, an Irishman or an American joins and it falls apart.[/COLOR] What? I said a nice mustard glaze. What? Aluminium. You have a problem or you had a problem? Tensions rise.


 
I, too, have come across this. Two non-native English speakers understand one another better than when a native speaker intervenes. I have found myself speaking _pidgin_ English to facilitate things. Also, Spanish friends with various levels of English understand one another better than they understand me (sometimes)


----------



## merquiades

bondia said:


> I, too, have come across this. Two non-native English speakers understand one another better than when a native speaker intervenes. I have found myself speaking _pidgin_ English to facilitate things. Also, Spanish friends with various levels of English understand one another better than they understand me (sometimes)



You sit here in chair and I go find someone who know hotel you live in, okay?

That kind of pidgin??? I know it.  D:


----------



## bondia

merquiades said:


> You sit here in chair and I go find someone who know hotel you live in, okay?
> 
> That kind of pidgin??? I know it. D:


 
I have found myself saying things along the lines of:
Me go now. You business. Me married woman.
Religion no allow meat. (A total lie, I have no religion, but it helps to not offend those offering you unrecognizable offal)


----------



## DenisBiH

bondia said:


> I have found myself saying things along the lines of:
> Me go now. You business. Me married woman.
> Religion no allow meat. (A total lie, I have no religion, but it helps to not offend those offering you unrecognizable offal)




I no know other mans and womans speaks this. I thinks it only I. Very surprise now. Language so pretty, why no book teach?


----------



## merquiades

bondia said:


> I have found myself saying things along the lines of:
> Me go now. You business. Me married woman.
> Religion no allow meat. (A total lie, I have no religion, but it helps to not offend those offering you unrecognizable offal)



I've used that "religion no allow meat" thing too.  Also "Carpet very bee-oo-tee-full, but me no money".


----------



## Ben Jamin

merquiades said:


> Interesting comment! Is the goal of learning a language to make oneself understood or to speak as a native? I have worked as a language facilitator in multinational conferences. That means I accompany non-native people speaking to one another in English and intervene when communication breaks down or when someone asks for my help. Sometimes the English (from a native's perspective) is awful. Ex) We need dat in de jellow colour. You can us to make? No prrovlem. Vit aluminio or no? As you wishes. I stand there silently drinking my champagne and everyone goes on with their business for an hour with no problem. Then a Brit, an Irishman or an American joins and it falls apart. What? I said a nice mustard glaze. What? Aluminium. You have a problem or you had a problem? Tensions rise.
> 
> I had not planned to defend Esperanto, but that would end all problems. Everything is regular and the accent is easy.


My point in fact was: if the native speakers of English think that they are so privileged as to just speak their native village dialect and expect everybody in the world to understand them, then they do not deserve that privilege. Then it would be better to use Esperanto, or to expect that the native speakers speak acting internationally not just their home dialect, but one of maximum two standardized spoken langauges: British RP or Standard American, and with a fairly good diction. The English language is not longer a possession of the native speakers, but a world wide used medium of international communication. It is easy to poke fun on non native speakers speaking "awful" English, but what about the natives themselves?


----------



## bondia

Ben Jamin said:


> My point in fact was: if the native speakers of English think that they are so privileged as to just speak their native village dialect and expect everybody in the world to understand them, then they do not deserve that privilege.
> I, for one, (and I count on other members of this Forum to join me) do not expect everybody in the world to understand me. On the contrary, I have made quite a lot of effort in my life to understand others.
> 
> It is easy to poke fun on non native speakers speaking "awful" English, but what about the natives themselves?
> I don't think that any participant in this thread is poking fun at anyone. If you care to re-read previous threads, you will see that several of us agree that non-native speakers get along far better between themselves than when a native speaker is involved. The fact that we can be amused by the way we speak to make ourselves better understood is, in no way, a cause for offence.
> And yes, in any language, there are native speakers who are "destroyers".


----------



## merquiades

Ben Jamin said:


> My point in fact was: if the native speakers of English think that they are so privileged as to just speak their native village dialect and expect everybody in the world to understand them, then they do not deserve that privilege. Then it would be better to use Esperanto, or to expect that the native speakers speak acting internationally not just their home dialect, but one of maximum two standardized spoken langauges: British RP or Standard American, and with a fairly good diction. The English language is not longer a possession of the native speakers, but a world wide used medium of international communication. It is easy to poke fun on non native speakers speaking "awful" English, but what about the natives themselves?



We are not poking fun at anybody. I said my job in some capacity or another has been in helping people with their English. We are explaining how we have learned to speak to be understood by some non-native speakers.  I suppose if you spoke Polish to non-natives you might forego using cases and conjugating verbs. 
This situation is not the way you understand it.  Unfortunately, many English speakers grow up not learning foreign languages.  Moreover, grammar is no longer taught in schools.  Plus accent only means American if you're English and English if you're American...etc.  You talk of General American and RP.  Native speakers have no idea what that is and how it is supposed to sound. Sometimes natives cannot understand non-natives because they simply have no exposure and are completely unprepared.  They just may not put two and two together when they hear "shit of pepper" when an experienced linguistic comes quickly to "ok, they mean sheet of paper".  Bilingual non-natives have this preparation and they catch on quick.  Non-natives all have the experience of learning English, so they understand one another quite well with limited knowledge.
 Likewise, Bondia and I know how to change the way we speak to make people feel at ease and understand us (what verbs, what vocabulary, what accent).  The monolingual speaker from Birmingham England or Alabama, not! When natives have no international experience, they speak with phrasal verbs, use slang, talk quickly, swallow syllables and people (non-natives) get lost.  Some think if you raise your voice it'll help, but it's the whole way of speaking that needs to be changed. 


So perhaps Esperanto would be better after all


----------



## bondia

merquiades said:


> *We are not poking fun at anybody.*
> Likewise, Bondia and I know how to change the way we speak to make people feel at ease and understand us (what verbs, what vocabulary, what accent). When natives have no international experience, they speak with phrasal verbs, use slang, talk quickly, swallow syllables and people (non-natives) get lost.
> Concuerdo contigo


----------



## bondia

merquiades said:


> Moreover, grammar is no longer taught in schools.


 
Hadn't noticed this comment until now..
In which country?


----------



## merquiades

bondia said:


> Hadn't noticed this comment until now..
> In which country?



That's what some of your compatriotas have told me.  No more diagramming sentences or learning parts of speech and verb tenses.  
I think it's true in other countries too.


----------



## bondia

merquiades said:


> That's what some of your compatriotas have told me. No more diagramming sentences or learning parts of speech and verb tenses.
> I think it's true in other countries too.


 
So you refer to Britain. I haven't lived there for 40 years and have no knowledge whatsoever of the current system of education. From what I read sporadically, I gather it is not in a good place. Your reply confirms
Saludos


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

We don't really learn grammar in the US either. A lot people in my classes (college) don't know what a direct object is :O

Another question  relating to the thread. If there are all these languages that are in danger of dying or that are now dead, will these constructed languages take their places? Because I read somewhere that half of the world's languages will be long and gone within the next twenty years.   And I really don't think that we'll all start to speak a "gray" language


----------



## merquiades

Grammar has disappeared from the curriculum in Britain, the US, France and probably many other countries. The reason usually given is that in the modern world we have to study so many other things now, like computers, science and technology, 2 or 3 foreign languages, this option, that option....something's got to go, so it's grammar. 

No, I think the languages disappearing are largely local languages in the developing world, mainly Africa but also the Americas and Asia, and they are going to be replaced by English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Russian depending on the area and the country.  I heard that in the Congo there are 1000 languages dying out as people move to cities and pick up French or some bigger regional language or both.  In the US there are native American languages that are now spoken by fewer than 100 people. 

I don't know if outside linguistic circles there are lots of people gung ho on Esperanto (like I said, I've never heard of Ido, Afrohili, Novial), but I may be wrong. In Europe the only language people seem to care anything about nowadays is English.


----------



## Orlin

Do you find this project for a constructed Slavic language financed by the EU http://sites.google.com/site/novoslovienskij/projekt-eu useful? I personally don't for the reasons already stated in this thread for artificial Slavic languages: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=114038.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Orlin said:


> Do you find this project for a constructed Slavic language financed by the EU http://sites.google.com/site/novoslovienskij/projekt-eu useful? I personally don't for the reasons already stated in this thread for artificial Slavic languages: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=114038.


 I have read exemplary texts and articles about making of two artificial Slavic languages: Slovio and another one, that I do not remember now. Being a language nerd I found the attempts very amusing. I had no problem understanding both languages, even if I found some of the solutions the authors had chosen somewhat peculiar. Anyway, I think that the constructed Slavic languages wil never have any practical use. There is no forum, at which they could be used: the Slavic countries are members of different economical and political groups, and a need of having an own common Slavic lingua franca is minimal. Anyway, it was fun to read the languages!


----------



## Hulalessar

chifladoporlosidiomas said:


> We don't really learn grammar in the US either. A lot people in my classes (college) don't know what a direct object is



You do not need to study biophysics to know how to walk.

Learning how to parse sentences in English using Latin grammar does not help you to write. Pupils learned to do this mainly because they had to be taught something.


----------



## Sepia

merquiades said:


> ...
> 
> I had not planned to defend Esperanto, but that would end all problems. Everything is regular and the accent is easy.



I don't believe it is to everybody. There will still be somebody that pronounces it in a way that others do not understand. 

Happens among native English speakers a lot. Why would that be less a problem among 2nd language Esperanto speakers?

Besides, I know a few people from Scotland. I am sure most Americans would have more trouble understanding them, than they have understanding the foreigner with the funny accent you are quoting.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> You do not need to study biophysics to know how to walk.
> 
> Learning how to parse sentences in English using Latin grammar does not help you to write. Pupils learned to do this mainly because they had to be taught something.


 How do you know that?


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> How do you know that?



Because I was there!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> Because I was there!


 I meant "How do you know that learning grammar does not improve your ability to write?".  Have you made any research on that yourself, or can you give any references in literature?


----------



## Slavianophil

I do not know any constructed languages but I do think it is a pity that Esperanto has been such a failure. This language is easy to learn, it is not associated with any country, nation, region or whatever, so it would be ideal for international communication.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> I meant "How do you know that learning grammar does not improve your ability to write?".



That was not what I said. I said that learning how to parse sentences in English using Latin grammar does not help you to write. When you are learning Latin you need to understand concepts such as the subject and object of a sentence as otherwise you will not get nouns in their proper cases. However, you do not need to learn the concepts to be able to write English. I am not saying that learning to analyse English sentences is not a useful intellectual exercise, just that it will not improve your ability to write any more than learning the names of a wide range of shades will help you to paint.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> That was not what I said. I said that learning how to parse sentences in English using Latin grammar does not help you to write. When you are learning Latin you need to understand concepts such as the subject and object of a sentence as otherwise you will not get nouns in their proper cases. However, you do not need to learn the concepts to be able to write English. I am not saying that learning to analyse English sentences is not a useful intellectual exercise, just that it will not improve your ability to write any more than learning the names of a wide range of shades will help you to paint.


 This is your personal opinion. Have you got any publications to back this opinion? I have read many texts written in the authors native tongue, showing  a great confusion of the parts of the sentence (and other flaws too). Some knowledge of sentence structure could help them to write better.


----------



## merquiades

Sepia said:


> I don't believe it is to everybody. There will still be somebody that pronounces it in a way that others do not understand.
> 
> Happens among native English speakers a lot. Why would that be less a problem among 2nd language Esperanto speakers?
> 
> Besides, I know a few people from Scotland. I am sure most Americans would have more trouble understanding them, than they have understanding the foreigner with the funny accent you are quoting.



Well, I had a look at Esperanto phonology to see if it was really so easy and universal.  There are 5 pure vowels like Spanish, syllable equality and 23 consonants. All seem common to all the languages I have studied with the exception of rolled R that could be difficult for English or French speakers and glottal H which doesn't exist in the Romance languages.  In my experience this would make the language difficult for French natives since it has neither of these sounds.  But I guess it's easier to pronounce than English, French, German, Russian


----------



## clevermizo

This has come up before in EHL, but Esperanto is I suppose easy from a euro-centric point of view. I don't know if a native Mandarin speaker or a native ǃXóõ speaker would necessarily find it very easy to learn, at least phonologically. Furthermore, all the vocabulary is European-derived. So it is very accessible to European-language speakers, but still plenty of hard work for someone who doesn't speak a European language and has to learn the lexicon from scratch with no cognates, and they may as well learn a language that has applicable currency in the world if they're going to put in that time and effort .

As the thread is about constructed languages in general - many created for fiction such as Klingon _do_ in fact have cultural contexts which were also constructed. That I suppose is part of the fun of "world building" in science fiction, and I've played with it myself. Of course, those languages do serve a purpose insofar as they are the mode of communication for characters in a novel or a film. Learning them by others is mostly a curiosity.

Also for me at least, playing with constructing languages I feel gave me a better feel for grammar in general, because I experimented with all sorts of syntactic and morphological possibilities that I gleaned and researched from living languages. It's definitely a fun exercise.  I suppose I can read Interlingua without a problem, however scientific literature is predominantly in English and I don't really see that changing any time soon.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> This is your personal opinion. Have you got any publications to back this opinion? I have read many texts written in the authors native tongue, showing  a great confusion of the parts of the sentence (and other flaws too). Some knowledge of sentence structure could help them to write better.



I recall reading somewhere about an Ancient Mesopotamian text where the author complains about falling standards in the scribal schools.

I'll rephrase what I said to put a different emphasis on it:

_Whilst learning to analyse English sentences may improve your ability to write, it is not an essential prerequisite._

The best way to learn to write is to practise writing.


----------



## 涼宮

Slavianophil said:


> I do not know any constructed languages but I do think it is a pity that *Esperanto has been such a failure*. This language is easy to learn, it is not associated with any country, nation, region or whatever, so it would be ideal for international communication.



I don't consider Esperanto a failure but rather a really slow process. It has over 2 million of speakers around the world, which is much more than some ''natural'' languages (After all, all languages are created by people). One of the reasons Esperanto has not spread as other languages have done is because one of the main concepts of Esperanto is not to force people to learn it by a massive attack of advertisements or other means (Like English does), so, as Esperanto is not a language that is imposed on people as other languages it grows slowly but it seems steady. Esperanto is man-made and has strict rules to keep it regular, but as it might happen, if Esperanto ever gets spoken by 50 or 70 million of people around the world, it eventually will lose its regularity and become a ''natural'' language, because as it spreads regional differences will start emerging. And I think they will not be able to stop that without being imposed in a bad way.

In my opinion, I find constructed languages really interesting, especially the one from The Lord of Rings, Elvish, I love its writing system. I wish it were spoken around the world at least to the Esperanto's level. 

Constructed languages such as Esperanto are a good idea to be an international language so that people don't struggle with languages like English, Spanish, French, German and Russian. But, as Esperanto doesn't have a good bunch of people out there speaking it I'll stick to natural languages. (I'd make Latin the international language, though)


----------



## elroy

_[Two threads merged at this point]_

What are people’s opinions on constructed languages?  Has anyone here studied one?

I’ve never studied one, nor do I find the idea appealing.

I’m averse to the whole concept of constructed languages.  In fact, I find it almost offensive.

For me, a big part of the beauty of natural languages is that they are organic entities whose development over time is not “manufactured.”  I find that incredibly fascinating and profoundly awe-inspiring.  In that sense, a constructed language is like an artificial lake.

I’m also not sure I see any point or benefit to constructed languages.  An artificial lake at least serves some purposes.  What purposes do constructed languages serve?

If it’s about creating a community of people united by a common language, there are plenty of existing natural languages that can be jointly learned for that purpose.

If it’s about creating a language that’s easy to learn because its grammar, vocabulary, or whatever else is simple, again, I’m sure there’s at least one natural language that already meets whatever need the constructed language is supposed to meet.

I would much rather see a community of people studying one of the world’s many lesser-studied and/or endangered languages  than see artificial languages constructed and studied.

How do others feel about constructed languages?  Do you see any draws or benefits to them?


----------



## Ghabi

elroy said:


> Do you see any draws or benefits to them?


Did you read Arika Okrent's _In the Land of Invented Languages_ (2009)? It's quite good. This is how she describes a Lojban convention ("Logfest"):


> I didn't see much live conversation at Logfest, but I did see a little. It goes very, very slowly. It's like watching people do long division in their heads. Of course, the types of people who are attracted to Lojban are precisely the types who are good at doing long division in their heads.


I think the "game" factor is probably more pertinent than the "we want to build a utopia" thing.


----------



## Hulalessar

When I was about 15 I got to lesson 5 of _Teach Yourself Esperanto_ - I got to lesson 5 of a few other _Teach Yourself_ language books.

I have no more objection to people making up languages than I do to them writing fantasy such as_ The Lord of the Rings_. Where I part company with many supporters of languages such as Esperanto is the claims made for them - a subject touched on in this thread: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/are-some-languages-superior-to-others-”.3240437/

It can be argued that learning to manipulate the affixes of Esperanto is a worthwhile intellectual exercise, but any benefit derived from it can also be obtained in many other ways. If you are going to spend a lot of time learning a language much better to learn a natural one. I think that everyone would benefit from being at least introduced to a language or two quite unlike their own.


----------



## WadiH

I think Esperanto was created on the premise that European nationalisms were based on linguistic divisions and that if everyone spoke one language these divisions would cease to exist and there would be peace on earth.  Nowadays, it's just a novelty or hobby I suppose.


----------



## elroy

WadiH said:


> I think Esperanto was created on the premise that European nationalisms were based on linguistic divisions and that if everyone spoke one language these divisions would cease to exist and there would be peace on earth.


Riiiiight. 
Because there’s no nationalism in the Arab World or Latin America, of course.


----------



## WadiH

elroy said:


> Riiiiight.
> Because there’s no nationalism in the Arab World or Latin America, of course.



I meant that late 19th century Europe was the context where the idea emerged and nationalism in that era was primarily based on language, not that nationalism didn't arise elsewhere as well or that Esperanto was only meant to benefit Europeans.


----------



## elroy

I think you misunderstood me.  I was scoffing at the premise you described.  My “Riiiiight” was directed at Zamenhof, not at you (I would never speak to *you* that way! ).


----------



## WadiH

I'm sure it made some sense at the time ... if language is dividing us, maybe if we all spoke one language we won't be so divided.  People have had similar ideas about religion ("let's come up with a unified religion so we're not divided anymore") and that's how some syncretistic religions arose but needless to say they were no more successful at bringing peace than Esperanto.



elroy said:


> I think you misunderstood me.  I was scoffing at the premise you described.  My “Riiiiight” was directed at Zamenhof, not at you (I would never speak to *you* that way! ).



Noted my friend


----------



## Hulalessar

elroy said:


> My “Riiiiight” was directed at Zamenhof


Zamenhof's experience led him to conclude that language was a significant factor in nationalism. It sometimes is.


----------



## elroy

I agree that it sometimes is.  However, the notion that a common language will somehow eliminate nationalism is an illusion. That's utopian to the point of absurdity.


----------



## WadiH

Even if it did eliminate 'nationalism' (whatever we mean by that term), it certainly cannot eliminate conflict. I am interested though to know more about the type of people who speak Esperanto today and teach it to their kids.


----------



## Ghabi

WadiH said:


> I am interested though to know more about the type of people who speak Esperanto today and teach it to their kids.


You should read the book referred above. The native Esperanto speaker interviewed by the author, if I remember correctly, is (disappointingly to many I guess) normal. No trauma done.


----------



## amikama

elroy said:


> If it’s about creating a community of people united by a common language, there are plenty of existing natural languages that can be jointly learned for that purpose.


Because choosing an existing language as a common language would give an unfair advantage to the native speakers of that language.
Because any existing language has cultural, historical and political charge, therefore no existing language can be neutral.
Because most existing languages have complex grammars and/or vocabulary with too many exceptions, ambiguities and inconsistencies.

Not all conlangs are intended to serve as an international second language (such as Esperanto), but invented for other purposes. For example, studying how a language influences the speaker's perception of the world (Lojban, etc.). Or for artistic purposes (Na'vi, Klingon, Tolkien's languages...), or just for fun, as a hobby.


----------



## Uncreative Name

Most constructed languages I've seen are either for a fictional universe (such as Tolkein's Elvish family), or are made to serve some kind of real-world purpose (such as Esperanto).

Fictional languages only exist to make a world feel real; if your race of space creatures is speaking English, the immersion kind of fades.  Some people also make fictional languages as a hobby; it's something of a creative excersize for people who are into linguistics.

International Auxiliary Languages like Esperanto are meant to be easy to learn, enabling communication among people of all kinds of different groups (though in most cases, "all kinds of different groups" is limited to Western peoples, as most AuxLangs neglect major Eastern languages like Mandarin or Japanese).

Neither type has any intent to actually replace real languages, nor have any of them claimed to be real languages (except Esperanto, which allegedly has the largest "conlang" community in history).


----------



## Penyafort

I'm totally the opposite to you here, Elroy. I think the benefits are obvious.

There are two main types of aim for a constructed language: 1, as a practical means of communication (a supposedly neutral lingua franca or auxiliary conlang, as Esperanto, but also one to be used as a secret language by yourself or among a few) and 2, for the pleasure of it, an almost artistic one, usually with the purpose of using it as the language of certain peoples in a novel or film (creative conlang).

Learning a conlang as Esperanto helps you see that constructed languages can also end up being 'organic' or 'naturalized' with the passing of decades, with a beauty of its own as a cultural world around it keeps being created, and with interesting linguistic features that can open your mindset just as much as that of any other natural language.

Learning creative conlangs has more to do with a personal taste related to how passionate you are or were about a fictional world. And in these globalized days, also to create a community. The difference, though, is that creative conlangs tend to be more personal, more 'belonging to the author', and as such, limited and incomplete. This always creates conflict among those who want to keep it 'canon' and those who want to continue with it after the author's death. But that's a different story.

In the end, the most beautiful thing about the creation of languages is the personal process, one in which those who create them gradually learn concepts related to linguistics and differences among languages in a practical way at a very young age, as this 'language passion' tends to show up in one's early teens.


----------



## Awwal12

elroy said:


> What purposes do constructed languages serve?


For one, they made me study theoretical linguistics.
Anyway, most serve artistic purposes. When you create a brand new fantasy world, it's a generally good idea to have a couple languages for it to add some flavour. However, the degree of actual usability varies greatly. While Quenya and Klingon are well developed and Dothraki together with Na'vi must be quite close in that regard (if not in popularity), Sapkowski's Elder Speech actually consists of just several phrases and a bunch of words loosely based on Celtic and Germanic languages, and it's the typical state of most fictional languages which have been mentioned and occasionally used but have never been really worked through (obviously, that requires a lot of effort at the very least, especially when you aren't much into linguistics - and, unlike Tolkien, most fantasy authors aren't).

P.S.: I also should probably mention that some languages, like Ithkuil, serve purely theoretical purposes.


----------



## Dymn

WadiH said:


> I think Esperanto was created on the premise that European nationalisms were based on linguistic divisions and that if everyone spoke one language these divisions would cease to exist and there would be peace on earth.





elroy said:


> I agree that it sometimes is. However, the notion that a common language will somehow eliminate nationalism is an illusion. That's utopian to the point of absurdity.


Skimming through Zamenhof's biography it looks like the initial spark was indeed being frustrated at the division between language groups in his native town, however I don't think he ever aimed to supplant natural languages but rather act as a bridge between them. Surely this was part of an ideal of peace and brotherhood among nations but I'm sure he was under no delusions and didn't think that his language could put an end to nationalistic conflicts.

Also the practical idea of having a global auxiliary language probably made sense at the time. Latin was on the demise, French was maybe the best placed pretender but it hadn't such a firm grip especially not outside Europe, so he saw a niche. Nowadays English is so well established it'd be pointless trying to dethrone it.


----------



## Ghabi

Penyafort said:


> the most beautiful thing about the creation of languages is the personal process, one in which those who create them gradually learn concepts related to linguistics and differences among languages





Awwal12 said:


> For one, they made me study theoretical linguistics.


Indeed, conlanging and the study of "natural"* languages seem to go hand in hand. There's a lovely passage in Arika Okrent's book, about a conlanger who ended up being an expert on the Iroquoian languages:


> For these language inventors, language was not an enemy to be tamed or reformed but a muse. And they bowed down before her. [...] [H]e had been inspired to build his own family of "Central Mountain" languages by the incredible beauty he found in Mohawk when he took a course on it in college. [...] His talk didn't focus so much on his own creation as on the real languages that inspired it. He wanted us to understand where his artistic vision had come from. As he went over the complicated details of the Mohawk pronominal system, he spoke softly, but with such love and wonder in his voice that I thought he might burst into tears.
> 
> I was energized by the proceedings, reminded of the reason I had gone into linguistics in the first place—my own heart-fluttering fascination with languages. Over the years that visceral feeling had been somewhat dampened by the intellectual focus that an academic track demands. All linguists begin with that spark of love for language, but they sometimes end up so involved in supporting a theory or gathering evidence against someone else's theory that they forget it.



*Sorry for the scare quote ... "the art itself is Nature" and all that.


----------



## Ihsiin

I am currently in the process of constructing a language, or rather a family of languages. It's great fun. Need there be any purpose other than that?


----------



## Hulalessar

Ihsiin said:


> I am currently in the process of constructing a language, or rather a family of languages. It's great fun. Need there be any purpose other than that?


Absolutely not!


----------



## merquiades

A constructed universal language would be appealing and could fill a need, but I don't think Esperanto is going to take off.  
I would definitely learn it if I saw many other people were making that effort but this is not the case.
So I won't spend my time learning it and will just keep learning the languages of the countries I hope to travel to. At this point in time Greek and German are more useful to me.


----------



## WadiH

Is there like some kind of software or SimCity-type program for people to create new languages with?


----------



## Awwal12

WadiH said:


> Is there like some kind of software or SimCity-type program for people to create new languages with?


In general it's poorly algorithmizable, syntax in particular. But there surely are various assisting tools, like Mark Rosenfelder's word generator (a rather simple program, in fact, which still can be really helpful).


----------



## Gavril

I can understand the appeal of inventing specific linguistic features.

E.g. what if there were a language that allowed only 10 morphemes per clause?
Or what if there were a language that, instead of normal vowel harmony, had a harmony between back vowels and voiceless stops?
Etc.

However, once you've come up with ideas like this, I don't (personally) see any point or appeal in constructing a "complete language" for these features to reside in, unless you have some specific project in mind.

For example, maybe you want to conduct an experiment with actual speakers to see how they would cope with these features, and/or how these features might develop with time, etc.


----------



## Awwal12

Gavril said:


> I can understand the appeal of inventing specific linguistic features.


That's how "theoretical" languages like Ithkuil are born.  However, for a true linguistic artist the language's grammar is just a way to express his mental image of the language's speakers, together with the language's phonetics and vocabulary ("There is no word for thank you in Dothraki" - a rather naive and generally extreme approach, but still a good illustration). Languages like Quenya or Klingon were invented with Elven and Klingon cultures in mind.


----------



## Gavril

> However, for a true linguistic artist the language's grammar is just a way to express his mental image of the language's speakers, together with the language's phonetics and vocabulary



OK. I somewhat doubt that English grammar (i.e. the totality of what you learn when you read an English grammar book) tells you much about any English speaker, past or present, and likewise for any other natural language.

Specific words/features can be informative in this way (e.g. the fact that terms like "coombe" are of Celtic origin suggests that ancestral English speakers lived in a place where such landforms were rare or absent), but these are just isolated parts of the whole.

However, since most constructed languages have only imaginary speakers, a language creator is of course free to make his/her language into a mirror of those speakers. (Or vice-versa, to mold the speakers based on the language.)


----------



## Penyafort

WadiH said:


> I'm sure it made some sense at the time ... if language is dividing us, maybe if we all spoke one language we won't be so divided.  People have had similar ideas about religion ("let's come up with a unified religion so we're not divided anymore") and that's how some syncretistic religions arose but needless to say they were no more successful at bringing peace than Esperanto.



Well, Zamenhof himself initially considered his linguistic creation just a tool for his religious one, a sort of reformed Judaism focused on ethics that would develop into a common set of universal pacifist religious values (see Hilelismo > Homaranismo), since he was pretty conscious that two are the pillars in humankind which tend to join people together: religion/common values and language, and that one in itself may not last more than a generation. The thing is, when Western Europe became interested in something that was likely more intended for Eastern European Jews in its origin -I'd say even more interested, as Jews generally preferred a reform of Yiddish or a revival of Hebrew than a new language-, then Zamenhof had to face the truth: secularists like the French were not interested at all in the 'religious' or 'mystical' part of the project. For those interested, the whole history of the first decades, from its creation to World War Two, is indeed one of a kind.

The whole thing ended up in something reduced to the so-called _interna ideo_ and a sense of goodwill and pacifism within the community of speakers of it through the years. The name of the language, the green colour of Hope in the flag, the lyrics of the anthem, many of the original works in the language, the Pasporta Servo (or free homestays offered worldwide by speakers to speakers), all this kind of things and many other reveal that sense of a distinct community, which in turn may have been one of the reasons for its long success. (Success not as in reaching its original purpose, but as of being the only auxiliary constructed language in the world which has really created a solid community and culture for more than a century)


----------



## dojibear

elroy said:


> I’m averse to the whole concept of constructed languages. In fact, I find it almost offensive.


Me too.

The problem is history. In English, when I ask "what is a chair" the answer isn't simple. There are many things that are called chairs (canvas loops, stone thrones, overstuffed recliners, plain wooden chairs, etc.). The word "chair" recalls kings on their thrones, peasants in their huts, and many other things in many countries during history (and fiction). There are many things that people sit on that are not called "chair" - sofas, benches, stools, church pews, steamer trunks, boxes, etc.

And that's just one word. Now do the same with another word. Do it for 20,000 words and you have a tapestry of human culture and history. You cannot create all that with a new language. After 50 or 100 years of the new language, with millions of people speaking it all day, every day, you will have that. But not right away. One person (or group) cannot create that.

In English, people create new words (or new word meanings) every day. Most are local slang (one family, one neighborhood, one town). Some become regional or national. Most national ones only last a few years. But a few continue to be used, and become "words in the language". That has been happening for hundreds or thousands of years. The result is a language. 

So someone can invent a new word and give it a meaning. No problem: that happens every day. Invent 5,000 of them. Give them all meanings. Still no problem. The problem is getting large numbers of people to use them, and use them instead of using something else, and continue to use them for 30 years or longer. Until that happens, it isn't really a "language".


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> The problem is getting large numbers of people to use them, and use them instead of using something else


So you seem to imply auxiliary languages only. I just find the concept rather naive, but it doesn't even remotely cover all the artificial languages.


----------



## dojibear

Awwal12 said:


> So you seem to imply auxiliary languages only. I just find the concept rather naive, but it doesn't even remotely cover all the artificial languages.


I probably agree, but I don't know what you mean by "auxiliary languages" as a subset of "all artificial languages".

Please explain. THEN, I can agree with you.   

Note that I don't consider computer programming languages to be "languages". I know many of them, and how they work.


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> but I don't know what you mean by "auxiliary languages" as a subset of "all artificial languages"


Languages that have been specifically designed to serve as a neutral or superior mean of real world communication. Esperanto, Slovio, Interlingua, Volapük, Lingua Franca Nova... It's a totally different kettle of fish to artistic artificial languages like Klingon or Quenya mentioned above. And then there are those "theoretical", engineered languages like Ithkuil, created solely to prove or test something.


----------



## S.V.

> artistic languages


And I see no difference, when a child or a saint play with words.  _The instinct for language invention_ (206).





Not all we create is mockery.


----------



## Apollodorus

elroy said:


> I’m averse to the whole concept of constructed languages.  In fact, I find it almost offensive.



I think there are good reasons to be opposed to the concept, especially when the purpose is political and, possibly, not necessarily benign. For example, if it is motivated by the desire of (self-appointed) elite groups to manipulate the masses, to “unite and mobilise” people for a subversive agenda.

Paradoxically, although “diversity” has become the politically correct ideal of modern society (at least in the Western world), as far as languages are concerned, many of them are disappearing very fast and there seems to be a growing possibility that within the next few decades there will be just a handful of languages that will dominate most of the world, with English (or different forms of it) probably remaining at the top of the hierarchy for the foreseeable future.

Constructing a new language would probably have the effect of accelerating the disappearance of “minor” languages some of which have been around for millennia. Languages like Esperanto may seem intellectually interesting – not least because they tell us something about their inventors – but I for one don’t find them appealing enough to start learning them. Not only that, but who would you be speaking with and what literature would you be reading in constructed languages?

I very much prefer “living” languages with a history, that have evolved naturally over time and that are actually spoken by people with an authentic cultural identity, not an artificial one manufactured by others for their own agendas, however grand those agendas might seem.

In any case, the main purpose seems to be to control people through control of language and if the aim is to supplant existing languages, then it is certainly subversive.


----------



## S.V.

Given the history of English and Spanish in the Americas, I will not join in pretending Esperanto is out to get Hñähñu this year. 

But to answer the question, yes, instead of millions of Mexican or Malaysian kids half-learning English, most countries could settle on an easy aux. language. Hopefully not a "hideous" one, with "_factory product_... written all over it" (Tolkien on Novial). Nor a political farce, just to dethrone English in our time.


----------



## Awwal12

S.V. said:


> just to dethrone English


That presumes millions and billions of people will make considerable efforts just to "dethrone English". Doesn't look like a realistic scenario to me, unless we're all going to live under some totalitarian dictatorship which would be actually capable to enforce it.

The objective reality is that English is not only the mean of international communication but also the main language of the world's science and (ever growing) culture which become directly accessible to anyone who has learned it. No constructed language can outweigh those benefits, not until major changes in the world's development at the very least.


----------



## Penyafort

Apollodorus said:


> I think there are good reasons to be opposed to the concept, especially when the purpose is political and, possibly, not necessarily benign. For example, if it is motivated by the desire of (self-appointed) elite groups to manipulate the masses, to “unite and mobilise” people for a subversive agenda.



If it was so, it'd have succeeded. If, say, the EU were interested at all in it, with an agenda, imposing it in school curricula would make the constructed language become a second language for all Europeans in a matter of two generations.

But it won't happen, because there's no political or economical interest behind. After all, 'global' languages are global because they've been politically imposed by the elites of a certain Empire.



Apollodorus said:


> as far as languages are concerned, many of them are disappearing very fast and there seems to be a growing possibility that within the next few decades there will be just a handful of languages that will dominate most of the world, with English (or different forms of it) probably remaining at the top of the hierarchy for the foreseeable future.



That's going to happen indeed, but not because of any constructed languages.



Apollodorus said:


> Not only that, but who would you be speaking with and what literature would you be reading in constructed languages?



It's quite possible that you find works translated into Esperanto that haven't been translated into your language, and if they have, chances are that the Esperanto version is better, as it was likely translated by someone from his/her own language into Esperanto.

Besides that, an original literature in Esperanto has been written for more than a century, with its own important names. Which means there's a larger literary corpus in Esperanto than in many literatures of a living language out there.


----------



## Awwal12

Penyafort said:


> It's quite possible that you find works translated into Esperanto that haven't been translated into your language


Only when your language is really small.


Penyafort said:


> Besides that, an original literature in Esperanto has been written for more than a century


It's not like you have nothing to read in Esperanto, but it's about competitiveness. The Game of Thrones, for instance, was originally produced in English and then dubbed in many major languages, but I doubt it will be ever dubbed in Esperanto. And it's just one and relatively small single example. Take Paradox Games, for instance - a Swedish company which doesn't even produce Swedish versions of its games. The reason is simple: Sweden is a small country where most people have a decent knowledge of English, so making video games in Swedish is simply unprofitable. What about profitability of translating anything into Esperanto? Mostly negative, I believe. Russian holds chiefly because the Russian-speaking communities have limited knowledge of English, relatively large cultural demand and relatively good generative capabilities, so overall culture in the Russian language forms a stable market. For Esperanto you would need endless centralized investments (and not small ones at all) to achieve the effect that mostly comes naturally in the case of Russian. And in the case of scientific literature the situation is even worse. Even some important major books, like Shopen's Language Typology and Syntactic Description in 3 volumes, simply don't exist even in Russian, because in all of Russia there are too few people who are theoretically capable to translate it properly and Russian science is underfunded. And who will ever translate it into Esperanto?..

So when we come to the choice of learning some foreign language, Esperanto is invariably a sub-optimal decision, and if you'll ever learn it, it will happen not because you objectively need it but because of some subjective factors - which, however, are unable to make Esperanto a globally popular language.


----------



## Stoggler

Apollodorus said:


> In any case, the main purpose seems to be to control people through control of language and if the aim is to supplant existing languages, then it is certainly subversive.



which conlang has its creators tried to control people through the language and to set out to supplant existing languages?  If we’re talking about Esperanto, then that is certainly not the aim of Zamenhof or the language’s adherents.  It was designed to be used alongside existing natural languages, to assist in communication.  Zamenhof, or any other auxlang creator I can think of, has never wanted to control language or supplant any existing ones (if anything it seems to be some of the speakers of natural languages who want to supplant other natural languages).


----------



## Apollodorus

Penyafort said:


> But it won't happen, because there's no political or economical interest behind. After all, 'global' languages are global because they've been politically imposed by the elites of a certain Empire.



That boils down to two facts: (a) global languages are imposed by imperialist elites and (b) constructed languages have not (yet) been imposed because global languages (e.g. English) already exist.


----------



## Apollodorus

Stoggler said:


> If we’re talking about Esperanto, then that is certainly not the aim of Zamenhof or the language’s adherents.  It was designed to be used alongside existing natural languages, to assist in communication.



The fact is that at the time Esperanto was in vogue there were many intellectual radicals with megalomaniac tendencies: Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Anarchists, Fabian Socialists, Liberal Imperialists, etc. Although these ideologies were mutually incompatible, many of their adherents aimed to establish a United States of Europe as a step towards world government controlled by themselves, etc.

As stated by the Wikipedia article on Esperanto,

“[In the 1920s] the League of Nations recommended that its member states include Esperanto in their educational curricula. The French government retaliated by banning all instruction in Esperanto in France's schools and universities. The French Ministry of Public Instruction said that "French and English would perish and the literary standard of the world would be debased". Nonetheless, many people see the 1920s as the heyday of the Esperanto movement. During this time, Anarchism as a political movement was very supportive of both anationalism and the Esperanto language”.

The original creator of a constructed language may not explicitly state this aim, or even implicitly harbour it, it is sufficient for those who come to control the language to have this aim as part of their internationalist agenda.

Of course, there are many different types of constructed language. However, by definition, a constructed language intended to become international will tend to replace existing languages at least at international level and, potentially, at national level once it has become international ....


----------



## Hulalessar

Apollodorus said:


> The fact is that at the time Esperanto was in vogue there were many intellectual radicals with megalomaniac tendencies: Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Anarchists, Fabian Socialists, Liberal Imperialists, etc. Although these ideologies were mutually incompatible, many of their adherents aimed to establish a United States of Europe as a step towards world government controlled by themselves, etc.


I don't have Fabian Socialists down as megalomaniacs. Not everyone who believes in "world government" wants to exercise power. Some believe in universal kinship. The UK recently succumbed to narrow nationalism and is now sinking under the weight of its own folly.

Narrow nationalism is perfectly capable of promoting one language at the expense of another. The EU, in contrast, actually promotes "small" languages, even to the extent of producing reams of information in Irish which they know few, if any, will ever read. UNESCO, a world organisation, works to prevent language extinction.


----------



## Apollodorus

I don’t think I said any of that. First of all, there is a difference between “megalomaniac” and “megalomaniac tendencies”. And I didn’t say ALL Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Anarchists, Fabian Socialists, Liberal Imperialists, etc. were guilty of harbouring them. Many of them were probably just plain, ordinary people who were seduced by their respective ideologies for different reasons. However, those ideologies were (a) radical and (b) what they all had in common was the idea that if THEY ruled the world, the world would automatically be a better place.

As Esperanto had been mentioned, I gave an example of it being promoted by an international political organisation like the League of Nations, as stated in the Wikipedia article. It’s a well-known fact that the League’s creators were internationalists who wanted to create a new international order based on a world federation of governments.

The main architect of the League was Britain which at the time was the largest empire and the world’s superpower No. 1. Organisations like the Fabian Research Bureau (which produced the report “International Government” in 1916), the Council for the Study of International Relations (CSIR), the League of Nations Society (LNS), the League of Free Nations Association (LFNA), the League of Nations Union (LNU), etc., as well as the Imperial Conferences that together led to the founding of the League, were British.

Moreover, although the League’s Assembly had 42 member states, the League’s Council had only four permanent members of which Britain was the dominant one (the others being France, Italy and Japan). And the League’s Secretariat (which prepared the agenda for the Council and Assembly) was run by secretary-general Sir Eric Drummond, a leading British imperialist who had drafted the Covenant of the League of Nations together with other Brits.

See D. Macfadyen, M. D. V. Davies, M. N. Carr, J. Burley, _Eric Drummond and his Legacies: The League of Nations and the Beginnings of Global Governance_, 2019.

In other words:

(A). Esperanto was promoted by the League of Nations.

(B). The League of Nations was created and controlled by representatives of the British Empire.

(C). The League of Nations was a political organisation with an internationalist agenda.

(D). It follows that Esperanto was promoted by a political organisation with an internationalist agenda.

*It’s simply an example of constructed language being promoted for political purposes by internationalists. *

The fact that “narrow nationalism is perfectly capable of promoting one language at the expense of another”, does not mean that internationalism isn’t equally capable of doing the same.

The fact that “the EU produces reams of information in Irish that very few will ever read” does not mean that Irish doesn’t continue to be replaced by English or that it hasn’t got the status of endangered language according to UNESCO itself.

The reality on the ground is that the dominance of a few "global languages", especially English, is steadily increasing. And chances are the same would be the case with a constructed language once it has become international.


----------



## dojibear

Apollodorus said:


> The reality on the ground is that the dominance of a few "global languages", especially English, is steadily increasing.


English is widespread as an L2 language. That may be a trend that is "steadily increasing". But I am not sure that English is replacing other languages as an L1 language. So I'm not sure that "dominance" is the correct term.


----------



## Ihsiin

Apollodorus said:


> I don’t think I said any of that. First of all, there is a difference between “megalomaniac” and “megalomaniac tendencies”. And I didn’t say ALL Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Anarchists, Fabian Socialists, Liberal Imperialists, etc. were guilty of harbouring them. Many of them were probably just plain, ordinary people who were seduced by their respective ideologies for different reasons. However, those ideologies were (a) radical and (b) *what they all had in common was the idea that if THEY ruled the world, the world would automatically be a better place.*



This is really not true - in the case of anarchists, it’s an outright contradiction in terms.



> The fact that “the EU produces reams of information in Irish that very few will ever read” does not mean that Irish doesn’t continue to be replaced by English or that it hasn’t got the status of endangered language according to UNESCO itself.



I’m not sure English is any more dominant in Ireland now than it was in the 1890s, to be honest.


----------



## Apollodorus

dojibear said:


> English is widespread as an L2 language. That may be a trend that is "steadily increasing". But I am not sure that English is replacing other languages as an L1 language. So I'm not sure that "dominance" is the correct term.


I think English has already replaced many native languages in places like Ireland, Scotland and North America. German used to be the language of science in the 1800s before being replaced by English. English is the main official language of the European Union (EU) even though Britain is not a member and English is the most widely spoken language in Europe, at about 50% (compared to German 32% and French 26%).

English also dominates the international book market and, increasingly, the entertainment industry and social media.

It probably depends on a number of factors such as age group, area (urban/rural), country, etc. But from personal experience over the last few years, I’ve noticed people using English words more and more frequently. In Greece, for example, you hear English words like “OK”, “sorry”, “cool”, “social”, etc., on a daily basis, including on TV shows and in the press. Definitely in Germany and most Scandinavian countries, though perhaps less so in some places like France, Italy or Poland.

Anyway, I for one don’t see the point of invented languages and I'd definitely look into the inventors'/promoters' motives before even considering any of them. If we insist on an international language, let’s bring back Greek which used to be the language of culture and civilisation ….


----------



## Dymn

Esperanto like any other language is just a tool of communication. Whatever connotations it may have it's current people who attach them, not Zamenhof or the early Esperantists who are long dead. In today's world it seems to me people who promote it dislike the role of English as a lingua franca and would prefer an easier language which sets everybody on an equal footing. This doesn't seem very likely, but if it came true I don't see how it would be worse than English.


----------



## dojibear

Dymn said:


> In today's world it seems to me people who promote it dislike the role of English as a lingua franca and would prefer an easier language which sets everybody on an equal footing.


I agree that Esperanto is much easier than English. 

Esperanto is based on European languages, not all languages. So it doesn't set everybody on an equal footing.

Several natural languages are widely used today as _lingua francas_ (languages used between people with different native languages), including English, Mandarin, Spanish, French, Russian, Hindustani, and Indonesian.


----------



## Apollodorus

Ihsiin said:


> This is really not true - in the case of anarchists, it’s an outright contradiction in terms.



The “contradiction” isn’t mine. Anarchism may be opposed to the authority of the state but _not_ to Anarchism being the dominant ideology. On the contrary, Anarchists aim to make their system dominant, sometimes including through “direct action”.



Ihsiin said:


> I’m not sure English is any more dominant in Ireland now than it was in the 1890s, to be honest.



I still don’t see how speaking Esperanto might help a speaker of Irish preserve his or her language.


----------



## Hulalessar

Apollodorus said:


> On the contrary, Anarchists aim to make their system dominant.


But does not everyone want the system they favour to be dominant? The question is whether domination is achieved by force or persuasion


----------



## Apollodorus

Hulalessar said:


> But does not everyone want the system they favour to be dominant?



_Theoretically_, they may do, but not everybody takes action to realise that desire _in practice_.



Hulalessar said:


> The question is whether domination is achieved by force or persuasion



1. Domination can also be achieved by stealth.

2. The question of motive is an important one and needs to be addressed.


----------



## Penyafort

Awwal12 said:


> Only when your language is really small.



Not necessarily. Catalan might be seen as a small language and yet you've got most works from major and not so major authors translated into it. English may seem as the one which should boast the highest number of translations. But when I search for books of literature like mine translated into English, I find the number to be lower than those translated into German and French, and some of the Catalan classics are still missing in English. So there's a component of 'interest', whatever the cause of it, which also makes sizes vary and be relative. And in the case of Esperanto, there's the vocational interest added of translators translating into an L2 instead of into their first language, which is normally the case in translation.



Awwal12 said:


> It's not like you have nothing to read in Esperanto, but it's about competitiveness. The Game of Thrones, for instance, was originally produced in English and then dubbed in many major languages, but I doubt it will be ever dubbed in Esperanto.



I don't know about Game of Thrones, to be honest. I know The Lord of the Rings (La Mastro de l' Ringoj) and some of the Harry Potter books definitely have an Esperanto translation. How much these translations have been read, I don't know.



Awwal12 said:


> What about profitability of translating anything into Esperanto? Mostly negative, I believe.



But that's unfair. Esperanto isn't even required as a second language anywhere. If being in its current situation it already can boast having more translations than any other auxiliary languages and many living ones, go figure what'd happen if it was actually officially required somewhere. Profitability is not something inherent to a language, but to contexts than can easily change. 



Awwal12 said:


> So when we come to the choice of learning some foreign language, Esperanto is invariably a sub-optimal decision, and if you'll ever learn it, it will happen not because you objectively need it but because of some subjective factors - which, however, are unable to make Esperanto a globally popular language.



I completely agree here. Those who have ever learned Esperanto is for subjective reasons (except, perhaps, those few 'native' speakers who learnt it as childrne from both parents and so didn't "choose" it). 

But that's the point: trying to become a 'global' language without being associated to a particular power. And here I agree too. I think that this "non-association" is what will always prevent it from becoming a major one. In this sense, it's got even further than expected.

In my opinion, it'd have been the perfect choice for a thing as the "European Union", both being constructed concepts born in Europe. Even the name of the currency, ending in -o, fits perfectly with Esperanto rules of -o for nouns. (The wiser option would obviously be Latin, but I won't go there now, although you constantly see hints to Latin in some names of institutions, in the EU motto, etc)



Apollodorus said:


> That boils down to two facts: (a) global languages are imposed by imperialist elites and (b) constructed languages have not (yet) been imposed because global languages (e.g. English) already exist.



I agree. 



Apollodorus said:


> I think English has already replaced many native languages in places like Ireland, Scotland and North America. German used to be the language of science in the 1800s before being replaced by English. English is the main official language of the European Union (EU) even though Britain is not a member and English is the most widely spoken language in Europe, at about 50% (compared to German 32% and French 26%).
> 
> English also dominates the international book market and, increasingly, the entertainment industry and social media.
> 
> It probably depends on a number of factors such as age group, area (urban/rural), country, etc. But from personal experience over the last few years, I’ve noticed people using English words more and more frequently. In Greece, for example, you hear English words like “OK”, “sorry”, “cool”, “social”, etc., on a daily basis, including on TV shows and in the press. Definitely in Germany and most Scandinavian countries, though perhaps less so in some places like France, Italy or Poland.



This is all true. But see how you're mentioning places in which English is directly official. There's no country in which it's not official and it has replaced a native language. Not even Sweden or the Netherlands.

Latin killed most of the native languages there where it became official. Latin was the main language of the Roman Empire and it replaced languages like Greek for both science, philosophy, etc, in most of Europe. Latin dominated the 'book market' in all fields of knowledge for centuries. And it definitely influenced deeply most of the languages spoken today in Europe (and indirectly elsewhere).

And yet, today, Latin is dead. 

We're starting to see the decline of the Anglo-speaking Empire. And despite English having become the only real global language on Earth, languages are still, as they were, associated to power. We all here today can't even think of English not being the lingua franca it is today, just like Latin speakers did centuries ago. But the most logical scenario would be that, some centuries from now, a language associated to a different global power becomes the global one (maybe the daughter of a language spoken today) and today's English will be the dead father of several new Englishes still spoken in some countries of the world. Some learned people, though, will continue to study Postmodern English to read the many interesting documents and audiovisual material that people produced during the long-gone 20th and 21st centuries.


----------



## Apollodorus

English has largely replaced other languages at _international_ level (diplomacy, science, literature, entertainment, etc.). At national level, the situation is clearly different (except in places like Ireland and Scotland). Yet even there, English is beginning to make inroads (depending on country, age group, etc.). If English were to remain dominant at international level, its influence at national/L1 level would probably continue to grow.

Of course, it is entirely possible that as the Anglo-speaking (or “Anglo-Saxon”) Empire declines, so will English. It’s probably too early to tell.

Would the situation be any different with a constructed language? Probably not. It would still depend on who holds the economic, political and military power and is able to exert cultural influence. And I think this is the crux of the matter. It boils down to power: who holds it, how they use it and for what purposes.

At the end of the day, constructed languages and their implementation have no existence independently of other factors. For example, they need to be promoted, the promotion needs funding, etc. This raises important questions, such as who is promoting/funding them and why they are doing it. In the example of the League of Nations’ promotion of Esperanto, it is clear that this was tied with political and other agendas.

As regards Latin, it died only after replacing Italic, Celtic, Iberian, and other languages across much of Europe. Even English is a Latinised Germanic tongue. So, the question is, How much damage to local languages a global language does _before_ it dies and gets replaced with a new one? The answer, again, depends on the global power holders and the extent of their power.


----------



## Red Arrow

I don't like constructed languages and prefer to spend time learning the wonders of natural languages.


Penyafort said:


> This is all true. But see how you're mentioning places in which English is directly official. There's no country in which it's not official and it has replaced a native language. Not even Sweden or the Netherlands.


English replaced lots of languages in North America, the UK and Australia.


----------



## Penyafort

Red Arrow said:


> English replaced lots of languages in North America, the UK and Australia.



What I said: places in which English is directly official (whether de jure or de facto).


----------



## Keith Bradford

A few random thoughts on Esperanto:

It is enormously simple to learn -- distinctly easier than English.  I spent a couple of weeks teaching myself Esperanto at the age of sixteen.  Now, sixty years later, I can still remember the basic grammar and understand simple texts.
It was admittedly based on European roots, but Japanese and Chinese learners still find it easier than English because of its regular construction.
Zamenhof based it on the principle that if a structure (e.g. grammatical gender) is not used in one language (e.g. English), then it is unnecessary in all languages.  This concept is enlightening for students of any language.
It is, I believe, used by at least 2 million people throughout the world.  Compare Polish, 40 million, modern Greek 10 million, Belorussian 7 million, Welsh 600,000, Maori 100,000.


----------



## Ben Jamin

I think that all allegations against constructed languages based on accusing them of being tools for totalitarian ideologies are nonsensical and spread by political maniacs. The fact is that the world is using a "natural" language as lingua franca not because of the inherent qualities of this language but just because of a historical accident that made English the dominant language of the world. No natural language is good enough for being chosen as a worldwide lingua franca, and English is far from being one of languages that show any superiority compared to other. The shortcomings of English are:
1. Lack of standard pronunciation and accent. The native speakers of hundreds of English dialects are a great pain in the ass, with every one speaking in a different way.
2. The blurred pronunciation and dropping of the parts of the words' endings by speakers of most of the English dialects places them far down on the list of easily understandable languages, only surpassed by Danish and European Portuguese. English has also too many vowels, all squeezed together in the middle of the famous vowel four angled figure, and as a consequence almost identical.
3. English has a nonsensical spelling.
4. English has too many words for the same meaning. Every word has too many meanings (surpassed only by Chinese).
5. The usage of the English words is blurred. You never know which of the meanings is intended by the speaker.
6. The words change their meaning constantly. If you have learned a word ten years ago, you can expect that now it means something else.
7. The meaning of the words is being constantly changed motivated by floating ideological and political fashion.

Only a constructed language can be free of those seven Egyptian (sorry, English) plagues: clear in pronunciation, spelled in a logical manner, stable and unequivocal in meaning.


----------



## Apollodorus

Nobody says English is perfect. But what some seem to be proposing is the imposition on the world of an invented language that very few people desire to learn ....  🙂


----------



## dojibear

I disagree with most of the 7 criticism of English. Either other languages have similar problems (I know that Mandarin Chinese shares #1-#5), or I disagree that English has them. It doesn't have #5. #6 only happens to 0.03% of the words or less, since you can't count "new terms for new things", which in English might be a new phrase using existing words. I agree that #7 happens in politics, but only a subset of people use the new meanings, and it isn't a permanent change to English. Unless you are discussing political issues, you don't use those words. But enough: I don't want to off-topic this thread.

I agree with most of @Ben Jamin's comments. Even among natural languages, English isn't the best _lingua franca_. Maybe that's why several other languages are used as a _lingua franca _today: Mandarin Chinese, French, Spanish, Classical Arabic, Portuguese, Hindustani, Indonesian, Swahili, Persian, and Hausa. They are all used by peoples whose native languages are not mutually intelligible.



Ben Jamin said:


> Only a constructed language can be free of those seven Egyptian plagues: clear in pronunciation, spelled in a logical manner, stable and unequivocal in meaning.


A constructed language would have some problems, if used world-wide: local dialects, local pronunciations, local slang, local idioms. But it might not have as many problems as English has.

My biggest concern is "enough meanings". Humans need to express tens of thousands of different meanings. They won't use a language that doesn't have them. So a constructed language can't replace a human language.

But wait -- does a _lingua franca _only need a subset of those meanings? If so, a language like Esperanto might work well as a _lingua franca_.


----------



## Ben Jamin

dojibear said:


> I disagree with most of the 7 criticism of English. Either other languages have similar problems (I know that Mandarin Chinese shares #1-#5), or I disagree that English has them. It doesn't have #5. #6 only happens to 0.03% of the words or less, since you can't count "new terms for new things", which in English might be a new phrase using existing words. I agree that #7 happens in politics, but only a subset of people use the new meanings, and it isn't a permanent change to English. Unless you are discussing political issues, you don't use those words. But enough: I don't want to off-topic this thread.
> 
> I agree with most of @Ben Jamin's comments. Even among natural languages, English isn't the best _lingua franca_. Maybe that's why several other languages are used as a _lingua franca _today: Mandarin Chinese, French, Spanish, Classical Arabic, Portuguese, Hindustani, Indonesian, Swahili, Persian, and Hausa. They are all used by peoples whose native languages are not mutually intelligible.
> 
> 
> A constructed language would have some problems, if used world-wide: local dialects, local pronunciations, local slang, local idioms. But it might not have as many problems as English has.
> 
> My biggest concern is "enough meanings". Humans need to express tens of thousands of different meanings. They won't use a language that doesn't have them. So a constructed language can't replace a human language.
> 
> But wait -- does a _lingua franca _only need a subset of those meanings? If so, a language like Esperanto might work well as a _lingua franca_.


Thank you for a balanced comment on my post! I admit, I have deliberately exagerated the weak sides of English, but I did it to shed some light on its suitability as a lingua franca. Of course, there are hundreds of languages in the world even less suited to be a vehicle of international communication, but none of them is. My description has been founded by many years work with English as a working language in international standardization, and as an editor of translations from and to English. This experience of problems is real, not a phantasmagoria.
I would even add one disadvantage I encountered in my work. During the meetings with representatives of various countries there was always the issue of the native English speakers who dominated the meetings the more the more numerous they were. If there were e.g. four Britons and twenty Europeans, the non native speakers always found themselves in an underprivileged position, struggling to follow what the Britons were saying quickly and often indistincly, while the natives did not have the same problem. 
And my final comment: I am not surprised that the first polemical post comes from a native English speaker.


----------



## Penyafort

Apollodorus said:


> Nobody says English is perfect. But what some seem to be proposing is the imposition on the world of an invented language that very few people desire to learn ....  🙂



You say that as if the millions of children having to learn English as a subject at school were delighted to do it.


----------



## Apollodorus

Penyafort said:


> You say that as if the millions of children having to learn English as a subject at school were delighted to do it.


Well, to my knowledge some certainly _are _delighted to learn English. Nowadays, children pick up languages from the social media, anyway. Even adults take up English classes all over the world. Incidentally, at a language school in Spain where I attended Spanish classes, there were Spanish school children learning English because they felt that their teacher at school was teaching them English with an incomprehensible Spanish accent. 🙂 

Plus, Esperanto doesn't seem to have made much progress since the 1920s ....


----------



## Stoggler

Apollodorus said:


> Plus, Esperanto doesn't seem to have made much progress since the 1920s ....



I can’t disagree with that at all.  I suspect that the internet has brought Esperantists together much more easily and the health of the language may be as strong as it ever has been, but it’s still not made any real inroads into public consciousness beyond the odd reference here and then*.

(*I can only recall seeing it in Red Dwarf, a BBC comedy set in the future on a spaceship, where Esperanto is an official language and the odd sign in the background is in Esperanto)


----------



## Apollodorus

It might be expected for speakers of Polish to be enthusiastic supporters of a language invented by somebody from Poland. But even in Poland few are particularly interested in learning Esperanto, 0.0352 per cent according to estimates.

In addition, it appears that Zamenhof saw Esperanto as part of a larger and more ambitious project based on the belief that humanity must have “one language and one religion”.

According to Wikipedia,

“Besides his linguistic work, Zamenhof published a religious philosophy he called _Homaranismo_ (the term in Esperanto, usually rendered as "humanitism" in English, sometimes rendered loosely as humanitarianism or humanism), based on the principles and teachings of Hillel the Elder. He said of Homaranismo: "It is indeed the object of my whole life. I would give up everything for it."

It looks like people weren’t too impressed by his religious philosophy either. And anyway, with only two million speakers worldwide (most of them in Europe), I think Esperanto can be safely ignored for the time being. But I don't want to prevent anyone from learning or speaking it should they so wish.


----------



## Red Arrow

Ben Jamin said:


> Only a constructed language can be free of those seven Egyptian (sorry, English) plagues: clear in pronunciation, spelled in a logical manner, *stable* and unequivocal in meaning.


Asking for a global language to be _stable_ is asking of the impossible. The only languages that are truly stable are dead languages.

As for pronunciation, I find American English one of the clearest languages to understand.



Ben Jamin said:


> 2. The blurred pronunciation and dropping of the parts of the words' endings by speakers of most of the English dialects places them far down on the list of easily understandable languages, only surpassed by Danish and European Portuguese. English has also too many vowels, all squeezed together in the middle of the famous vowel four angled figure, and as a consequence almost identical.



It only looks this way because English textbooks use fake phonemes that don't actually exist. Take American English ʌ, ə, ɚ and ɝ. In reality it's ə, ə, ɚ, ɚ. Students are asked to hear a difference that isn't there.


----------



## dojibear

Ben Jamin said:


> English has also too many vowels, all squeezed together in the middle of the famous vowel four angled figure, and as a consequence almost identical.



"Almost identical" seems ridiculous to me, a native English speaker. Different dialects may pronounce vowels differently, but every dialect of English clearly distinguishes all of the different vowel phonemes in English, and English uses these differences to distinguish words. 

The "dividing line" between different vowel phonemes is different in every language (and every dialect). That is a problem for people learning a new language. If my language uses 2 sounds as different phonemes, and they are the same phoneme in your language, they will sound "identical" or "almost identical" to you. In reality, they sound like "the same phoneme" to you. We are all used to a single "phoneme" using a variety of sounds.

A very common example is Spanish speakers of English. Spanish has the /i/ sound but not the /ɪ/ sound. So to a Spanish speaker, the words "hit, bit, sit, fit" sound the same as "heat, beat, seat, feet". This is true about anyone learning a foreign language. Chinese has different phonemes that I cannot distinguish. English is that it has more vowel phonemes than many languages. But I think that learning Cantonese, or Thai, or Hindi will present the same problem to you.


----------



## Penyafort

Apollodorus said:


> Plus, Esperanto doesn't seem to have made much progress since the 1920s ....



That depends on what one understands by progress. If we only consider the main original goal, what the creator had in mind, it obviously didn't reach it and I don't think it will in the coming years. At least not in this period of history we're beginning now. 

However, to me it will always be the only constructed language that has been successful. Among all constructed languages, it's the only one which has ever been regarded as a serious candidate by intellectuals, the only one ever to be supported by such institutions as UNESCO or used in an academic congress, the only one which a number of important writers and figures from different languages has ever learned or even written in it... In other words, the only one which has created a consistent original wideworld network of culture, history and speakers, even native ones, for more than a century. There have been hundreds of auxiliary languages throughout history, but none can compare.



Apollodorus said:


> Well, to my knowledge some certainly _are _delighted to learn English. Nowadays, children pick up languages from the social media, anyway. Even adults take up English classes all over the world.



No doubt _some_ are, me included. But the segment of the population who do is minimal. Most do it just because they have to, not out of personal pleasure. Only much later in life many of them get to see that it was useful in many a way --or they regret not paying more attention.



Red Arrow said:


> As for pronunciation, I find American English one of the clearest languages to understand.



You can't be serious there.

There's a reason why most auxiliary languages tend to choose the five simple vowels of Spanish, Serbian or Japanese.


----------



## dojibear

Red Arrow said:


> It only looks this way because English textbooks use fake phonemes that don't actually exist. Take American English ʌ, ə, ɚ and ɝ. In reality it's ə, ə, ɚ, ɚ. Students are asked to hear a difference that isn't there.


I agree with @Red Arrow: the problem is the way English is taught more than the language.


----------



## dojibear

Penyafort said:


> You can't be serious there.
> 
> There's a reason why most auxiliary languages tend to choose the five simple vowels of Spanish, Serbian or Japanese.


It's true that Spanish has 5 vowels, always pronounced the same way.

But it is not true in Japanese, where "o" and "o-o" (the same vowel held for 2 beats instead of 1 beat) are considered different vowels, that distinguish countless pairs of words. English speakers have a lot of trouble correctly speaking Japanese, because English speakers can't always "hear" the difference. In Japanese a "beat" is called a "mora", and the language is based on moras instead of syllables. For example Japanese "n" is a separate syllable, using 2 moras.

So that is another decision that goes into the creation of a constructed language. Is it "mora-timed" (like Japanese) or "stress-timed" (like English) or "syllable-timed" (like Chinese) or what? Stress is another major difference: it isn't the same in all languages.

That is not an argument against constructed languages. It is just pointing out some decisions that must be made, and that "like most European languages" is not a world-wide standard, and might not be the easiest thing for non-Europeans to learn.


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> It's true that Spanish has 5 vowels, always pronounced the same way.



Well, Spanish hasn't always got the same five vowels either. There are minor changes due to phonological context, as well as depending on the variety, etc. But I think you got my point. Change Japanese for modern Greek, if you prefer.

The fact is, there's a reason why the realization of these five vowels is considered as the most simple -even if languages with as many vowels as English may not have them- and why they're preferred. Probably too because they allow for a variety of realizations, as it won't really matter if your e's and o's are more open or more closed, if your a's are more cat-like or star-like, or your u's more Spanish or Japanese.


----------



## dojibear

Penyafort said:


> The fact is, there's a reason why the realization of these five vowels is considered as the most simple -even if languages with as many vowels as English may not have them- and why they're preferred.


I agree. Historically, English got one set of vowels (and words) from Latin languages and another set of vowels (and words) from Germanic languages. So English got twice as many vowel sounds as most languages have. It also has more words.



Penyafort said:


> Probably too because they allow for a variety of realizations, as it won't really matter if your e's and o's are more open or more closed


That makes perfect sense. Fewer phonemes = fewer "dividing lines" in the wide variety of sounds the human mouth can make.


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> "Almost identical" seems ridiculous to me, a native English speaker.


Agreed. A native speaker of Standard Southern British English can clearly distinguish between all the following:
_bead bid bed bad bard bod board booed bud bird bayed bode bide bowed buoyed beard and bared._


----------



## Dymn

10-11 monophthongs is clearly too much. I think most non-natives speakers have trouble telling apart at least one pair, maybe except for Scandinavians.



dojibear said:


> Historically, English got one set of vowels (and words) from Latin languages and another set of vowels (and words) from Germanic languages. So English got twice as many vowel sounds as most languages have.


That's not the reason though, _land bath lot thought sit let nut foot meat moon make goat mind boy mouth _have all possible 15 stressed vowels in RP and are all of native Anglo-Saxon origin.


----------



## dojibear

Dymn said:


> 10-11 monophthongs is clearly too much. I think most non-natives speakers have trouble telling apart at least one pair, maybe except for Scandinavians.


I'm not surprised. I have similar trouble with some Chinese consonants. Chinese has 21 syllable-starting consonants. Out of those I can't distinguish (by listening) four pairs: q/ch, x/sh, j/zh, and c/t. And I still hear B/D/G as English voiced B/D/G, even though those three Chinese consonants are unvoiced. Re-training hearing is *hard*.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

dojibear said:


> I'm not surprised. I have similar trouble with some Chinese consonants. Chinese has 21 syllable-starting consonants. Out of those I can't distinguish (by listening) four pairs: q/ch, x/sh, j/zh, and c/t. And I still hear B/D/G as English voiced B/D/G, even though those three Chinese consonants are unvoiced. Re-training hearing is *hard*.


Tones in Chinese are relatively recent. A few thousand years ago Chinese languages had no tones.

Also don’t forget that it’s not just the sounds, but the combination of sounds that may cause grief. I am told that Japanese and Italian use vowel + consonant or consonant + vowel combinations, in other words two consonants with no intervening vowel are not allowed. Thus German is a nightmare for the Japanese, and poses issues even for English speakers in words such as stress and spreche.



dojibear said:


> "Almost identical" seems ridiculous to me, a native English speaker. Different dialects may pronounce vowels differently, but every dialect of English clearly distinguishes all of the different vowel phonemes in English, and English uses these differences to distinguish words.


Two sounds may sound almost the same to a non native speaker of the language, but to the native speaker they will sound quite distinct. To understand why we have to understand how the brain processes sounds. When we are young, we create a representation for each sound in the language we hear, and then we learn how to control the mouth and throat to reproduce those sounds ie we create muscle memory. When we hear novel sounds from a foreign language, we automatically try to map them to the existing sounds in our internal map of consonants and vowels. Many speakers of a foreign language never master the new sounds, and continue to substitute their own.

I am a beginner at German, and I find it hard to hear what native speakers are saying when presented with simple phrases. For example, *durch* and *dunkel *are confusing. When a friend who speaks fluent German says *durch* it leaves me baffled. What makes matters worse is that there are many accents, thus *nedrig* has at least two forms where the final consonant varies. I have had my prononciation of numerous simple phrases checked by native speakers, and apparently it is quite good, but it is very hard work, and some sounds such as the soft ch drive me spare.

However, the adult brain can learn to hear and articulate new sounds in a foreign language. I learnt the Welsh ll and ch sounds and the French guttural r, and the two oo sounds in my twenties. The first stage is to listen, listen and listen until you can distinguish the sounds. Only then can you try to articulate them. It can take a long time, with continual practice, as you are using muscles in a new way, and you need to practice to build up the fine motor control associated with making the sounds, and using them in combination. In my experience most learners do not spend anywhere enough time mastering, or approximating, the target language sounds. I suspect traditional classroom teaching is part of the reason.


In truth a person does not *need* to exactly reproduce all sounds, as long as they are understood. (A Russian Lithuanian friend of mine is very hard to understand due to his accent.) And I bet German speakers of Esperanto carry over their stress timing, whereas French speakers carry over their syllable timing. English speakers will tend to carry over dipthongs, whereas Italians will tend to use pure vowels. And of course the verb conjugations are new to Chinese speakers and anyone else whose language lacks such a concept.


dojibear said:


> The "dividing line" between different vowel phonemes is different in every language (and every dialect). That is a problem for people learning a new language. If my language uses 2 sounds as different phonemes, and they are the same phoneme in your language, they will sound "identical" or "almost identical" to you. In reality, they sound like "the same phoneme" to you. We are all used to a single "phoneme" using a variety of sounds.
> 
> A very common example is Spanish speakers of English. Spanish has the /i/ sound but not the /ɪ/ sound. So to a Spanish speaker, the words "hit, bit, sit, fit" sound the same as "heat, beat, seat, feet". This is true about anyone learning a foreign language. Chinese has different phonemes that I cannot distinguish. English is that it has more vowel phonemes than many languages. But I think that learning Cantonese, or Thai, or Hindi will present the same problem to you.


I think the main problem with English is not the sounds, but the orthography which must be a total nightmare. Welsh, despite its reputation, is so simple to pronounce compared to English.

In my opinion artificial languages are pointless, yes even Klingon, simply because they lack a culture, and a clear purpose for learning. And they will always benefit one group of speakers eg Indo European. A huge number of people speak English as a second language because America is the dominant economic and cultural force today, and English has become the lingua franca for business and science. I remember speaking to some Belgians at a scientific conference, and being astonished that they spoke Flemish and English, but not Walloon. Like Greek and Latin, English will eventually cede its role to another language, such as Mandarin.


----------



## Penyafort

LeifGoodwin said:


> In my opinion artificial languages are pointless, yes even Klingon, simply because they lack a culture, and a clear purpose for learning.



Do they lack a culture? Communities are formed around them, and the more time passes the more a culture of its own develops around it (a literature, audiovisual production, idioms/slang, an idiosincrasy of its own...). That is at least true with Esperanto and I'd say with other conlangs with a community large and long enough to create it. 

As for the purpose, I'd say the one for auxlangs is clear enough: to be used as auxiliary means of communication. 



LeifGoodwin said:


> And they will always benefit one group of speakers eg Indo European.



There have also been attempts to create auxlangs based on several language families. The problem here is obvious: those words which have become more 'international' have become so because of the spread of Indo-European languages over the world. So there will always be doubts about whether it's better or not to create new words for those who are already known in a majority of the main world languages (taxi, chocolate, golf, radio, etc)

Yet, I partly agree with it, and this is why I've always thought an auxlang like Esperanto would fit better for Europe, or Europe and the Americas, rather than for the whole world.



LeifGoodwin said:


> Like Greek and Latin, English will eventually cede its role to another language, such as Mandarin.



I'm not that convinced about that. If there's always been a sharp divide between two ways of seeing the world, that's been between the West and the Far East. The Chinese have never been enthusiastic about others learning their language. The fact that Classical Chinese was a lingua franca in Eastern Asia was more a product of cultural and diplomatic ties than of actual conquest. I'm convinced English will eventually cede its role indeed, although it will still be the global language for years after the influence of the US is finally gone. I'm rather prone to think that there'll be a long transitional period of several regional major languages in dispute for a global supremacy.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Penyafort said:


> Do they lack a culture? Communities are formed around them, and the more time passes the more a culture of its own develops around it (a literature, audiovisual production, idioms/slang, an idiosincrasy of its own...). That is at least true with Esperanto and I'd say with other conlangs with a community large and long enough to create it.


I should have said they lack extensive culture. I doubt there is much in the way of Esperanto podcasts, radio stations, web forums for photograph, birding etc, TV stations, films and books. English is easier to learn because of the massive cultural content readily available online. I listen to French podcasts and they are very helpful, and enjoyable. And countless apps support English learning with extensive courses.


Penyafort said:


> As for the purpose, I'd say the one for auxlangs is clear enough: to be used as auxiliary means of communication.


That assumes that American English, French (in parts of Africa) and Mandarin (in China) are insufficient as lingua francas. 


Penyafort said:


> I'm not that convinced about that. If there's always been a sharp divide between two ways of seeing the world, that's been between the West and the Far East. The Chinese have never been enthusiastic about others learning their language. The fact that Classical Chinese was a lingua franca in Eastern Asia was more a product of cultural and diplomatic ties than of actual conquest. I'm convinced English will eventually cede its role indeed, although it will still be the global language for years after the influence of the US is finally gone. I'm rather prone to think that there'll be a long transitional period of several regional major languages in dispute for a global supremacy.


You may be right. It surely depends on how economic power is distributed around the globe in years to come. At least English is unlikely to fragment as per vulgar Latin in Europe.

Interestingly India adopted English as an official language due to the British Empire, but they retained it because it solves the problem of having to choose and hence promote one native language over others.


----------



## dojibear

LeifGoodwin said:


> However, the adult brain can learn to hear and articulate new sounds in a foreign language.


One language-learning expert believes that once you can hear (distinguish) the new sounds, you can pronounce them (at least well enough to be understood). Humans are good at imitating. I can't say much in French, but when I say something I am sometimes mistaken for a fluent speaker (their reply is 34 words, not 3).

It seems like a contructed language can be learned by anyone. "Easier" or "harder" just depends on your language. If you are a native of East Asia, anything has to better than English, right? Esperanto? No problemo! Volapuk? Sehr gut! Klingon? Qer-plagh!


----------



## Red Arrow

dojibear said:


> One language-learning expert believes that once you can hear (distinguish) the new sounds, you can pronounce them (at least well enough to be understood). Humans are good at imitating.


I can hear trilled [r] very clearly, but I can't say it in words.


----------



## Penyafort

LeifGoodwin said:


> I should have said they lack extensive culture. I doubt there is much in the way of Esperanto podcasts, radio stations, web forums for photograph, birding etc, TV stations, films and books. English is easier to learn because of the massive cultural content readily available online. I listen to French podcasts and they are very helpful, and enjoyable. And countless apps support English learning with extensive courses.



That's right but unfair. I mean, you can find what you mentioned for Esperanto too, but obviously you can't expect to find the same number as you will for languages spoken by hundreds of millions. After all, we're talking about a language without a country behind, spoken almost by all of its speakers as a second (or third, fourth...) language. But this is because we're talking from a present statu quo. Only a century ago, there was more stuff for learning French, or even Latin, that there was for English. Nowadays there's a myriad of possibilities to learn Mandarin that just weren't there only three decades ago. Necessity and demand create most of the content. A new policy in the European Union that decided, from 2025 onwards, to make of Esperanto the only working language, so as to avoid much of the high expense on translation/interpretation and implement its learning as a second/third language in European schools, would make the availability of the things you mentioned change in a matter of two generations. A teenager in the 2050s would already find posting or watching videos in Esperanto the most common of things.



LeifGoodwin said:


> That assumes that American English, French (in parts of Africa) and Mandarin (in China) are insufficient as lingua francas.



There are and have been attempts in some African countries to make the colonial language stop being the lingua franca, specially in those where one native language is understood by most of the population. And Swahili works as a lingua franca for the whole Eastern Africa region. Mandarin for China is a different story, because we're talking about one single country.

The thing about supraregional or international lingua francas is that they are so because of a colonial or imperialistic past that forced it to become so. A language associated to no country or colonial action is free from that historical burden.



LeifGoodwin said:


> At least English is unlikely to fragment as per vulgar Latin in Europe.



I wouldn't be that sure either. If by 2100, the worldwide influence of England and the US is gone and an emerging African power like Nigeria, with Lagos being three times more populated than New York, becomes more and more influential, what could prevent 22nd-century Naija from being the new 'English' to learn?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Red Arrow said:


> Asking for a global language to be _stable_ is asking of the impossible. The only languages that are truly stable are dead languages.


Yes, dead languages are stable. The same is  *true* for constructed languages. It is the lack of native speakers that makes them stable. Native speakers can turn any living language into a mess of confused meanings and non-orthodox pronunciation, which makes them unsuitable for being lingua franca. Europe had a fantastic lingua franca between ca. 600 and ca. 1700 AD. It was Latin. Later codified French and to some extent German overtook. When English, in the codified British form, took over, the situation was temporarily livable, until hundreds of local native versions broke the codification limits . Today there is little left of stability in English.



Red Arrow said:


> As for pronunciation, I find American English one of the clearest languages to understand.


Compared to what? And what American dialect? And which speakers?



Red Arrow said:


> It only looks this way because English textbooks use fake phonemes that don't actually exist. Take American English ʌ, ə, ɚ and ɝ. In reality it's ə, ə, ɚ, ɚ. Students are asked to hear a difference that isn't there.


I disagree. The notation is not the culprit here. It is the vowels themselves. The English vowels are just too many and to similar to each other. Besides, the articulation of vowelse vary so much between dialects and individual speakers. And don't forget the stress timing, that practicaly removes over 30% of speech out of the understandable spectrum, and makes parts of words or whole words into grunts.



dojibear said:


> "Almost identical" seems ridiculous to me, a native English speaker. Different dialects may pronounce vowels differently, but every dialect of English clearly distinguishes all of the different vowel phonemes in English, and English uses these differences to distinguish words.


I think it is ridiculous to judge a language intended to be a vehicle of international communication from the perspective of a native speaker.
The English vowels *do* sound almost identical to most *non native speakers*, and this is the fact.



Penyafort said:


> The fact is, there's a reason why the realization of these five vowels is considered as the most simple -even if languages with as many vowels as English may not have them- and why they're preferred. Probably too because they allow for a variety of realizations,


To the point!


----------



## Red Arrow

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, dead languages are stable. The same is  true for constructed languages. It is the lack of native speakers that makes them stable.


This is a fallacy. Any healthy language *is* or *will* get native speakers. If a constructed language ever gains enough friction and starts being used as a lingua franca, then people will start using it in big cities to speak to speakers with another native language. And then eventually there will be children that grow up in a household where the constructed language is spoken, because their parents have always communited with each other in the constructed language. They will be native speakers.

Similarly, only 5% of Indonesia spoke Indonesian/Malay in 1945, so about 3.5 million native speakers. By 2010, there were 43 million native speakers, mostly living in urban areas (and 156 second language speakers).


Ben Jamin said:


> The English vowels *do* sound almost identical to most *non native speakers*, and this is the fact.


I am not a native English speaker and these words don't sound alike to me: bat, bet, bit, bot, but, bate, beat, bite, boat, boot, bout, Bart

Neither do these words: fee, foe, few, far, fair, fear, for, fur

Or these words: lack, lick, lock, look, lake, leek, like, Luke, Loic, lurk


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Red Arrow said:


> I can hear trilled [r] very clearly, but I can't say it in words.


I assume you have looked for tutorials on YouTube? I have found some very good ones for German sounds that I am trying to master. It took me a long long time to learn the guttural r sound of French and German (and at least one English dialect) as it is so alien for most English speakers.


Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, dead languages are stable. The same is  *true* for constructed languages. It is the lack of native speakers that makes them stable. Native speakers can turn any living language into a mess of confused meanings and non-orthodox pronunciation, which makes them unsuitable for being lingua franca. Europe had a fantastic lingua franca between ca. 600 and ca. 1700 AD. It was Latin. Later codified French and to some extent German overtook. When English, in the codified British form, took over, the situation was temporarily livable, until hundreds of local native versions broke the codification limits . Today there is little left of stability in English.


There never was a codified British form of English, rather there was a form of English that was spoken by the ruling classes which was propagated through public (private) schools and social mixing. The vast majority of British people would have spoken English dialects, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Scots and even Cornish. Anyone who did not speak ‘posh’ would most likely have been looked down on and treated with disdain. 

What has happened is that English dialects have come closer to Standard Southern British English, and the latter has become less aloof, and more mainstream. I believe the same sort of process has happened in France, although I am not a fan of the high brow French accent.


Red Arrow said:


> This is a fallacy. Any healthy language *is* or *will* get native speakers. If a constructed language ever gains enough friction and starts being used as a lingua franca, then people will start using it in big cities to speak to speakers with another native language. And then eventually there will be children that grow up in a household where the constructed language is spoken, because their parents have always communited with each other in the constructed language. They will be native speakers.


There are an awful lot of implied ifs in the above. The reality is that today constructed languages are very limited in their usefulness. I can listen to fantastic music in French, such as Lisa Leblanc and Jean Leloup, and there’s plenty too in German. Hebrew came back from the dead because of an underlying ideology ie Judaism and Zionism. Latin is pretty much dead. Cornish is struggling to gain traction. Irish is dying. Manx is barely out of a coma. Learning a language is hard work.



Ben Jamin said:


> I disagree. The notation is not the culprit here. It is the vowels themselves. The English vowels are just too many and to similar to each other. Besides, the articulation of vowelse vary so much between dialects and individual speakers. And don't forget the stress timing, that practicaly removes over 30% of speech out of the understandable spectrum, and makes parts of words or whole words into grunts.


What about French which uses syllable timing? People such as myself who are used to stress timing find syllable timing a nightmare, and when you throw in *l’enchaînement*, I start nibbling the soft furnishings. How on earth do you know where words start and end? How do you know if someone said *le manteau élégant* or *le manteau et les gants* when they sound the same? I got a translation wrong in a French course because I wrote down exactly what I heard, and the different but accepted answer sounded identical. Both were grammatically correct and semantically plausible. As a beginner at German I can at least distinguish the words when someone speaks German. I don’t know if Spanish and Italian which are also syllable timed have the same problem as French for speakers of stress timed languages.

Plenty of people learn English as a second language and have an acceptable accent. All languages have accents. Look at Arabic, speakers from Iraq and Libya will not understand each other.

All languages have issues for some people, even artificial ones. They all require hard work to achieve fluency.


----------



## Red Arrow

LeifGoodwin said:


> There are an awful lot of implied ifs in the above. The reality is that today constructed languages are very limited in their usefulness. I can listen to fantastic music in French, such as Lisa Leblanc and Jean Leloup, and there’s plenty too in German. Hebrew came back from the dead because of an underlying ideology ie Judaism and Zionism. Latin is pretty much dead. Cornish is struggling to gain traction. Irish is dying. Manx is barely out of a coma. Learning a language is hard work.


I think you misquoted me  I never said constructed languages are or ever will be useful. I said that _if_ one ever becomes a lingua franca, then it will inevitably get native speakers and it will inevitably change.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Red Arrow said:


> I think you misquoted me  I never said constructed languages are or ever will be useful. I said that _if_ one ever becomes a lingua franca, then it will inevitably get native speakers and it will inevitably change.


Well I did just quote the entire paragraph without any editing. How would one become a lingua france if it were not useful? Isn’t this a chicken and egg situation? Hebrew was revived exactly because it had deep cultural significance for one group of people, who previously only used it in a liturgical manner, so it wasn’t truly dead, or nailed to its perch. It would be quite amusing to hibernate for 500 years, and on waking hear Klingon spoken as the world language.


----------



## Red Arrow

LeifGoodwin said:


> How would one become a lingua france if it were not useful?


Read my posts as: "if we lived in a fantasy world where Esperanto was successful in some places..."

I am not arguing that Esperanto is useful. My argument is that Esperanto would become as imperfect as English if it were to dethrone English. (Well, maybe not with regards to spelling)


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Red Arrow said:


> Read my posts as: "if we lived in a fantasy world where Esperanto was successful in some places..."
> 
> I am not arguing that Esperanto is useful. My argument is that Esperanto would become as imperfect as English if it were to dethrone English. (Well, maybe not with regards to spelling)


Ah okay, that sounds eminently reasonable. 

English orthography badly needs reforming …


----------



## Penyafort

Ben Jamin said:


> The same is  *true* for constructed languages. It is the lack of native speakers that makes them stable. Native speakers can turn any living language into a mess of confused meanings and non-orthodox pronunciation, which makes them unsuitable for being lingua franca.





Red Arrow said:


> If a constructed language ever gains enough friction and starts being used as a lingua franca, then people will start using it in big cities to speak to speakers with another native language. And then eventually there will be children that grow up in a household where the constructed language is spoken, because their parents have always communited with each other in the constructed language. They will be native speakers.



Esperanto has a few hundreds of native speakers, although most of them have always been children with more than one native language, as obviously they had to acquire the local natural language as soon as they left home. This means that the changes studied on those children -with regard to how different their native Esperanto was from that of L2 speakers- had to do with influence from their other native languages above all. But some common things detected in many of them as well as in very fluent L2 adult speakers, such as not using the accusative ending or creating new understandable words from the productive affixational system (like _mal-_ for opposites), are a hint to what might possibly happen if it ever were to become a lingua franca.



Red Arrow said:


> My argument is that Esperanto would become as imperfect as English if it were to dethrone English. (Well, maybe not with regards to spelling)



It probably would but in the very long run. Local languages would exert an influence on the way the language would be spoken in that country's capital and eventually change it. But the regular nature of the language, an easier phonology and spelling, and the comprehensibility of the new lexicon could help it last even longer than Latin did before either the dethronement, or the split into several creolised _idos _('descendants').


----------



## dojibear

I strongly suspect that the English used nowadays as a _lingua franca _(to communicate with each other by native speakers of Malay and Vietnamese, for example) is a small subset of English, using a subset of its sounds -- and pronouncing these sounds in a way that sounds natural in Malay or Vietnamese, not in the US or UK.

In my mind, there are two different issues:

(1) Esperanto as a _lingua franca_, used by people *in addition to *their native language, much as Latin was used in Europe by scientists and scholars from 600 to 1700. I think Latin was used much more in writing than in speech.

(2) Esperanto as a primary language, that people speak *instead of *some language like English.

The "too many sounds" issue is an issue for English used as (2), but not as (1).


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> I strongly suspect that the English used nowadays as a _lingua franca _(to communicate with each other by native speakers of Malay and Vietnamese, for example) is a small subset of English, using a subset of its sounds -- and pronouncing these sounds in a way that sounds natural in Malay or Vietnamese, not in the US or UK.



Even in Europe there's a postulated _Euro English_. English as spoken by the British or Irish is very different from the one used by, say, three Erasmus students from Greece, Poland and Spain trying to communicate.



dojibear said:


> (2) Esperanto as a primary language, that people speak *instead of *some language like English.



As far as I know, its aim has always been to be an international auxiliary language, never a primary one.


----------



## dojibear

You mean that I could learn (in addition to my native language) Esperanto, instead of Spanish *and *French *and *Greek *and *Russian *and *Chinese *and*...

Sounds great! Where do I sign up?


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> You mean that I could learn (in addition to my native language) Esperanto, instead of Spanish *and *French *and *Greek *and *Russian *and *Chinese *and*...



One should always be free to learn as many languages as one can!

One thing I can guarantee: you'd learn in a year what it'd take three or four to learn in the ones you mentioned.


----------



## Apollodorus

Penyafort said:


> No doubt _some_ are, me included. But the segment of the population who do is minimal. Most do it just because they have to, not out of personal pleasure. Only much later in life many of them get to see that it was useful in many a way --or they regret not paying more attention.


I’m not entirely convinced that kids are naturally disinclined to learn new languages. My guess is that a lot of it has to do with the culture or environment they’ve been brought up in. If parents encourage their children to learn languages and speak some foreign languages themselves, then presumably there will be less resistance on the children’s part.



Penyafort said:


> However, to me it will always be the only constructed language that has been successful.


I don’t deny that Esperanto has been relatively successful (in comparison with other constructed languages). However, in terms of the purpose of constructed languages I’m not sure it is fully justified to believe that speaking one language will necessarily make the world a better place.

I think it’s fair to say that individual Esperantists seem to have been rather more successful than the language itself. See, for example, George Soros who apparently has an Esperanto surname meaning “will soar” (List of Esperanto speakers – Wikipedia).

My main reservation though, is that Esperanto seems to have been compromised by its earlier religious and political connotations. According to Wikipedia it found many adherents among religionists with an universalist outlook like the Baha’is, including Zamenhof’s daughter Lidia:

“Around 1925 she became a member of the Baháʼí Faith. In late 1937 she went to the United States to teach that religion as well as Esperanto. In December 1938 she returned to Poland, where she continued to teach and translated many Baháʼí writings …”.

So, the language itself appears to have played more of an auxiliary role to a larger religious and political project at least from the late 1880s to the 1930s.

Besides, as has been noted before, Esperanto is essentially a European language which raises the same issues of cultural imperialism as English. IMO a truly universal language ought to be more inclusive and contain a broader range of linguistic elements. And it should be chosen by the general public, not by self-appointed elite groups bent on “improving the world” according to their own definition of the concept.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Penyafort said:


> Esperanto has a few hundreds of native speakers, although most of them have always been children with more than one native language, as obviously they had to acquire the local natural language as soon as they left home. This means that the changes studied on those children -with regard to how different their native Esperanto was from that of L2 speakers- had to do with influence from their other native languages above all. But some common things detected in many of them as well as in very fluent L2 adult speakers, such as not using the accusative ending or creating new understandable words from the productive affixational system (like _mal-_ for opposites), are a hint to what might possibly happen if it ever were to become a lingua franca.


This just confirms that a constructed language without native speakers is more stable. As I said: it is the native speakers that can destabilize a constructed language. Without native speakres nobody will hav authority or authorization to introduce changes to the language. The second language speakers will have to conform to the language spoken and written by other non native speakers. There will occur situations when new words will have to be invented, but this should be handled by a regulation committee of the given conlang.


----------



## Ben Jamin

LeifGoodwin said:


> There never was a codified British form of English, rather there was a form of English that was spoken by the ruling classes which was propagated through public (private) schools and social mixing. The vast majority of British people would have spoken English dialects, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Scots and even Cornish. Anyone who did not speak ‘posh’ would most likely have been looked down on and treated with disdain.


Really? And what kind of English was taught in schools in Britain and in English as second language classes all over the world (except for places where American language was taught). All English for foreigners manuals and dictionaries presented a highly standardized form of British English, in pronunciation, spelling, lexis, grammar and style. They still exist, and are in use, even if (allegedly) all standardization of English in Britain has disappeared.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Red Arrow said:


> This is a fallacy. Any healthy language *is* or *will* get native speakers. If a constructed language ever gains enough friction and starts being used as a lingua franca, then people will start using it in big cities to speak to speakers with another native language. And then eventually there will be children that grow up in a household where the constructed language is spoken, because their parents have always communited with each other in the constructed language. They will be native speakers.
> 
> Similarly, only 5% of Indonesia spoke Indonesian/Malay in 1945, so about 3.5 million native speakers. By 2010, there were 43 million native speakers, mostly living in urban areas (and 156 second language speakers).
> 
> I am not a native English speaker and these words don't sound alike to me: bat, bet, bit, bot, but, bate, beat, bite, boat, boot, bout, Bart
> 
> Neither do these words: fee, foe, few, far, fair, fear, for, fur
> 
> Or these words: lack, lick, lock, look, lake, leek, like, Luke, Loic, lurk


Then you are an exceptionally talented second language speaker, and probably only exposed to a little group of selected native speakers. I wrote about the ordinary people who constitute 90% of users of English as second language.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Ben Jamin said:


> Really? And what kind of English was taught in schools in Britain and in English as second language classes all over the world (except for places where American language was taught). All English for foreigners manuals and dictionaries presented a highly standardized form of British English, in pronunciation, spelling, lexis, grammar and style. They still exist, and are in use, even if (allegedly) all standardization of English in Britain has disappeared.


You were referring to a period hundreds of years ago, and schooling in Britain would have been rather limited. Around 1800 my ancestors were living in slums with rudimentary sanitation. Even in the nineteenth century schooling for the masses was limited, and they went out to work full time at a young age. Most people were working class and would have spoken dialect. My ancestors worked in cotton mills and mines. There is a famous example of a northerner speaking on either radio or TV sometime in the first half of the twentieth century and he was accompanied by a ‘translator’ who spoke RP or so called standard English. As I said, the ruling classes would have spoken a so called standard English, and the middle classes would aspire to imitate them. British English today is a lot more standardised, though there is still a clear north south divide, and of course Scots and Welsh English can be distinct. And many posh accents have come closer to everyday speech. Look at King Charles (old style posh), and his sons (new style posh).

I didn’t realise how different American English is from British English until I kept mistranslating English phrases on Duolingo, because they didn’t mean what I thought they meant.


----------



## LeifGoodwin

Apollodorus said:


> I’m not entirely convinced that kids are naturally disinclined to learn new languages. My guess is that a lot of it has to do with the culture or environment they’ve been brought up in. If parents encourage their children to learn languages and speak some foreign languages themselves, then presumably there will be less resistance on the children’s part.


I suspect you are right. A Welsh friend tried to teach her two sons Welsh. They are now 11 or 12. I think they understand some of it, but they won’t speak it and say it is too hard. Their father is monoglot English, which does not help. And yet I’ve met countless people who grew up speaking two, three or even four languages. I suffered five years of French at school, from the age of 11, and I loathed it. Old style language lessons kill the joy, for some of us anyway. I have a feeling the learning environment is key, make it fun and natural and they learn.


Apollodorus said:


> I don’t deny that Esperanto has been relatively successful (in comparison with other constructed languages). However, in terms of the purpose of constructed languages I’m not sure it is fully justified to believe that speaking one language will necessarily make the world a better place.


I recently read a bit about Esperanto, and to me it feels like Latin made easy, and I can now see the appeal. However, part of the appeal of French, in my case, is learning how another nation thinks, and how they live.


----------



## dojibear

Apollodorus said:


> I’m not entirely convinced that kids are naturally disinclined to learn new languages.


I think it is more accurate to say that some kids are and some kids are not, rather than lumping all kids together. And I don't think it is usually parental pressure, although that might true in some cases.

My US high school had optional courses in Latin, French, and Spanish (4 years of each). My high school had no language requirements, and in my region everyone spoke English. So it seems likely that the kids who chose these courses were not disinclined. I was unusually interested in languages, so I took 2 years of Latin and 3 years of Spanish, and audited the French 4 class. My friends did not take any language classes. My sister and brother had no interest in languages -- we shared other things: musicality, religion, groaning at dad's corny jokes, etc. 

It's just like music  -- some kids are eager, some kids are interested, and some kids are disinclined. It's a mistake (in my opinion) for schools to make language study mandatory.



LeifGoodwin said:


> Old style language lessons kill the joy, for some of us anyway. I have a feeling the learning environment is key, make it fun and natural and they learn.


I agree. Stephen Krashen's "comprehensible input" theory says the same thing, and is popular nowadays among foreign language teachers.

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition


----------



## Penyafort

Apollodorus said:


> I’m not entirely convinced that kids are naturally disinclined to learn new languages.


I didn't say so. Some are, some aren't. I think dojibear has just explained it quite well above.



Apollodorus said:


> My main reservation though, is that Esperanto seems to have been compromised by its earlier religious and political connotations. According to Wikipedia it found many adherents among religionists with an universalist outlook like the Baha’is, including Zamenhof’s daughter Lidia:
> 
> “Around 1925 she became a member of the Baháʼí Faith. In late 1937 she went to the United States to teach that religion as well as Esperanto. In December 1938 she returned to Poland, where she continued to teach and translated many Baháʼí writings …”.
> 
> So, the language itself appears to have played more of an auxiliary role to a larger religious and political project at least from the late 1880s to the 1930s.


I don't think that's fair. The concept of a universal religion or rather of a spiritual philosophy called Homanarismo 'Humanitism' died almost as soon as the language became trendy among some French secular intellectuals. Linking it to Bahaism would make just as much sense as linking English to slavery. The sacred texts of the Bahaists are in Persian and Arabic.



Apollodorus said:


> Besides, as has been noted before, Esperanto is essentially a European language which raises the same issues of cultural imperialism as English.


I don't think so. Cultural imperialism is the result of an Empire imposing its culture upon others. Esperanto doesn't belong to any Empire and hasn't ever imposed its culture, which can be associated to an international community but not to a specified place. At most, one could call it Eurocentric, there I'd agree. But not really a 'Western imperialistic' thing, otherwise it'd had never had such coverage in countries like China.



Apollodorus said:


> IMO a truly universal language ought to be more inclusive and contain a broader range of linguistic elements. And it should be chosen by the general public, not by self-appointed elite groups bent on “improving the world” according to their own definition of the concept.


I totally agree with the first part. But I don't think it should be chosen by the general public, but by a world-wide widespread section of the population who were knowledgeable about language. I'm not talking about elites, or politicians, but by linguists, teachers, writers, journalists, etc. I'm being a bit utopian here, granted.



Ben Jamin said:


> There will occur situations when new words will have to be invented, but this should be handled by a regulation committee of the given conlang.


The creator himself suggested that there should be a language committee since the very first world Esperanto congress at the beginning of the 20th century. So the language has been officially regulated for more than a century.


----------



## Hulalessar

Apollodorus said:


> IMO a truly universal language ought to be more inclusive and contain a broader range of linguistic elements.


Trying to please everyone you will end up pleasing no one.


----------



## Dymn

Getting the ball rolling is the most difficult part. It's not something that could ever be done if it depended on the people alone. I'm sure there would need to be at least some strong encouragement from international institutions, like the EU, to gain traction. If it's not something that has happened nationally or regionally (no conlang is a regional lingua franca), it's unlikely to happen on a global scale. That doesn't mean people are against it, it's just that there are no incentives to learn Esperanto as of today.


----------



## dojibear

Apollodorus said:


> Esperanto is essentially a European language... IMO a truly universal language ought to be more inclusive and contain a broader range of linguistic elements.


I agreed initially, but I am having second thoughts. What linguistic elements? In general, I think excluding elements (from various human languages) is more important than including elements (from various human languages).

Sounds: I don't think we should include sounds from everywhere. Instead, we should use sounds that most people can hear and speak. Esperanto probably already does that. Spanish and Japanese come close. English does not.

Some features exist in different forms. You have to choose one form. Word order (Japanese/Korean or Spanish/French or something else?). Singular/plural. Past/present/future. Noun declension (endings? particles? word order?). Proper names. Quoted text.

Some features are difficult to understand, if your native language lacks them (articles; subjunctive mood; continuous verbs). An interlang should avoid these if possible. And it should avoid idioms. On the other hand, the interlang needs to express ideas. So it needs a lot of features.


----------



## Hulalessar

Post 102 sets out the difficulties faced by anyone setting out to devise a conlang with universal appeal. There are two basic approaches to devising a conlang which are not mutually exclusive:

_A posteriori_: This is essentially a language which combines elements of existing languages removing perceived difficulties such as irregularities and inconsistencies. A conlang which is a synthesis of Romance languages is not going to be attractive to someone who does not know a Romance language or English. Something like an economic report in such a language will probably be understood by anyone knowing a Romance language, but more mundane texts are likely to be problematic. Consider the following French/Spanish pairs:

Table: table - mesa
Fork: fourchette - tenedor
Floor: plancher - suelo
Chair: chaise - silla
Tap: robinet - grifo
Pencil: crayon - lápiz
Leg: jambe - pierna
Head: tête - cabeza
Yellow: jaune - amarillo
Bed: lit - cama

The wider the range of languages chosen the less intelligible the conlang is going to be.

_A priori_: This is a conlang not based on any existing language. Unless created for amusement, _a priori_ languages tend to be based on a system of classification devised by their creators. The idea is that you can proceed from the simple to the complicated by logical steps. The snag is that any system aiming to cover human experience as expressed in language will find that it far too messy to be neatly packaged.

A conlang may take as a starting point that many natural languages use affixes, enclitics and particles to impart different meanings to roots. However, natural languages are conventions which have evolved. Inconsistencies abound reflecting what speakers need to express. If a conlang assigns a specific task to an affix it may be faced with a number of options which it can express. Any natural language has by convention decided what the effect will be of combining a root and an affix or two roots. It may go further and decide the word so formed should have both a literal and transferred meaning. It may go on to abandon the literal meaning so that the transferred meaning is not apparent from the elements which make it up.

If you have a conlang which allows you to construct a word which means "place where sick people are" you have to decide what it is going to refer to if it is to be precise rather than generic. The likely choice is that it means "hospital". However, what you have done is impose a meaning when the whole idea was that the meaning should have been apparent. You are also faced with the problem of finding words for places other than hospitals where sick people are to be found.


----------



## Dymn

I don't think it's difficult at all to devise a language that's easier to learn than most languages. It may not be perfect, as if it was some sort of mathematical language, but we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Grammar should be an average taking into account the most spoken languages worldwide, and without irregularities. Phonology should be a bit more conservative than average so most of the world can tell apart all of the phonemes.

Vocabulary is the thorny issue. There's a trade-off between easy (which would necessarily mean Eurocentric, with some scatterings of Arabic), and culturally neutral (which would mean making it equally difficult for everybody, with made up morphemes). In both cases though, it's a good idea to make ample use of affixes and compounds. "Sick-house" for "hospital" is a good idea, and it already is the case in a couple of natural languages. Other places with sick people can get other names.

As for how that language would evolve, I'm sure there would be new words, changes in meaning, however if the vast share of the speaker base is non-native, it wouldn't change that much. It would deviate from perfect, but as I said it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place.

Anyway, the main problem an auxiliary language faces is not internal but external. It's the same thing for natural languages, of course. English is not the global lingua franca because it's easy but because it happens to be the language of the global superpower.


----------



## dojibear

Dymn said:


> I don't think it's difficult at all to devise a language


I think it's difficult to devise a complete language. But by "difficult" I mean "a huge amount of work", not "insurmountable challenges". Even after you devise the linguistic rules (several man-years) there are tens of thousands of words to create.



Dymn said:


> a language that's easier to learn than most languages.


I agree that is not difficult. After all, you have so many _a posteriori_ examples to choose from. What does everybody struggle with when learning English, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Korean? Those are 5 lists of things to avoid.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Penyafort said:


> The creator himself suggested that there should be a language committee since the very first world Esperanto congress at the beginning of the 20th century. So the language has been officially regulated for more than a century.


My comment was about a new conlang for international communication, not Esperanto. Esperanto was a good try, but it has some flaw and weak points. The author was a genius, but he was a hobby linguist. 

A new conlang should be created using more scientific methods for optimizing all the features. The first role it could play is a hub for translations between various languages. We can see what weird results we get when English is used as a hub for translation between e.g. Chinese and Spanish. The hub language must have words for all concepts, and be based on one to one principle: one word one meaning, one meaning one word.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Dymn said:


> I don't think it's difficult at all to devise a language that's easier to learn than most languages. It may not be perfect, as if it was some sort of mathematical language, but we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> 
> Grammar should be an average taking into account the most spoken languages worldwide, and without irregularities. Phonology should be a bit more conservative than average so most of the world can tell apart all of the phonemes.
> 
> Vocabulary is the thorny issue. There's a trade-off between easy (which would necessarily mean Eurocentric, with some scatterings of Arabic), and culturally neutral (which would mean making it equally difficult for everybody, with made up morphemes). In both cases though, it's a good idea to make ample use of affixes and compounds. "Sick-house" for "hospital" is a good idea, and it already is the case in a couple of natural languages. Other places with sick people can get other names.
> 
> As for how that language would evolve, I'm sure there would be new words, changes in meaning, however if the vast share of the speaker base is non-native, it wouldn't change that much. It would deviate from perfect, but as I said it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place.
> 
> Anyway, the main problem an auxiliary language faces is not internal but external. It's the same thing for natural languages, of course. English is not the global lingua franca because it's easy but because it happens to be the language of the global superpower.


A very good list of important qualities for the new language. But I don't think that we should emphasise "easiness" so much. The conlang should be transparent, congruent and systematic, without irritating irregularities, but we should not exagerate structural simplicity. A language must have a minimum of features that make the message precise and unambiguous, and this indicates that words should have suffixes indicating its relation to other words.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> English is not the global lingua franca because it's easy but because it happens to be the language of the global superpower.


I would rephrase that as:_ English is not the global lingua franca because it's easy but because it happens to be the language of a former global superpower_. English was spread across a significant part of the globe by the British Empire. This map shows the territories that were at one time or another part of the British Empire. The rise of the USA as a global superpower has consolidated the position of English and helped to expand its influence.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> A language must have a minimum of features that make the message precise and unambiguous, and this indicates that words should have suffixes indicating its relation to other words.


Many languages do not have suffixes with syntactic functions and are capable of being precise and unambiguous. English has fewer than ten and gets along nicely.


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> I agreed initially, but I am having second thoughts. What linguistic elements? In general, I think excluding elements (from various human languages) is more important than including elements (from various human languages).



Exactly. In fact, that's what creoles do for the sake of easiness.



dojibear said:


> Sounds: I don't think we should include sounds from everywhere. Instead, we should use sounds that most people can hear and speak. Esperanto probably already does that. Spanish and Japanese come close. English does not.



Esperanto does... for a general European ear. But it includes many sounds and combinations that are difficult for many speakers from other language families.

The logical thing would be to reduce it to A-I-U + P-T-K-M-N-L-S + Y-W. They seem to be the most common among most main languages, although you will still see one of them missing in one major language or another. Most notably P in Arabic.



dojibear said:


> Some features exist in different forms. You have to choose one form. Word order (Japanese/Korean or Spanish/French or something else?).



The most common thing is subject before object. That is, S+V+O or V+S+O.



dojibear said:


> Noun declension.



Avoid it. You won't see creoles with it. Even English and most Romance languages got rid of it. And most languages with declensions tend to use some of them less and less.



Hulalessar said:


> Consider the following French/Spanish pairs:
> 
> Table: table - mesa
> Fork: fourchette - tenedor
> Floor: plancher - suelo
> Chair: chaise - silla
> Tap: robinet - grifo
> Pencil: crayon - lápiz
> Leg: jambe - pierna
> Head: tête - cabeza
> Yellow: jaune - amarillo
> Bed: lit - cama



One must always bear in mind, though, possible connections a speaker might do. A Spanih speaker might relate _table_ to _tabla_, _lit_ (lect-) to _lecho_, and even tête to _testa/testuz_, or _jambe to gamba/jamba (_door's "leg"_)/jamón_, depending on the speaker's linguistic ability.



Hulalessar said:


> The wider the range of languages chosen the less intelligible the conlang is going to be.



In my opinion, it should be a good balance. Not more than twenty, and I'd reduce it to the five macrocultural ones, the six or seven macroregional modern ones, and a few major representatives from other families which are also spoken by more than fifty millions.



Ben Jamin said:


> The hub language must have words for all concepts, and be based on one to one principle: one word one meaning, one meaning one word.



That's always a starting point for most conlangs. But I guess one can't help attributing meanings of the native language to some words, or even idioms from time to time. If some become majoritarian, I don't see why not accepting them eventually, after consensus. We must not forget that sometimes shortness prevails over clarity in all languages of the world.


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> I think it's difficult to devise a complete language.


Any natural language is above all a convention which is a means of communication between humans. It is something of a contradiction in terms to make up a language as all languages have evolved organically by people interacting. A complete language can only be something people use.


----------



## elroy

Hulalessar said:


> It is something of a contradiction in terms to make up a language as all languages have evolved organically by people interacting.


Thank you.  It's like plastic surgery.


----------



## Penyafort

Prescriptive grammar rules by formal institutions, solutions privileged for the standard register in the media, entries accepted by official dictionaries, forms chosen by most prestigious writers, varieties chosen for education of it whether as a first or foreign language... Let's be honest, the main examples of all the so-called 'natural' languages have underwent much nip and tuck all the same during their process of codifying and standardization. Not to mention how _unnatural_ the current use of some ancient/classical varieties of living or once living languages can also be.


----------



## Apollodorus

Penyafort said:


> Esperanto doesn't belong to any Empire and hasn't ever imposed its culture, which can be associated to an international community but not to a specified place. At most, one could call it Eurocentric, there I'd agree. But not really a 'Western imperialistic' thing, otherwise it'd had never had such coverage in countries like China.


Esperanto may or may not belong to an empire. But the original idea seems to have been to propagate the language together with a specific religious and political philosophy, i.e., _culture_. It failed to impose that culture because it failed to impose itself.

China is a dictatorship which is very good at borrowing things from others for its own agendas. I’m not convinced it is using Esperanto differently from other things it has borrowed (or stolen).


----------



## Apollodorus

Hulalessar said:


> Trying to please everyone you will end up pleasing no one.


That's entirely possible. But (1) Esperanto hasn't pleased that many, anyway and (2) being a tad more inclusive, at least as a symbolic gesture, isn't "trying to please everyone".


----------



## Hulalessar

Penyafort said:


> Prescriptive grammar rules by formal institutions, solutions privileged for the standard register in the media, entries accepted by official dictionaries, forms chosen by most prestigious writers, varieties chosen for education of it whether as a first or foreign language... Let's be honest, the main examples of all the so-called 'natural' languages have underwent much nip and tuck all the same during their process of codifying and standardization. Not to mention how _unnatural_ the current use of some ancient/classical varieties of living or once living languages can also be.


Speech and writing, though related, are two different things. All writing to a greater or less extent involves artificiality. The degree varies. A standard language may (a) reflect an earlier stage of a language (b) be subject to deliberate archaising (c) be a compromise mixture of two or more dialects. There will always be some degree of diglossia, in some cases so extreme that children have to be taught the standard as if it were a foreign language. The point is though that written standards are conventions used by identifiable social units and conlangs are not.


----------



## Red Arrow

Penyafort said:


> The logical thing would be to reduce it to A-I-U + P-T-K-M-N-L-S + Y-W. They seem to be the most common among most main languages, although you will still see one of them missing in one major language or another. Most notably P in Arabic.


I find it interesting to think about what such a language would be like.* People don't usually pause between words (unlike in written text where there are literally spaces between every word), so they need hints to make a series of syllables intelligible:

1) If a language has regular stress (for example: always on the first syllable, on the last syllable or on the penultimate syllable), then you know where (a lot of) words start.
2) Context
3) Small grammatical words, prefixes and suffixes help enormously.
4) Word order
5) Some languages only have very small words and thus don't need phonemic stress, but this requires a rich phonology in order to still have enough words. For instance, Mandarin Chinese words only consist of one or two syllables, but there are 19 consonant phonemes, 2 vowel phonemes, 3 glides and 5 tonemes, so you can make a lot of syllables. Mandarin Chinese currently has 2080 syllables. In comparison, Hawaiian has 25 vowel phonemes (including long vowels and diphtongues) and 8 consonant phonemes, so a total of 225 syllables. This means that Hawaiian needs relatively long words and the main stress is completely predictable.

If your constructed language has the syllable structure (C)V(C) and there can be 11 syllable nuclei (a, i, u, ay, uy, aw, iw, ya, yu, wa, wi), then you end up with a mere 8x11x8 = 704 syllables. You would end up would a Hawaiian-like language.

English has roughly 10 000 syllables, but it's hard to count because it depends on the accent.

(*But not interesting enough to actually acquire such a lifeless language)


----------



## LeifGoodwin

dojibear said:


> I agree that is not difficult. After all, you have so many _a posteriori_ examples to choose from. What does everybody struggle with when learning English, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Korean? Those are 5 lists of things to avoid.


Japanese people find Korean relatively straightforward and vice versa. English is relatively easy as it is a sort of creole or pidgin, using word order rather than declensions. You will always find one group unhappy with one or more features of a synthetic language. 

I beleive it will always be the case that the vast majority of people who acquire one or more foreign languages will do so for pragmatic reasons such as job, family or culture. Idealism is probably low on the list for all but a few.


----------



## Penyafort

Apollodorus said:


> China is a dictatorship which is very good at borrowing things from others for its own agendas. I’m not convinced it is using Esperanto differently from other things it has borrowed (or stolen).


I'd say they just got interested in the idea that a global working language coming from the West could be one different from English. One easy to teach and learn, and not associated to a specific power.



Hulalessar said:


> Speech and writing, though related, are two different things. All writing to a greater or less extent involves artificiality. The degree varies. A standard language may (a) reflect an earlier stage of a language (b) be subject to deliberate archaising (c) be a compromise mixture of two or more dialects. There will always be some degree of diglossia, in some cases so extreme that children have to be taught the standard as if it were a foreign language. The point is though that written standards are conventions used by identifiable social units and conlangs are not.


Those conventions, though, can end up looking very artificial to those speakers whose variety is one of the furthest apart from the closest to the more standard-looking one. It doesn't matter how identifiable those social units are if it really feels very artificial at the end of the day.



Red Arrow said:


> I find it interesting to think about what such a language would be like.* People don't usually pause between words (unlike in written text where there are literally spaces between every word), so they need hints to make a series of syllables intelligible:
> 
> 1) If a language has regular stress (for example: always on the first syllable, on the last syllable or on the penultimate syllable), then you know where (a lot of) words start.


I think stress needs to be regular indeed, but that doesn't mean it always have to fall upon the same syllable. Even Esperanto allows to chop final -o's (regular noun ending) in order to turn paroxytonic words into oxytonic ones and give room for some variation in stress pattern, something particularly useful in poetry, songs, etc.



Red Arrow said:


> 5) Some languages only have very small words and thus don't need phonemic stress, but this requires a rich phonology in order to still have enough words. For instance, Mandarin Chinese words only consist of one or two syllables, but there are 19 consonant phonemes, 2 vowel phonemes, 3 glides and 5 tonemes, so you can make a lot of syllables. Mandarin Chinese currently has 2080 syllables. In comparison, Hawaiian has 25 vowel phonemes (including long vowels and diphtongues) and 8 consonant phonemes, so a total of 225 syllables. This means that Hawaiian needs relatively long words and the main stress is completely predictable.
> 
> If your constructed language has the syllable structure (C)V(C) and there can be 11 syllable nuclei (a, i, u, ay, uy, aw, iw, ya, yu, wa, wi), then you end up with a mere 8x11x8 = 704 syllables. You would end up would a Hawaiian-like language.


I agree. Even more if, say, we reduced syllable-ending consonants to just [n], which is what we know is most common, most notably in Japanese. 

The question would be: would you really need many more, for a language supposed to be easy to learn? If the regular derivational system is rich enough, as in Esperanto, would a number of one-word basic roots lower than 1,000 really be a problem?


----------



## Red Arrow

Penyafort said:


> The question would be: would you really need many more, for a language supposed to be easy to learn? If the regular derivational system is rich enough, as in Esperanto, would a number of *one-word basic roots* lower than 1,000 really be a problem?


Do you mean one-syllable basic roots? I think 704 basic roots + affixes would be way too little, although the minimalist constructed language Toki Pona only has 137 words and a couple of particles, but it is an incredibly ambiguous language. For instance, there is no difference between feet, toe and leg. There are also only four numbers: zero/no/nothing, one, two and multiple/many  I think any language with less than 2000 roots is impractical.

Some people say Japanese only has 50 syllables, but in reality Japanese has differences in pitch, nasality and consonant length, bringing the number of actual syllables closer to 400. On top of that, Japanese roots are 1 to 5 syllables long.


----------



## Dymn

dojibear said:


> I think it's difficult to devise a complete language. But by "difficult" I mean "a huge amount of work", not "insurmountable challenges". Even after you devise the linguistic rules (several man-years) there are tens of thousands of words to create.


Of course, it's laborious. The thing with languages is that the vocabulary and grammar points are endless, so we shouldn't aspire to "completeness" (which is by definition impossible) but I think it's feasible enough to cover 99.9% of the vocabulary/grammar you need, especially if the primary use is just as a lingua franca. Beyond that, you get diminishing returns. The task of adding new vocabulary, tournures, past that point is best left to speakers.

Something I don't like about Esperanto is their obsession with having "no irregularities" at all. Instead of accepting most placenames are best left in the local language, they have to shoehorn all new words into their phonetic and morphological rules. This list of Spanish provinces is hilarious.



Ben Jamin said:


> The hub language must have words for all concepts, and be based on one to one principle: one word one meaning, one meaning one word.


That could be a separate project. What constitutes a "meaning" is really fuzzy. If we set to create words such that they always have the same translations in even a small number a languages, you get too many words for it to be practical as a spoken language.



Hulalessar said:


> I would rephrase that as:_ English is not the global lingua franca because it's easy but because it happens to be the language of a former global superpower_.


Well, the British Empire is what gave birth to the USA in the first place, so your assertion makes sense, but I wouldn't be sure which polity was it that cemented the status of English during the 20th century.



Penyafort said:


> The logical thing would be to reduce it to A-I-U + P-T-K-M-N-L-S + Y-W.


I think inevitably words would be too long with that scheme. Arabs pronouncing "P" as "B" wouldn't be a problem though, they would say "baba" and everyone would understand "papa". [b], [p], [pʰ] would be allophones of a single phoneme.



Hulalessar said:


> Any natural language is above all a convention which is a means of communication between humans. It is something of a contradiction in terms to make up a language as all languages have evolved organically by people interacting.


If it's a code with which you can potentially communicate anything, it has speakers and in some cases like Esperanto even some of them are native, what else could it be? It may not be very romantic, but it's entirely possible to create artificial languages. I would go so far as to say Esperanto is more developed as a language than most of the 6,000 living natural languages.


----------



## Apollodorus

Penyafort said:


> I'd say they just got interested in the idea that a global working language coming from the West could be one different from English. One easy to teach and learn, and not associated to a specific power.


Easy to teach and learn, perhaps. But spoken by too few to really matter. More likely, a ruse by Communist China to portray itself as "cosmopolitan" and "progressive" ....


----------



## Ben Jamin

Dymn said:


> That could be a separate project. What constitutes a "meaning" is really fuzzy..


You shouldn't use English as a universal example or model. This is really a fuzzy language, with 14 completely different meanings of the word "trunk". At the same time it has 140 completely useless names for groups of animals. Other languages like for example French, German, and the Scandinavian languages are much better organized, but no natural language is precise enough to serve as a hub language. On the other side, you will never achieve absolute precision, but the definitions of different meanings that you find in good dictionaries is quite a good approximation for practical purposes.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Apollodorus said:


> Easy to teach and learn, perhaps. But spoken by too few to really matter. More likely, a ruse by Communist China to portray itself as "cosmopolitan" and "progressive" ....


I beg your pardon? You have misunderstood something. We are discussing constructed languages.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> Well, the British Empire is what gave birth to the USA in the first place, so your assertion makes sense, but I wouldn't be sure which polity was it that cemented the status of English during the 20th century.


I think that this webpage gives a good overview. What it does not touch on specifically is the advance of English in continental Europe.


----------



## Dymn

Ben Jamin said:


> You shouldn't use English as a universal example or model. This is really a fuzzy language


I don't think English is different from other languages at all.



Ben Jamin said:


> On the other side, you will never achieve absolute precision, but the definitions of different meanings that you find in good dictionaries is quite a good approximation for practical purposes.


Then such a language would be completely impractical to speak. Anyway you would like to look into WordNet, which awards a "synset" to every concept. Words can have multiple synsets (polysemy) and synsets can have various words (synonymy). There are similar versions for other languages too. This has various usages in NLP (natural language processing).



Hulalessar said:


> I think that this webpage gives a good overview. What it does not touch on specifically is the advance of English in continental Europe.


I think in the interwar period English still didn't have an advantage over French outside of the countries where it was spoken. After WWII, the US would undoubtably be the strongest power in the capitalist West, as the article says. I've been looking at various Eurovision editions and it looks like English didn't have a clear advantage until the 70s. For Germanic countries, this might have been earlier.


----------



## Penyafort

Red Arrow said:


> Do you mean one-syllable basic roots? I think 704 basic roots + affixes would be way too little, although the minimalist constructed language Toki Pona only has 137 words and a couple of particles, but it is an incredibly ambiguous language. For instance, there is no difference between feet, toe and leg. There are also only four numbers: zero/no/nothing, one, two and multiple/many  I think any language with less than 2000 roots is impractical.


The semantic primes are no more than 70. Basic English uses a list between 850 and 2000 words. I guess it all depends on what we understand as core vocabulary too. Because, obviously, we could say we already need 2000 words only to name an order of mammals like the rodents.

One-syllable basic roots would be theoretically ideal, but yes, that requires a large inventory of phonemes, otherwise it would be too reductive. Even Chinese, with more phonemes and use of tones, has a limited number of possibilities that give way to many homophones, requiring in practice more two-syllable words than one.

Probably the most sensible option would be using the one-syllable basic roots for the core, but not limiting the language only to that possibility.



Dymn said:


> I think inevitably words would be too long with that scheme.


I referred to the most common phonemes and basic phonotactics. But of course more phonemes could be adopted (h, -ng, e, o would probably come next and would allow for many more possibilities). A few syllable codas other than a (semi)vowel or an [n] could be possible. And some easy combinations could also be allowed. But I still think the language should remain at a very low profile in its phonological 'richness', giving room as you mentioned for a wide presence of allophony. A nice balance could be found between this and the length of words, which in any case shouldn't be longer than three syllables for any root word belonging to the core.



Dymn said:


> It may not be very romantic, but it's entirely possible to create artificial languages. I would go so far as to say Esperanto is more developed as a language than most of the 6,000 living natural languages.


No doubt it is. Languages adopt what they need. Esperanto has been used by people from all regions of the world and on average by highly educated people, which in practice means the language has needed to develop in order to cover all fields of knowledge. Something most of the languages spoken by fewer than 1,000 people in a couple of valleys or villages simply don't need.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> I think in the interwar period English still didn't have an advantage over French outside of the countries where it was spoken. After WWII, the US would undoubtably be the strongest power in the capitalist West, as the article says. I've been looking at various Eurovision editions and it looks like English didn't have a clear advantage until the 70s. For Germanic countries, this might have been earlier.


I think that probably is about right. Very broadly, in western continental Europe before WWII, as first foreign language to be learned German held sway in Northern Europe and French in Southern Europe. If German did not lose prestige after WWI it certainly did after WWII. With the UK joining the Common Market in the early seventies English got a boost. French sort of got nudged aside. Possible explanations are: northern Europeans find English easier to cope with than French; Non-French Romance language speakers started to learn English because a lot of their tourists came from Northern Europe and they consider English easier than German; when it comes to promoting French, the French are inclined to overplay their hand insisting it is the only language suitable for sophisticated international communication - that annoys people; whilst the English expect everyone else to speak English, they do not insist on its superiority and are quite happy for foreigners to speak it incorrectly; the universality of US popular culture; the (somewhat erroneous) perception that English is easy to learn.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> ... whilst the English expect everyone else to speak English, they do not insist on its superiority and are quite happy for foreigners to speak it incorrectly; the universality of US popular culture; the (somewhat erroneous) perception that English is easy to learn.


I have read many enough opinions from native English speakers insisting that English is superior to other languages, and this superiority has given and guarantees its function as international language, some entered into discussion and came with quite rude remarks. I believe that this view is very widespread among native English speakers (those that have an opinion on the subject).


----------



## Ben Jamin

Penyafort said:


> One-syllable basic roots would be theoretically ideal, but yes, that requires a large inventory of phonemes, otherwise it would be too reductive. Even Chinese, with more phonemes and use of tones, has a limited number of possibilities that give way to many homophones, requiring in practice more two-syllable words than one.
> 
> Probably the most sensible option would be using the one-syllable basic roots for the core, but not limiting the language only to that possibility.


In my opinion a language with 20 consonants and five clear cut vowels would be very practical. One syllable roots give too little space for creating enough words. They should be reserved for the most used words. Less used words would require two and three syllable roots. Scientific and technological words will have to be even longer.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> I have read many enough opinions from native English speakers insisting that English is superior to other languages.


I have never come across one. Perhaps you would care to offer some quotes.

Is there anything equivalent to this well-known quote by Antoine Rivarol: "Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas français; ce qui n'est pas clair est encore anglais, italien, grec ou latin."?

The inclusion of Latin would I think have surprised English scholars who were contemporaries of Rivarol, as around the same time they were imposing Latin grammar on English, the effects of which linger today. Rivarol is typical of many in thinking that if a language does not make the same distinction as ones own that it is defective, and that if it makes distinction that ones own does not it is cluttered. Each language needs to be considered complete and adequate for its native speakers to say what they want to say and be understood. There may be misunderstandings, but I would be surprised if there is any language where misunderstandings are impossible.


----------



## dojibear

Ben Jamin said:


> I have read many enough opinions from native English speakers insisting that English is superior to other languages





Ben Jamin said:


> I believe that this view is very widespread among native English speakers (those that have an opinion on the subject).


I disagree. But I rarely hear opinions about "the best language". Maybe this is skewed. If 99.98% of people have no opinion about "the best language", the only ones to express an opinion are the people voting for their own native language. They may sometimes be vehement in their patriotism.

Until recently, any English scholar had to know ancient Latin to be considered a "scholar". This has been gradually diminishing, but as recently as 1960 (in the US) I took two years of ancient Latin in high school.

From the 1960s to the 1990s anything French was considered superior in the US. Dozens of French phrases were commonly used in English.


----------



## dojibear

Ben Jamin said:


> One syllable roots give too little space for creating enough words. They should be reserved for the most used words. Less used words would require two and three syllable roots. Scientific and technological words will have to be even longer.


This is what has happened in Mandarin Chinese. A few centuries ago, words were 1 syllable (and there were no tones). As more and more words became needed, those 1-syllable words were paired up to form 2-syllable words. Nowadays 80% of the words are 2 syllables, but many of the very common words (of, go, walk, he, it, is, has) are 1-syllable.

I assume that precise technical terms are longer than two syllables.


----------



## dojibear

Ben Jamin said:


> In my opinion a language with 20 consonants and five clear cut vowels would be very practical.


How many syllables would you get out of "20 consonants and 5 clear-cut vowels"? It depends on your rules for syllables.

I think the number of syllables matters the most. Chinese only has 416 different syllables, so it needs tones to increase that to around 1,500. English has roughly 15,000 different syllables.


----------



## Penyafort

Ben Jamin said:


> I have read many enough opinions from native English speakers insisting that English is superior to other languages, and this superiority has given and guarantees its function as international language, some entered into discussion and came with quite rude remarks. I believe that this view is very widespread among native English speakers (those that have an opinion on the subject).


It's not a surprising thought, though. As Nebrija said in the first ever published grammar in Europe, _siempre fue la lengua compañera del imperio_, language always was the companion of Empires. So thought the Romans about their language, so did the Spaniards (still some may do), so have the French quite often done too. It was customary to either praise the simplicity (whether when referring to the vowel system and spelling in Spanish, or to the changes in English), or the complexity (expressing how the clarity, accuracy or vastness of the syntaxis or lexicon in Spanish/French/English was beyond comparison, and I've also heard things of the like mentioned by speakers of other widespread languages).



Ben Jamin said:


> In my opinion a language with 20 consonants and five clear cut vowels would be very practical. One syllable roots give too little space for creating enough words. They should be reserved for the most used words. Less used words would require two and three syllable roots. Scientific and technological words will have to be even longer.



In fact, it'd probably be more sensible to reserve one-syllable roots for derivational affixes, and make most semantic words two or three syllables long.

Scientific vocabulary would be something to deal with in a different way. And the hard decision should be made whether to build compounds out of words from the language itself or combine them with loanwords provided they're very widespread. This is something Esperanto has always hesitated about. My opinion is that consistency is probably better than internationality in this case. Otherwise some words would follow one way, some a different one, and the whole picture would be too chaotic again.


----------



## rarabara

elroy said:


> What are people’s opinions on constructed languages? Has anyone here studied one?
> 
> I’ve never studied one, nor do I find the idea appealing.





elroy said:


> Do you see any draws or benefits to them?


yeah , yes ! I deal with such creations & developments.
won't comprehensively explain (unfortunately because these developments mostly and commonly contains technical contexts too , at least mines. )
the second question can be replied and broadened and also simplified by this explanation. (I am sure you will understand the point because it is easy, but I will try to (re)explain further if not)

* you can take the computer language as sample to see it much more simpler. yes it is computing language.
(binary system)


mines presumably will be more and more complex.


elroy said:


> In fact, I find it almost offensive.


it conforms with the existing_ scientific _contexts. not really offensive. Remember please the definition of "language" it is about coding (i.e. cryptic/cryptographic communication)




elroy said:


> I’m also not sure I see any point or benefit to constructed languages. An artificial lake at least serves some purposes. What purposes do constructed languages serve?



actually artificial / constructed languages are in the same function both by its definition.


elroy said:


> If it’s about creating a language that’s easy to learn because its grammar, vocabulary, or whatever else is simple, again, I’m sure there’s at least one natural language that already meets whatever need the constructed language is supposed to meet.


?  (I could not see any question there, but explanation for some keywords:
ease,simple: this is changing from one by one. I do not know any easeness defined by quantitative measurements
grammar: this is being protected in constructed languages but as said I did not see any question
natural language : what does this mean? did you mean Non artifical language by natural ? if so, one more time check please the definition of "language")



elroy said:


> How do others feel about constructed languages? Do you see any draws or benefits to them?


general explanation:

only possiblities: I think they can be or already are much wider than expected or predicted.
and why not to benefit them world widely?
assume a language known by every person all around the world? (This is not currently available but to me possible.)

notation: I did not read the previous comments


----------



## dojibear

rarabara said:


> you can take the computer language as sample to see it much more simpler. yes it is computing language.


"Computer languages" are not "languages". Human languages communicate information (and emotions, etc.). Computer languages do not. Computer languages are used by humans to give commands (instructions) to computers. That is their only purpose. High-level computer languages (C++, java, python, Fortran, APL, etc.) are written in a convenient format for humans to use, then are automatically translated by "compiler" programs into machine language, which computers can run (execute; perform).

For example the mathematics formula "A = B" and its English phrase "A equals B" express the same meaning: that the value of A is the same as the value of B.

But the computer language statement "A = B;" doesn't mean that. It is a command to evaluate B, then assign that value to A. It is a command to change the value of A.



rarabara said:


> (binary system)


"Binary" is not a computer language. It is a number format. It means the same as "base 2". For example, the number written as "14" in our normal "base 10" system is written as "01110" in binary (base 2).


----------



## dojibear

rarabara said:


> natural language : what does this mean? did you mean Non artifical language by natural ?


In this thread discussion, "natural language" means a language that wasn't designed and created. There are about 7,100 of them in the world. The term distinguishes those from constructed languages.



rarabara said:


> if so, one more time check please the definition of "language")


Which definition? For example, the word "language" has 14 definitions (second list) in the WR dictionary:
language - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

So the reference to "the definition" does not express a meaning.


----------



## dojibear

rarabara said:


> a language known by every person all around the world? (This is not currently available but to me possible.)


That is a nice idea, if possible. Maybe it will happen in the future.


----------



## rarabara

dojibear said:


> C++, java, python, Fortran, APL, etc.


these are programming languages ,which I use some of them. These are not languages yes.(But to a point of my view, if we accept the producted computers as creatures  ,then it seems like it could be)


dojibear said:


> "Binary" is not a computer language.


I think the point should be clear to what is referred to.

Though,I can say that as you may be aware;

symbols , then words and sentences and much bigger bundles are being transported by coding via _binary system  
8 bite --> 1 Byte
1024 Bytes ---> 1 kByte
1024 kByte --->> 1 Mbyte
(goes on)
..._



dojibear said:


> In this thread discussion, "natural language" means a language that wasn't designed and created.


ah , I think that all of languages are designed and created. sure!
if you do not believe me, then this will eventually reach to the point which the life was started for all alives. And as this will be open to discussions and critiques --->> please  go to the commencement point. This is a belief : I reply it as this one: EVERYONE  SHOULD  BE AND/OR ALREADY FREE TO WHAT TO BELİEVE! 



dojibear said:


> Which definition? For example, the word "language" has 14 definitions (second list) in the WR dictionary:
> language - WordReference.com Dictionary of English
> 
> So the reference to "the definition" does not express a meaning.


okay, I was using / alluding the definition in cybernetics. sorry for unclearance.
(it does not exist in the list quick overviewing it)

I remember as in this form:
it is encoding type of communication which both the communicator and communicating/communicated parts undferstands the same codes samely.


----------



## Uncreative Name

I think the main problem with the argument here is that people are asuming that Constructed Language accounts for nothing more than Auxiliary Languages like Esperanto - the idea of an easily-learnable language for the entire world is optimistic and naïve.

There are plenty of other types of constructed languages, which can serve several purposes: there are fictional languages like Sindarin or Klingon, programming languages like Java, theoretical languages like Ithkuil, artistic languages like Toki Pona, and more.


elroy said:


> For me, a big part of the beauty of natural languages is that they are organic entities whose development over time is not “manufactured.”  I find that incredibly fascinating and profoundly awe-inspiring.  In that sense, a constructed language is like an artificial lake.
> 
> I’m also not sure I see any point or benefit to constructed languages.  An artificial lake at least serves some purposes.  What purposes do constructed languages serve?


Constructed languages often serve a completely different purpose from natural languages, and as such, they shouldn't really be compared to one another.  There are plenty of benefits to constructing languages or studying ConLangs - for learning experience, to enhance a fictional world, to test a hypothesis about a feature - most importantly, though, they are for the personal enjoyment of the creators and of the people who learn them.  Video games and movies don't provide much more than entertainment - should we bash the people who make those?


Hulalessar said:


> It is something of a contradiction in terms to make up a language as all languages have evolved organically by people interacting. A complete language can only be something people use.





elroy said:


> Thank you.  It's like plastic surgery.


I understand your concern, but nobody is trying to pass off constucted languages as if they were natural languages, or as if they were "better" than natural languages - except AuxLangs, but I've already expressed that I'm not a fan of those.


----------



## Hulalessar

Uncreative Name said:


> I understand your concern, but nobody is trying to pass off constucted languages as if they were natural languages, or as if they were "better" than natural languages - except AuxLangs, but I've already expressed that I'm not a fan of those.


I do not think that anyone is quite saying that. Rather they are questioning some of the claims made for them.


----------



## dojibear

The thread topic is "contructed languages", and (as @Uncreative Name says) there are a variety of purposes for them. In each case "bad/good/better" is about how well they accomplish their purpose.

At some point, the thread veered to the topic of interational auxiliary languages (one language for the world), and whether constructed languages or natural languages were a better idea. Since that is a "future possible situation", everyone's ideas are valid.

Some constructed languages are the "real" languages of fictional races (Klingons, Romulans, dwarves, elves, Taurens, etc.) so their intended purpose is limited to making the fictional race seem more realistic.  

Computer languages are not "languages" in the normal sense (conveying information; expressing emotions), but they are good for their intended purpose: commanding computer operations. 

Some constructed languages have the purpose of being an auxiliary language. Others have the purpose of logical thinking. Others have other purposes.


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> one language for the world


That isn't really equivalent to auxiliary languages in general, though. There  are also group languages like Slovio or Tutonish, and even more exotic examples like Lincos (a language for communicating with extraterrestrials ).


----------



## nizzebro

I think that in respect to the idea of constructed language as universal language, there is one thing that seems to be overlooked. There are two possible domains to use a lingua franca: that connected to a specific activity (trade, politics, science and engineering; today, the global tech related to software and networks - that is, the domain of English, where this rationalistic language plays its role successfully. Take an average formal narrative: automatic translation works well just because  one the same patterns are mainly used, regardless of the source language -  and, as long all sides share the same templates in their wording (and in their thinking) that can be successfully auto-translated into English, they can just use English.

Another domain is the informal, everyday, and literary, language - and here, to me it is evident that a universal language will never ever succeed, because the conception is self-contradictory: such language cannot be neutral. Each human language, at least on the level of group/family, uses individual approaches that are formally visible as syntax, informational structure, verb aspects/moods/tenses and so on - but actually these features manifest different ways of conceptualization of reality - and individual features of this kind simply _cannot be combined or averaged_. You may reason about which word order is the best - but there is no such thing as the word order in terms of a general determinant, because a lot of languages strongly rely on topic-comment relation and not on subject- and object-oriented pattern of Germanic languages as English. Speaking of European languages, there are different approaches to the way verbs forms reflect events, differing in Germanic, Romance and Slavic family, and, again, you cannot combine these -  unless only you want everybody to think in English (and Esperanto, at least in its basics, is rather a Germanic language in respect to verb system, than a Romance one - and this is telling about who benefits; I suppose it was an early attempt of the globalist project). It is like with electrons - these can be thought as either particles or waves, but not both; and even if one implements a conception that generalizes these two, it will be anyway a totally new concept - where neither particle nor wave is the basis upon which the whole concept is built, but rather some other idea is.

There is no unified, all-human approach to reality and never will be as it would lead to cultural stagnation. And, you couldn't keep people from natural altering the universal language in process: as long as their mentalities are different, they would anyway cause it breaking into branches, and repeat the Tower of Babel story. To impose a common language, you need to impose a common mentality - but for that, you need a common language first, for them to adopt this new mentality - and this vicious circle saves humanity from globalizators.


----------



## Hulalessar

Post 145 touches on some interesting questions ranging over the fields of linguistics, philosophy and psychology/neuroscience.

I do not think that individual languages "manifest different ways of conceptualization of reality". What they do is classify human experience in difference ways. "Conceptualization of reality" is a metaphysical exercise which is not language dependent. If it were, then each language would only have one concept of reality. That that is manifestly not the case is shown by Ancient Greek philosophy which was all conducted in the same language but produced many different and mutually exclusive concepts of reality.


----------



## nizzebro

Hulalessar said:


> I do not think that individual languages "manifest different ways of conceptualization of reality". What they do is classify human experience in difference ways. "Conceptualization of reality" is a metaphysical exercise which is not language dependent. If it were, then each language would only have one concept of reality.


I agree in the sense that that was actually a loose and infelicitous wording of mine. But anyway, if you and I have had the same experience, but, in our modelling of that experience, we use different patterns, based on language-specific principles, we could say that our experience differs - at least in terms of perception; in reality we did pragmatically the same thing, but perceived it in a little different way, so that some components of the reality were highlighted and became a skeleton of the sentence syntax and/or were underlined in lexis, while other components were ignored, in each language differently. And, if to take some extreme cases into account, it well may be that a certain language has no pattern for a certain category of human experience at all - which, to me, shows that speakers ignore the related side of reality and thus lack the experience. I've read about that linguist - Elliott was his name, if I remember correctly, who examined a language of tribal communities in S.America and was surprised that they have no concept of count. For us modern people, it could be weird - to not use count as such - but it is pretty simple actually: once one has no trade and no specific reflexion related to distribution, they need no numbers, and are satisfied with dichotomies as "(not)enough" or "little/a lot" and actually cannot tell five items from six of them, visually.

We can argue about that whether there is one and the same objective reality or not - but it is not that important. We perceive and focus on one things and reject other things.  But, language is a finite set of values, in terms of its core as limited by the length of forms and constructions and the need to avoid phonetic ambiguity, so speakers are destined to select one things and reject other - not only in respect to lexical values, but as well in that which are the starting points and determinants in images people use to share. Yes, the basic set can be extended - and, say, chemistry uses its own sub-syntax, but, it is anyway built upon  a basic grammar and is mixed in speech with ordinary predication - and so with topicalization, tenses/aspects and other intrinsic patterns. Same principle is true for the Greek philosophy - it is not a measure of things, otherwise everything written in India and China could be easily classified as subdivision of the Greek philosophy or of European thought in general as the most advanced (although I think that many Western thinkers proceed form exactly this point - "they are like us but only represent the same things in a ridiculous manner").

We can in principle convey another perspective using one and the same language. Suppose you had an unusual experience and want to tell other people about it: you would use tricky combinations of words and other non-standard means, and, to some degree you would succeed, regardless of the particular language - but, only to some degree.  Poetry is also about it. The need in these tricks arises because the core of language is centered around an experience that is common and shared by all or most of the speakers - so there is a correlation between experience and language.  Languages are different not only lexically but grammatically - and this means that things around which languages are centered, are different. As a rough analogy - one may want to explain all the peculiarities of sexual act to a virgin: something would be clear for her/him, and something would still have no much sense or be conceptualized in a wrong way.


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> Computer languages are not "languages" in the normal sense (conveying information; expressing emotions), but they are good for their intended purpose: commanding computer operations.


This is why some languages such as Spanish clearly distinguish between language as a spoken linguistic system (una lengua) and language a code of signs (un lenguaje).



nizzebro said:


> To impose a common language, you need to impose a common mentality - but for that, you need a common language first, for them to adopt this new mentality - and this vicious circle saves humanity from globalizators.


I'm not so sure you need a common language to adopt a common mentality. Languages, particularly when close, are prone to converge into one single way of expressing things with different words. Specially when there is a diglossic situation, as most languages in the world are.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I don't know that it qualifies as a constructed language but I quite like Interlingua. There's something oddly appealing about being able to read a "Romance language" that you've never studied.


----------



## Hulalessar

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I don't know that it qualifies as a constructed language but I quite like Interlingua. There's something oddly appealing about being able to read a "Romance language" that you've never studied.


Out of curiosity I found some text in Interlingua and using Google Translate (meaning there may be some oddities) converted it into various Romance languages and, for good measure, into Latin. With the possible exception of Romanian, I would suggest that anyone knowing any one of the Romance languages could make significant, if not perfect, sense of of the others and the Interlingua. That is to be expected given the subject matter. Does it suggest that Interlingua is unnecessary?

Interlingua se ha distacate ab le movimento pro le disveloppamento e le introduction de un lingua universal pro tote le humanitate. Si on non crede que un lingua pro tote le humanitate es possibile, si on non crede que le interlingua va devenir un tal lingua, es totalmente indifferente ab le puncto de vista de interlingua mesme. Le sol facto que importa (ab le puncto de vista del interlingua ipse) es que le interlingua, gratias a su ambition de reflecter le homogeneitate cultural e ergo linguistic del occidente, es capace de render servicios tangibile a iste precise momento del historia del mundo. Il es per su contributiones actual e non per le promissas de su adherentes que le interlingua vole esser judicate.

Interlingua se ha separado del movimiento para el desarrollo y la introducción de un idioma universal para toda la humanidad. Si uno cree o no que un idioma para toda la humanidad es posible, si uno cree o no que Interlingua se convertirá en tal idioma es totalmente irrelevante desde el punto de vista de la propia Interlingua. El único hecho que importa (desde el punto de vista de la propia Interlingua) es que Interlingua, gracias a su ambición de reflejar la homogeneidad cultural y, por tanto, lingüística de Occidente, es capaz de prestar servicios tangibles en este preciso momento de la historia del mundo. Es por sus contribuciones actuales y no por las promesas de sus adherentes que Interlingua desea ser juzgada.

A Interlíngua se destacou do movimento pelo desenvolvimento e introdução de uma linguagem universal para toda a humanidade. Se alguém acredita ou não que uma língua para toda a humanidade é possível, se alguém acredita ou não que a Interlíngua se tornará tal língua é totalmente irrelevante do ponto de vista da própria Interlíngua. O único fato que importa (do ponto de vista da própria Interlíngua) é que a Interlíngua, graças à sua ambição de refletir a homogeneidade cultural e, portanto, linguística do Ocidente, é capaz de prestar serviços tangíveis neste preciso momento da história do mundo. É por suas contribuições atuais e não pelas promessas de seus adeptos que a Interlíngua deseja ser julgada.

Interlingua s'est détachée du mouvement pour le développement et l'introduction d'une langue universelle pour toute l'humanité. Que l'on croie ou non qu'une langue pour toute l'humanité est possible, que l'on croie ou non que l'interlingua deviendra une telle langue est totalement hors de propos du point de vue de l'interlingua elle-même. Le seul fait qui importe (du point de vue d'Interlingua lui-même) est qu'Interlingua, grâce à son ambition de refléter l'homogénéité culturelle et donc linguistique de l'Occident, est capable de rendre des services tangibles à ce moment précis de l'histoire de monde. C'est sur ses apports actuels et non sur les promesses de ses adhérents qu'Interlingua souhaite être jugée.

Interlingua si è distaccata dal movimento per lo sviluppo e l'introduzione di una lingua universale per tutta l'umanità. Che si creda o meno che sia possibile una lingua per tutta l'umanità, che si creda o meno che l'Interlingua diventerà tale lingua è del tutto irrilevante dal punto di vista dell'Interlingua stessa. L'unico dato che conta (dal punto di vista della stessa Interlingua) è che Interlingua, grazie alla sua ambizione di riflettere l'omogeneità culturale e quindi linguistica dell'Occidente, è in grado di rendere tangibili servizi in questo preciso momento della storia dell'Occidente mondo. È dai suoi attuali contributi e non dalle promesse dei suoi aderenti che Interlingua desidera essere giudicata.

Interlingua s'ha desvinculat del moviment pel desenvolupament i la introducció d'una llengua universal per a tota la humanitat. Que hom cregui o no que una llengua per a tota la humanitat és possible, que l'interlingua esdevindrà o no una llengua és totalment irrellevant des del punt de vista de la mateixa interlingua. L'únic fet que importa (des del punt de vista de la mateixa Interlingua) és que Interlingua, gràcies a la seva ambició de reflectir l'homogeneïtat cultural i, per tant, lingüística d'Occident, és capaç de prestar serveis tangibles en aquest precís moment de la història de la món. És per les seves aportacions actuals i no per les promeses dels seus adherents que Interlingua vol ser jutjada.

Interlingua s-a desprins de mișcarea pentru dezvoltarea și introducerea unui limbaj universal pentru întreaga umanitate. Dacă cineva crede sau nu că o limbă pentru întreaga umanitate este posibilă, dacă cineva crede sau nu că Interlingua va deveni o astfel de limbă este total irelevant din punctul de vedere al Interlingua în sine. Singurul fapt care contează (din punctul de vedere al Interlingua însuși) este că Interlingua, datorită ambiției sale de a reflecta omogenitatea culturală și, prin urmare, lingvistică a Occidentului, este capabilă să ofere servicii tangibile în acest moment precis al istoriei lume. Interlingua dorește să fie judecată după contribuțiile sale actuale și nu după promisiunile adepților săi.

Interlingua a motu se abduxit ad progressionem et introductionem linguae universalis pro omni humanitate. Utrum aliquis credat linguam pro omni humanitate fieri posse, sive non credit interlinguam talem sermonem futurum esse, ab ipso Interlinguae respectu prorsus nullius momenti. Solum quod res (ex ipsa Interlinguae parte) est quod Interlingua, ob suam ambitionem culturam et sic homogeneitatem linguisticam Occidentis reflectendi, capax est reddere operas tangibiles hoc temporis momento in historia. orbem. Praesentibus contributionibus et non suorum promissionibus Interlingua iudicari vult.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I can't read Portuguese or Spanish Wikipedia pages without the aid of a dictionary. On the other hand, the Interlingua Wikipedia has never caused me any serious problems. Make of that what you will.


----------



## nizzebro

Penyafort said:


> I'm not so sure you need a common language to adopt a common mentality. Languages, particularly when close, are prone to converge into one single way of expressing things with different words. Specially when there is a diglossic situation, as most languages in the world are.


The keyword here is "when close" - and my point was primarily the syntax/morphology and underlying informational structure.   To me, the culture and mentality of China or Japan pretty much differs from the European ;the languages differ pretty much as well - is it merely a coincidence?

Yes, languages can converge, but gradually, and at a certain stage this touches only some aspects of them; if there are some mutually exclusive features, these features cannot be mixed.

Take for instance,  grammatical gender, absent in English, but prominent in many languages; in the Slavic family, it requires agreement of adjectives and verbs, which in turn prevents using genderless nouns like "one friend of mine said..." - so in Russian, you would always know at once, if the friend was male or female - not speaking of the idea of implementing multiple gender pronouns - and, I guess this has something to do with mentality, at least in terms of possibility of altering it, isn't it? And you can't just remove genders from the grammar, because the rich morphology provides the ability to change the word order, which is necessary for the topic-comment structure - and the latter is the actual basis in these languages, so to remove genders means to remove everything.

As for converging, it takes place but I think it is also has to do with the mindset. In Russian, we don't say "I have something", but "At-me-(there is) something"  (which finely complies with the approach in the Slavic languages where an adverbial phrase sets the environment is set first as a topic), however, most Slavic languages sitting in Europe, adopted the subject-oriented "I have", while the Eastern ones use that impersonal "at me is" - and in the well-known country where the war is going today, this division is geographical - and, I believe, is correlating with the mind-setting as well. A speculation of mine, of course, but, we talk about correlation.

Take verbs - it is the basis of a language, you use a verb in literally every sentence. In Spanish you use the Romance/Greek verb concept, based on the opposition Imperfect-Aorist (regardless of the language-specific names), where the key point is whether the viewpoint is located within the "body" of the action, or, that action is rather seen from outside as a past fact. In Slavic languages, the principle is similar, but the key point is whether there was an explicit transition to the final state which then holds as the current one - so the concept is not about the relation between the event and the viewpoint, but about how the action itself looks.  In Germanic languages, an event is rather a temporal object that can be multiplied with the help of adverbials in the context - and even though English uses the Progressive form, it is not the same as Imperfect, as it is based on the idea of a fraction of process, and is working actually as a sort of temporal adjective. English lacks a dichotomy as that in the above families, and is highly subject-oriented. We can't say "ah, this is just some formal grammar nuances" because it is the core. My interest are verb forms and events, and to me it is evident that people use different mental models. There were experiments showed that even across the I-E languages, speakers build the imagery of sentences differently.  This doesn't mean, of course, that we are like aliens compared to each other, but anyway the grammar affects the approach to the reality.


----------



## Penyafort

nizzebro said:


> The keyword here is "when close" - and my point was primarily the syntax/morphology and underlying informational structure.   To me, the culture and mentality of China or Japan pretty much differs from the European ;the languages differ pretty much as well - is it merely a coincidence?


Well, I think we're dealing with the opposite end when talking about East Asia with regard to Western Europe. (I'm talking here about main 'civilization mindsets'; the real specific opposite ends probably are to be found in languages spoken by small human groups in long-time isolated places, which are fewer and fewer by the day)


----------



## nizzebro

Penyafort said:


> Well, I think we're dealing with the opposite end when talking about East Asia with regard to Western Europe. (I'm talking here about main 'civilization mindsets'; the real specific opposite ends probably are to be found in languages spoken by small human groups in long-time isolated places, which are fewer and fewer by the day)


In terms of the extent and amount of noticeable differences, you could be right, but this anyway does not negate the fact that, once you cannot remove grammatical gender from Russian or add it to English without ruining the whole matrix in either of these languages, you cannot combine these - and so a colang aimed to be an intermediate, is simply impossible without being biased towards a certain language - as no concept is there that could be an in-between in respect to genders and stuff. The same is true for verbs in Germanic and Romance families - if you want an intermediate colang between two languages from these groups, you have to choose either the Germanic or the Romance approach to verbs. So it appears that the probability of a truly unbiased solution is in direct proportion to the similarity in grammar, and actually things can work only for the same family -  ideally, with the syntax/morphology almost coinciding, at least in function - and the trick is that in such cases, the vocabulary as well appears so close that the speakers understand each other well and just do not need a colang.


----------



## pimlicodude

elroy said:


> What are people’s opinions on constructed languages?  Has anyone here studied one?
> 
> I’ve never studied one, nor do I find the idea appealing.
> 
> I’m averse to the whole concept of constructed languages.  In fact, I find it almost offensive.
> 
> For me, a big part of the beauty of natural languages is that they are organic entities whose development over time is not “manufactured.”  I find that incredibly fascinating and profoundly awe-inspiring.  In that sense, a constructed language is like an artificial lake.
> 
> I’m also not sure I see any point or benefit to constructed languages.  An artificial lake at least serves some purposes.  What purposes do constructed languages serve?
> 
> If it’s about creating a community of people united by a common language, there are plenty of existing natural languages that can be jointly learned for that purpose.
> 
> If it’s about creating a language that’s easy to learn because its grammar, vocabulary, or whatever else is simple, again, I’m sure there’s at least one natural language that already meets whatever need the constructed language is supposed to meet.
> 
> I would much rather see a community of people studying one of the world’s many lesser-studied and/or endangered languages  than see artificial languages constructed and studied.
> 
> How do others feel about constructed languages?  Do you see any draws or benefits to them?


I find them offensive, as they amount to an attempt to destroy cultures and languages.


----------



## pimlicodude

Ihsiin said:


> I’m not sure English is any more dominant in Ireland now than it was in the 1890s, to be honest.


Well, it is. In 1926, when the Irish Free State became independent, 16% of Irishmen lived in fully-Irish-speaking areas (na fíor-Ghaeltachtaí) and a further 3% lived in the partly-Irish-speaking areas (na breac-Ghaeltachtaí). Nowadays, 80,000 of 5m live in the Gaeltacht, but within the Gaeltacht itself, Irish has withered, and it is now claimed only 20,000 people live in truly Irish-speaking areas. This is 0.4% of the population.


----------



## S.V.

> an attempt to destroy cultures and languages





> Irish has withered... only 20,000 people live in truly Irish-speaking areas


What a sad contrast. If _sad_ were not such an empty word. May Irish survive another hundred years. De corazón.

On the other two pages, the answer  seems tied to the difference between what is possible, and what we are capable of.


----------



## Hulalessar

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I can't read Portuguese or Spanish Wikipedia pages without the aid of a dictionary. On the other hand, the Interlingua Wikipedia has never caused me any serious problems. Make of that what you will.


Ever learn Italian or Latin?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

pimlicodude said:


> Well, it is. In 1926, when the Irish Free State became independent, 16% of Irishmen lived in fully-Irish-speaking areas (na fíor-Ghaeltachtaí) and a further 3% lived in the partly-Irish-speaking areas (na breac-Ghaeltachtaí). Nowadays, 80,000 of 5m live in the Gaeltacht, but within the Gaeltacht itself, Irish has withered, and it is now claimed only 20,000 people live in truly Irish-speaking areas. This is 0.4% of the population.


This is correct (I think the number of true native speakers living in Irish-speaking areas is nearer the 50,000 mark). However, the overall picture is somewhat more complicated. While Irish has withered as a native language, it is now spoken by hundreds of thousands of people as a second language (particularly those who are educated through the medium of Irish in Gaelscoileanna). It has also experienced a new lease of life in Northern Ireland thanks to the importance attached to Irish culture in Nationalist communities.

We therefore have very many people who speak Irish Gaelic with Irish English accents. Whether this is a healthy development is debatable. There are ongoing exchanges between Irish and Scottish Gaelic speaking areas (including between BBC Alba and TG4), which is a good thing. For too long both languages evolved in relative isolation despite being broadly mutually intelligible (particularly Ulster Irish and Scottish varieties).


----------



## Hulalessar

nizzebro said:


> ...but anyway the grammar affects the approach to the reality.


I need to be convinced! If you mean by "reality" something like the nature of being/existence then I do not think that language comes into it. As I mentioned above, the Ancient Greeks had many different ideas about reality in this sense. The same observation can be made about philosophies recorded in Chinese, a language quite different from Greek. And if talking about the Far East, Chinese and Japanese are as different from each other as each is from English.

If you are thinking of something more mundane, then I do not think it is the case, except possibly trivially, that a person's language affects the way they experience the world as they go about their daily business, or even when they are in speculative mode. Language is an act of classification. Our experience of the world is so complex that it is not surprising that there are countless ways of classifying it. A basic experience for all humans is that things do things and have things done to them. Every language can tell us clearly if the dog is chasing the cat or the cat is chasing the dog. When you go beyond that it becomes a question of what in any language must be expressed and what is routinely left out, the important point being that what is left out is often implied or can be supplied if required.

Unlike English, French has no continuous forms of the verb. The fact that French has no continuous form of the verb does not mean that a native French speaker cannot perceive the difference between an action which is progressive or continuous and one which is not.

Languages with grammatical gender often afford the speaker the opportunity without using extra words to indicate whether the person spoken about is male or female. Spanish, for example, can distinguish between a male and female neighbour by using either _vecino_ or _vecina_. Whilst English does make some natural gender distinctions, it does not do so to the same extent as Spanish. If I want to make it clear the neighbour I am talking about is female I have to spell it out. The fact that English does not require you to distinguish between male and female neighbours does not mean that a native speaker cannot conceive of a neighbour as being male or female. (For the record, the Spanish system is not in fact that straightforward as _vecino _can refer to both a male neighbour and any neighbour whether male of female, while _vecina _definitely refers to a female.)

One can make the same points about any aspect of grammar. English lacks classifiers, ergative alignment, evidential markers, inalienable possession marking and conjugating adjectives, amongst other features. Does anyone natively speaking a language with any of those features perceive the world differently from a native English speaker?

To get back to conlangs, given the wide variety of features languages display (see previous paragraph) the idea that you can come up with something which is some sort of a compromise is surely fanciful. A camel is often jokingly referred to as a horse designed by a committee. If you try to please everyone with your conlang you will end up with a camel.


----------



## nizzebro

Hulalessar said:


> As I mentioned above, the Ancient Greeks had many different ideas about reality in this sense. The same observation can be made about philosophies recorded in Chinese, a language quite different from Greek. And if talking about the Far East, Chinese and Japanese are as different from each other as each is from English.


Of course they had a lot of different ideas, so what? Physicists have a lot of different ideas about reality as well, but ultimately they consider as true ideas only those that can be expressed through math equations, and here, both a Chinese and Greek scientist would use the same syntax and so share absolutely the same _vision _- note, I mean vision.

There are popular videos explaining things like relativity, space-time and causality and how time slows down near an object - and, while they tend to use the ordinary language, they anyway involve graphics which, in its dynamics, actually just follow the essence of the related equations - and so are using the same syntax but another "lexical elements" - instead of capital letters, they use images, and instead of operators, they use motion of these images, but, anyway they need the same operands and operators that are part of the equation.

But somehow you can't do translation between two human languages using the same operands and operators. People can mean the same thing, but describe it in different way, which sometimes doesn't allow any element-wise  translation: you bring it to the the analogy on the _sentence level_ only, but every inside component of the structure is ignored - so maybe they do not mean the same thing?



Hulalessar said:


> The fact that English does not require you to distinguish between male and female neighbours does not mean that a native speaker cannot conceive of a neighbour as being male or female.



Well, I didn't mean they cannot, of course. But, they can leave it indefinite for the hearer/reader in communication - which  makes me personally feel uncomfortable as I'm lacking an initial imagery to which my mind is accustomed, which like suggests that for an English speaker, that imagery is not that necessary.

I have worked a lot as a cabinet-maker, and when I used to visit some new friend of mine at their home, my attention immediately focused on the furniture, so I could tell many things about how it is made and so on. With that, I could to lose sight of the whole room, which could have something like interesting coloring of walls, or pictures on them, or curtains, or something else. Now suppose, that shortly after my entering the room I was invited to the table: there is no chance for me to notice all these things, as my mind is already occupied with the furniture details, and what comes the next is eating, drinking, talking, and after some time I am drunk and saying them goodbye.



Hulalessar said:


> One can make the same points about any aspect of grammar. English lacks classifiers, ergative alignment, evidential markers, inalienable possession marking and conjugating adjectives, amongst other features. Does anyone natively speaking a language with any of those features perceive the world differently from a native English speaker?


They do, I believe. This doesn't mean that in the real world there are things that people speaking in some specific  language are unable to see, or, they are the only ones who are able to. Rather they focus on one aspects of that thing and put other in the shade.


----------



## Uncreative Name

pimlicodude said:


> I find them offensive, as they amount to an attempt to destroy cultures and languages.


I think this goes back to the misconception (which I mentioned earlier) that all constructed languages are auxiliary languages - even then, auxiliary languages aren't "an attempt to destroy cultures and languages," but rather an attempt at enstating a common language to make communication easier (though this has never worked before, and I doubt it ever will).

Again, there are many types of constructed languages (I explained this in more detail in post #141) which serve many purposes.  Auxiliary languages just happen to be some of the most well-known.


----------



## nizzebro

Uncreative Name said:


> aren't "an attempt to destroy cultures and languages," but rather an attempt at enstating a common language to make communication easier


But actually it would turn to be a destroyer - even if the developers had no such intent.
The thing is that any colang is destined to be close to English in spirit and even go further in the direction of a modular set of ready-to-use items, as a product of modern rational thinking. Esperanto, in respect to verb system, is a projection of English that only is pretending to be something Romance-like.


Uncreative Name said:


> though this has never worked before, and I doubt it ever will).


I agree, it won't - just because it is too regular. A real language cannot be something  linear, because of phonetic ambiguity. Irregular forms, like those of verbs in European languages, exist just because these forms are frequently used, so there is a need for them to be as much distinguishable as possible. Thus the matrix of language forms cannot be homogeneous in its structure - it is more detailed in the commonly used areas.

Take, again, Esperanto (I'm not familiar with other constructed languages but pretty sure the situation is similar): it has a marker of the accusative, so it like allows word reordering with preserving the roles, but, it as well doesn't look distinguishable: I'm not sure that in a fast speech I could tell "hundo mortis caton" from "hundon mortis cato" and so know who killed whom with such minimalist approach to marking. (In Russian, there is also stress shift for the cat's acc. ending, and, gender that inflects in the verb: sobaka ubila kotA vs sobaku ubil kot). Therefore, the promising ability to change the order and so apply even such a surrogate of topicalization is in practice untenable - and you would end up with the English approach to syntax where the subject is the king of the Universe.


----------



## pimlicodude

Uncreative Name said:


> I think this goes back to the misconception (which I mentioned earlier) that all constructed languages are auxiliary languages - even then, auxiliary languages aren't "an attempt to destroy cultures and languages," but rather an attempt at enstating a common language to make communication easier (though this has never worked before, and I doubt it ever will).
> 
> Again, there are many types of constructed languages (I explained this in more detail in post #141) which serve many purposes.  Auxiliary languages just happen to be some of the most well-known.


We have a common language, English. And in point of fact, languages are not just vehicles for communication, but bearers of history and culture.


----------



## Penyafort

nizzebro said:


> and so a colang aimed to be an intermediate, is simply impossible without being biased towards a certain language - as no concept is there that could be an in-between in respect to genders and stuff. The same is true for verbs in Germanic and Romance families - if you want an intermediate colang between two languages from these groups, you have to choose either the Germanic or the Romance approach to verbs. So it appears that the probability of a truly unbiased solution is in direct proportion to the similarity in grammar, and actually things can work only for the same family -  ideally, with the syntax/morphology almost coinciding, at least in function - and the trick is that in such cases, the vocabulary as well appears so close that the speakers understand each other well and just do not need a colang.


That is why conlangs -or more specifically, auxlangs- do not attempt to be 'intermediates' but rather tend to choose the most simple solution, similarly to the process of a creole but trying to show more logic and consistency. The verbal system in the Romance languages is a highly complex one, so it is just logical that this feature is avoided.

However, given that there'll usually be a tendency to favour the Romance languages when it comes to choose the 'common' vocabulary -mainly due to the role in Europe of Latin and later French-, one may perhaps be tempted to see in this a sort of counterbalance.




nizzebro said:


> Take, again, Esperanto (I'm not familiar with other constructed languages but pretty sure the situation is similar): it has a marker of the accusative, so it like allows word reordering with preserving the roles, but, it as well doesn't look distinguishable: I'm not sure that in a fast speech I could tell "hundo mortis caton" from "hundon mortis cato" and so know who killed whom with such minimalist approach to marking. (In Russian, there is also stress shift for the cat's acc. ending, and, gender that inflects in the verb: sobaka ubila kotA vs sobaku ubil kot). Therefore, the promising ability to change the order and so apply even such a surrogate of topicalization is in practice untenable - and you would end up with the English approach to syntax where the subject is the king of the Universe.


That happens, even among native Esperanto speakers, who apparently are unstable in their use of the accusative marker and tend to use it more clearly in the case of directions. I don't think this means trying to adjust the language to English, though. Esperanto was created long before English was a thing in most countries. English just happens to be the European language which has undergone the fastest process of simplification since the Middle Ages, to an extent in which it has been sometimes recurrent to call it a sort of creole language. The fact that some features of an auxlang look closer to those of English are therefore rather logical.


----------



## Uncreative Name

nizzebro said:


> any colang is destined to be close to English in spirit and even go further in the direction of a modular set of ready-to-use items, as a product of modern rational thinking. Esperanto, in respect to verb system, is a projection of English that only is pretending to be something Romance-like.


Again, this argument assumes that conlangs are only ever created for international communication.  There are other reasons that conlangs are made.  See my explanation in post #141.



nizzebro said:


> Irregular forms, like those of verbs in European languages, exist just because these forms are frequently used, so there is a need for them to be as much distinguishable as possible.


There is actually a strong tendency in linguistic history for irregular words to become regular (compare old Englsh "help" > "holp" to modern English "help" > "helped").  The commonly-used words have a higher tendency to be irregular because people use them more often, and remember them better.  A regular word for "to be," for example, wouldn't hurt a language; in fact, I'd say that regularity would be helpful.



nizzebro said:


> where the subject is the king of the Universe.


Does this mean subject-initial languages?  Or languages where the subject is unmarked?  Both of these features are very common, not inherently English.


----------



## nizzebro

Penyafort said:


> However, given that there'll usually be a tendency to favour the Romance languages when it comes to choose the 'common' vocabulary -mainly due to the role in Europe of Latin and later French-, one may perhaps be tempted to see in this a sort of counterbalance.


This is normal, I think - even as related to an attempt of a  world-wide lang; vocabulary is not that important (at least that related to stems and not morphemes): it is bound to certain final notions; some of them could be replaced, altered or ignored. But the grammar is another deal.


Uncreative Name said:


> There is actually a strong tendency in linguistic history for irregular words to become regular (compare old Englsh "help" > "holp" to modern English "help" > "helped"). The commonly-used words have a higher tendency to be irregular because people use them more often, and remember them better. A regular word for "to be," for example, wouldn't hurt a language; in fact, I'd say that regularity would be helpful.


Yes, languages become more rational and, you know, aimed at ready-to-use fully defined notions. And this is not so good, I believe. English is like that: it has a rich vocabulary with a huge set Latin and Germanic stems, for all occasions, and you just use a suitable stem - in the manner you choose a product in a modern food store. This is brilliant when you need to share some information, and I prefer many tech-related things in English - everything is laconic there, while in my language it is all a little like smeared. But, such discreteness in a modern language moves a human away from a pure perception. This is a long topic, I cannot fit in this post/thread....


Uncreative Name said:


> Does this mean subject-initial languages? Or languages where the subject is unmarked? Both of these features are very common, not inherently English.


I rather mean topic-oriented vs subject-oriented, When I put things like  "cat-ACC, killed dog" in Russian, I'm not just doing some sort of emphasis (dog, not elephant), I start off with the cat in the same manner as I would start off with 'my room'  if I said "In my room, ..." so the cat is a topic. If I said "The cat was killed by the dog", it would be also the topic but as well the subject, so these sentences are not the same.  The Japanese do the same thing, but they use markers for that and so keep the word order static.
But if we go further, the topic-oriented-ness also correlates with tendency to impersonality, and comes from the good old times when individuality was making much less sense that today.


----------



## elroy

pimlicodude said:


> languages are not just vehicles for communication, but bearers of history and culture.


Yes!  Thank you!  You’ve summed up my thoughts in 13 words.  As a matter of fact, for me if anything languages are *more so *bearers of history and culture, and markers of identity, than mere vehicles of communication.


----------



## pimlicodude

Pedro y La Torre said:


> This is correct (I think the number of true native speakers living in Irish-speaking areas is nearer the 50,000 mark). However, the overall picture is somewhat more complicated. While Irish has withered as a native language, it is now spoken by hundreds of thousands of people as a second language (particularly those who are educated through the medium of Irish in Gaelscoileanna). It has also experienced a new lease of life in Northern Ireland thanks to the importance attached to Irish culture in Nationalist communities.
> 
> We therefore have very many people who speak Irish Gaelic with Irish English accents. Whether this is a healthy development is debatable. There are ongoing exchanges between Irish and Scottish Gaelic speaking areas (including between BBC Alba and TG4), which is a good thing. For too long both languages evolved in relative isolation despite being broadly mutually intelligible (particularly Ulster Irish and Scottish varieties).


You are right in all you say, Pedro de la Torre. Let's put it this way, the Gaeltacht speakers do not regard the Irish spoken by learners as good Irish. The actual native speakers believe they have better accents than the learners, that the thousands of made-up words used by the learners are not real Irish, and that the fact that the learners insert thousands of phrases that are calques of English is not good Irish either. There is a gulf between Radio Lífe (non-native speakers speaking with comically heavy accents, poor grammar and made-up words) and Radio na Gaeltachta where the actual native speakers speak natural Irish.

Tá an ceart agat sa méid a deireann tú, a Pheadair den Túr! Cuirfimíd mar sin é, ní cheapaid muíntir na Gaeltachta gur Gaelainn mhaith ar fad é an rud a labhraid na foghlamóirí! Tá's ag na cainnteóirí dúchais gur acu-san atá an blas agus ní hag an lucht foghlamtha. Agus nách Gaelainn cheart na mílte focal ceapaithe suas ag na foghlamóiríbh, agus nách Gaelainn cheart ach oiread na mílte frásaí lom-aistriúcháin cóipeáilte ón mBéarla a húsáidthar sa Ghalltacht. Tá ana-bheárna idir Raidió Lífe (mar a bhfaighimíd na nua-chainnteóirí le blas greannmhar trom, gan aon bheann ar ghramadaigh agus le focail déanta suas) agus Raidió na Gaeltachta, mar a labhraid na fíor-chainnteóirí dúchais as Gaelainn go maith nádúrtha.


----------



## Stoggler

pimlicodude said:


> I find them offensive, as they amount to an attempt to destroy cultures and languages.



I’m sure that was exactly what Tolkien and Okrand had in mind when inventing Quenya and Klingon respectively!

Flippancy aside, that hasn’t not been the goal of international auxiliary language proponents either, as has been discussed here.


----------



## Awwal12

Stoggler said:


> Flippancy aside, that hasn’t not been the goal of international auxiliary language proponents either


It hasn't, though the concerns that a truly succesful international auxlang will prove to be exactly that are well understandable.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Perhaps. But Ireland made the English language its own, as did Scotland. I imagine the same is true of Russian-speakers in Central Asia. It's certainly true of Spanish in Latin America.

Any language that spreads beyond its original confines will be shaped, moulded and "owned" by new populations, whether those languages are artifically-created or otherwise.


----------



## Awwal12

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I imagine the same is true of Russian-speakers in Central Asia.


Central Asia is highly non-uniform in that regard. Obviously, ethnic Russian retain Russian; as for other ethnicities, it depends (a lot). Indeed, in many cities of Northern Kazakhstan local Kazakhs may barely speak Kazakh, especially the Soviet generation; however, in the south the youth, on the contrary, hardly speaks Russian. In other Central Asian countries potential extent of knowing Russian among the non-Russians varies greatly (from a native tongue to a language which one can barely speak), but it never supplants the local languages - that's mostly either a Ukrainian/Belarusian thing or something that occurs inside the Russian borders.


----------



## pimlicodude

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Perhaps. But Ireland made the English language its own, as did Scotland. I imagine the same is true of Russian-speakers in Central Asia. It's certainly true of Spanish in Latin America.
> 
> Any language that spreads beyond its original confines will be shaped, moulded and "owned" by new populations, whether those languages are artifically-created or otherwise.


Is Hiberno-English weakening? I mean the form of Irish that says "do be". My impression is that constant exposure to US TV is having an effect on Irish English. Dublin 4 is said to be the most Anglified postcode.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I don't think it's weakening but it is changing. Rural dialects of Irish English are alive and well. The English spoken in Donegal (Ulster) and Kerry (Munster) are still very distinctive. There is a pan-urban accent known as New Dublin English however (which has spread far beyond the confines of Dublin City).


----------



## Awwal12

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Rural dialects of Irish English are alive and well.


Not so well as they used to be, it seems, and it's not like they necessarily die out directly - but they approach the more common varieties more and more. The same process has been attested for Russian dialects and quite early: rural dialects of the late 19th century had percievably more syntactical peculiarities than those written in the same areas in the mid 20th century (those must have been the first features to go under the influence of the language of the army, the school and the radio).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Yes, I think that's fair. What's surprising in Russia's/the USSR's case is that Ukrainian and Belorussian survived to any serious extent at all (though I suspect that they've been heavily Russified in comparison with earlier versions of both languages).


----------



## nizzebro

Pedro y La Torre said:


> What's surprising in Russia's/the USSR's case is that Ukrainian and Belorussian survived to any serious extent at all (though I suspect that they've been heavily russified in comparison with earlier versions of both languages).


They survived because for some some reason were maintained by the cursed totalitarian commies, and the local national language was obligatorily at school.
As well the Russian Empire didn't suppressed it until they started  publishing extremist literature at the end of the 19 century. But today you can see this disinformation everywhere  about "Russification", even in Wikipedia (which is now totally under control of Western services).  Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian are actually rather dialects than languages when compared to each other - and in China, I believe these would be dialects and so there would be no any pseudo-self-identification. It is like to talk about Germanization of dialects in Germany.


----------



## Penyafort

pimlicodude said:


> We have a common language, English. And in point of fact, languages are not just vehicles for communication, but bearers of history and culture.


That's the point. Learning a language goes along with learning its history and culture. And when it is a natural language, then it is always going to bear an imperialistic origin at its root.


----------



## elroy

Penyafort said:


> And when it is a natural language, then it is always going to bear an imperialistic origin at its root.


What do you mean by this?  Could you elaborate?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

nizzebro said:


> They survived because for some some reason were maintained by the cursed totalitarian commies, and the local national language was obligatorily at school.
> As well the Russian Empire didn't suppressed it until they started  publishing extremist literature at the end of the 19 century. But today you can see this disinformation everywhere  about "Russification", even in Wikipedia (which is now totally under control of Western services).  Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian are actually rather dialects than languages when compared to each other - and in China, I believe these would be dialects and so there would be no any pseudo-self-identification. It is like to talk about Germanization of dialects in Germany.


I wasn't making a political point per se when referring to Russification (which would be outside the scope of this subforum in any event). It's more that Russian was the language of power and could reasonably be expected to strongly influence related languages and dialects.


----------



## nizzebro

Pedro y La Torre said:


> It's more that Russian was the language of power


But what "the language of power" mean exactly?  
Once you use "Russification" - it is a near-political term initially, because it is rather causative.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> and the local national language was obligatorily at school


Which guarantees nearly zero knowledge by itself (a foreign language was also obligatory; and... well... here's Mutko, whose knowledge is sufficiently close to the average). Still, the prestige of Ukrainian and Belarusian was at least above zero, there was some Ukrainian and Belarusian literature, and a lot of rural native speakers; it's noteworthy that while in Belarus the local variety of Russian is now for the most part indistinguishable from that spoken in most Russian cities (Lukashenko and other rural people aside), the Russian language of Ukraine is hugely influenced by Ukrainian phonology even when the speaker himself doesn't speak Ukrainian at all.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

nizzebro said:


> But what "the language of power" mean exactly?
> Once you use "Russification" - it is a near-political term initially, because it is rather causative.


The language of administration, commercial exchanges, high culture and so forth.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> What do you mean by this?  Could you elaborate?


English is not nowadays the most spoken language in the world because of some inherent superior qualities. This is due to a history we all are aware of, the result of an age of empires. So, whether a European country decides to teach it in schools or an African country decides to make it the only official language because the local ones are too many, the root, the origin of it, is the same one: a privileged position with regard to the propagation of a determined culture.

Obviously this can get diluted with time. Two people speaking Naija in a district of a town in Mars in 2143 may have little trace of that past in what they're speaking and thinking. But it definitely takes some time.


----------



## elroy

You're talking about one particular language and one particular example.  Yes, one of the biggest reasons for the spread of English is imperialism, but that's obviously not the case for all natural languages.  As a matter of fact, quite a large number of them have not spread _*at all*_ and are endangered.

You can't say none of the 7000+ languages in the world are any good as lingua francas -- and we need to invent new ones -- because an exceedingly small number of natural languages have spread through imperialism.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> You're talking about one particular language and one particular example.  Yes, one of the biggest reasons for the spread of English is imperialism, but that's obviously not the case for all natural languages.  As a matter of fact, quite a large number of them have not spread _*at all*_ and are endangered.


Sure. But those are not lingua francas anywhere.



elroy said:


> You can't say none of the 7000+ languages in the world are any good as lingua francas -- and we need to invent new ones -- because an exceedingly small number of natural languages have spread through imperialism.


So you think that, if we chose now one endangered language -say, Tsuut'ina- as a global language, people would accept it, complicated as it is, instead of a more simple constructed one just because it is natural?


----------



## elroy

There are many languages with simple grammars.  Indonesian is usually given as a prime example.  I'm sure that many of the world's endangered languages also have simple grammars.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> There are many languages with simple grammars.  Indonesian is usually given as a prime example.  I'm sure that many of the world's endangered languages also have simple grammars.



I'd say it's the opposite. Grammars tend to simplify the more they're used as lingua francas. Mainly because many people from different backgrounds and languages begin to speak it. That's what happens with Indonesian too, after all.


----------



## elroy

Are you saying that every single one of the world's endangered languages is complex?  Somehow I doubt that's true.

Norwegian has never been a lingua franca, and it's grammatically very simple.  The pronunciation is also pretty easy (much easier than Danish and Swedish, but also generally pretty easy).  The spelling is also easy.  Maybe we should all learn Norwegian!


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> Are you saying that every single one of the world's endangered languages is complex?  Somehow I doubt that's true.
> 
> Norwegian has never been a lingua franca, and it's grammatically very simple.  The pronunciation is also pretty easy (much easier than Danish and Swedish, but also generally pretty easy).  The spelling is also easy.  Maybe we should all learn Norwegian!


That depends on whether we're talking about the most Western-like Norwegian or the one that is almost like Danish.

Anyway, I thought you were talking about an endangered one, one that nobody associates to a country or even a region. Norwegian is not endangered at all.


----------



## elroy

I'm talking about Bokmål or Standard Norwegian.

Of course Norwegian is not endangered.  I was just giving that as an example of a simple language that has not spread globally.  I was responding to what you said about endangered languages or languages of limited diffusion being complex and languages becoming simple through widespread usage.  I don't know much about endangered languages, so I can't give a specific example of a simple one, but what I know about Norwegian makes me think that odds are there are endangered languages with simple grammars.


----------



## WadiH

Maybe it's a matter of contact.  Norwegian is not a lingua franca but it has been in contact with a lot of other languages.


----------



## pimlicodude

It certainly helps, in terms of being a global language, that English has an initially easy learning curve: you study for a few hours and you can already have a basic conversation. (L2 speakers very often appear unaware that at the advanced level English is much trickier, and many learners overrate their language level.) As far as basic-lower intermediate language goes, English is easy (if you ignore the spelling and the pronunciation, of course!!).


----------



## Awwal12

pimlicodude said:


> that English has an initially easy learning curve


Yes, very much so. At least it's totally incomparable to the very steep learning threshold of Russian, where even simple nominal predicative sentences will have unexpected complexities.


----------



## Olaszinhok

elroy said:


> an example of a simple language that has not spread globally. I


If I could put in my two cents, isn't English even "easier" than Norwegian? The former has no gender (Norwegian has feminine, masculine and neuter ) adjectives never change, fewer articles, English may have more verb tenses but  in terms of pronunciation I reckon that the two languages are at the same level of difficulty: both languages boast plenty of vowel sounds but  Norwegian also has two different tones. Afrikaans is certainly more "simplified" than Norwegian and Swedish, grammatically. Besides, you are a native speaker of English, your German is beautiful and you probably speak some Dutch, I wonder whether a Chinese or a Farsi speaker would also share your opinion.
Furthermore, no language is easy if you wish to speak it at an advanced level. In my view, even constructed languages would develop  idioms, colloquialisms, fixed espressions and irregularities, if they were spoken on a daily basis. Most of us tend to associate difficulty with complex morphology but there are several elements to take into account in a language.


----------



## pimlicodude

Olaszinhok said:


> If I could put in my two cents, isn't English even "easier" than Norwegian? The former has no gender (Norwegian has feminine, masculine and neuter ) adjectives never change, fewer articles, English may have more verb tenses but  in terms of pronunciation I reckon that the two languages are at the same level of difficulty: both languages boast plenty of vowel sounds but  Norwegian also has two different tones. Afrikaans is certainly more "simplified" than Norwegian and Swedish, grammatically. Besides, you are a native speaker of English, your German is beautiful and you probably speak some Dutch, I wonder whether a Chinese or a Farsi speaker would also share your opinion.
> Furthermore, no language is easy if you wish to speak it at an advanced level. In my view, even constructed languages would develop  idioms, colloquialisms, fixed espressions and irregularities, if they were spoken on a daily basis. Most of us tend to associate difficulty with complex morphology but there are several elements to take into account in a language.


I think some of the tenses (synthetic tenses) in English can be tricky to master. In some circumstances, you could say "he will have been doing that all day by then", although the future perfect continuous isn't the most common tense, and to get to the level of English where you can use that is quite a feat. I ran into a Russian on Youtube once, in the comments, who proudly informed the others in the thread that the future perfect continuous is obsolete, because he had lived in Canada for 20 years and had never heard it. (No, it's not obsolete.)


----------



## elroy

@WadiH, I imagine most of the world's languages are in contact with other languages.  But let's assume it _is_ about language contact.  Do we have evidence that languages with little to no contact with other languages are always complex, and that only languages that have had (significant) contact with other languages are simple?

@Olaszinhok, yes, English may be simpler than Norwegian, but English is also a global language.  My intention was to give an example of a simple language that is _not_ a global language / lingua franca / a language that has spread significantly.

You are of course right that the languages one already knows impact how easy a new language is going to be, but that applies equally to constructed languages.  I don't think it's possible for a constructed language to not have anything at all in common with any natural language.

You are also right that there are numerous factors that determine how "complex" a language is. However, I believe the argument for "simpler" constructed languages is predicated (mostly) on simpler morphosyntax and phonology -- which is why I brought up Norwegian as an example.  I've never really thought about this, but I would probably say that if we don't consider English, and assuming a learner has no measurable advantage due to the languages they already speak, Norwegian is probably the easiest major European language to learn in terms of morphosyntax and phonology.

I suppose an important question that is relevant to the idea of a significant community of people "learning" a constructed language and using it as a lingua franca is what exactly do we mean when we speak of the ease of "learning" the language?  Are we talking about just getting to a solid communicative level, or are we talking about more advanced levels, where one is knowledgeable of colloquialisms, idioms, fixed expressions, nuances, subtleties, figurative language, etc.?  If we consider English, there are many, many non-native speakers who are very communicatively functional in English but are lacking in that more advanced knowledge. If we're talking about truly _mastering_ a language, then yes, I agree that we would need to consider more than morphosyntax and phonology.

(Thank you for your compliment on my German. 🙏  And yes, I do know some Dutch.)


----------



## pimlicodude

elroy said:


> @WadiH, I imagine most of the world's languages are in contact with other languages.  But let's assume it _is_ about language contact.  Do we have evidence that languages with little to no contact with other languages are always complex, and that only languages that have had (significant) contact with other languages are simple?
> 
> @Olaszinhok, yes, English may be simpler than Norwegian, but English is also a global language.  My intention was to give an example of a simple language that is _not_ a global language / lingua franca / a language that has spread significantly.
> 
> You are of course right that the languages one already knows impact how easy a new language is going to be, but that applies equally to constructed languages.  I don't think it's possible for a constructed language to not have anything at all in common with any natural language.
> 
> You are also right that there are numerous factors that determine how "complex" a language is. However, I believe the argument for "simpler" constructed languages is predicated (mostly) on simpler morphosyntax and phonology -- which is why I brought up Norwegian as an example.  I've never really thought about this, but I would probably say that if we don't consider English, and assuming a learner has no measurable advantage due to the languages they already speak, Norwegian is probably the easiest major European language to learn in terms of morphosyntax and phonology.
> 
> I suppose an important question that is relevant to the idea of a significant community of people "learning" a constructed language and using it as a lingua franca is what exactly do we mean when we speak of the ease of "learning" the language?  Are we talking about just getting to a solid communicative level, or are we talking about more advanced levels, where one is knowledgeable of colloquialisms, idioms, fixed expressions, nuances, subtleties, figurative language, etc.?  If we consider English, there are many, many non-native speakers who are very communicatively functional in English but are lacking in that more advanced knowledge. If we're talking about truly _mastering_ a language, then yes, I agree that we would need to consider more than morphosyntax and phonology.
> 
> (Thank you for your compliment on my German. 🙏  And yes, I do know some Dutch.)


@elroy, and part of the reason why Norwegian is considered simple is that it is related to English. As hundreds of millions are familiar with English, they should be able to pick up thousands of Norwegian words quite easily. I once studied Swedish, but only did one book (Colloquial Swedish) and it made it easier for me to think of the cognates: eller ("or") related to "else"; på ("on") related to "upon", etc. But someone who had never learnt a single word of English might not find Norwegian as easy as all that.


----------



## elroy

elroy said:


> However, I believe the argument for "simpler" constructed languages is predicated (mostly) on simpler *morphosyntax and phonology* -- which is why I brought up Norwegian as an example.


👆 I was only thinking of morphosyntax and phonology.


----------



## Awwal12

Cross-linguistically, "simple phonology" is something Polynesian-like. I don't think Russians or Chinese would find Norwegian phonology simple.


----------



## elroy

If anything this discussion just shows that _any_ language is simple(r) in some ways and (more) complex in others.  I'm sure that there's at least one natural language of limited diffusion out there that is on the whole as simple or as complex as any given constructed language.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> If anything this discussion just shows that _any_ language is simple(r) in some ways and (more) complex in others.  I'm sure that there's at least one natural language of limited diffusion out that is on the whole as simple or as complex as any given constructed language.


There is no simple language, be it constructed or not. However, I very much doubt there's a simple natural language out there, whether major or almost extinct, without its share of irregularities, exceptions to the rules and lots of intricate nuances related to the cultural history of its speakers. Something which has typically been avoided as much as possible in auxlangs.


----------



## elroy

I would not consider the loss of "intricate nuances related to the cultural history of [a language's] speakers" an advantage. 

I'm not sure that the loss of irregularities and exceptions is an advantage either.  They give a language character.

As I said earlier, I don't see a language as just a communication vehicle. 

Additionally, what I said earlier about what level of proficiency we're talking about is relevant here.  A non-native English speaker who says "I speaked" or "five childs" will be understood, so overgeneralization is generally not an impediment to communication.


----------



## Awwal12

Penyafort said:


> There is no simple language, be it constructed or not.


At least there definitely may be a language with the simplest phonology and an entirely regular grammar.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> I would not consider the loss of "intricate nuances related to the cultural history of [a language's] speakers" an advantage.


Maybe not an advantage, but definitely a more neutral start for everybody. It goes without saying that, after only a few decades, the constructed language would have developed many of them all the same. Esperanto itself has developed a few along its history without being a widespread lingua franca.



elroy said:


> I'm not sure that the loss of irregularities and exceptions is an advantage either.  They give a language character.


Here I disagree. What makes me love languages is that each of them has its character, as you say. Being easy when it comes to some things that are so troublesome in others also shows a character. People who are very easy to deal with have their personality too.



elroy said:


> As I said earlier, I don't see a language as just a communication vehicle.


Neither do I. At all.



elroy said:


> Additionally, what I said earlier about what level of proficiency we're talking about is relevant here.  A non-native English speaker who says "I speaked" or "five childs" will be understood, so overgeneralization is generally not an impediment to communication.


Well, I somehow disagree, but that may just be me because of personal experience. I remember being misunderstood in my first visit to London. I was only eleven and my English was definitely at an early stage (one or two years) but even so it annoyed me as it certainly hindered me from communicating what I wished. I still recall that experience as a turning point for trying to be as perfectionist when learning the phonology of a language as possible.



Awwal12 said:


> At least there definitely may be a language with the simplest phonology and an entirely regular grammar.


A natural one? I don't think so or at least I'm not acquainted with any. Polynesian ones are certainly easy in their phonology but I don't consider their grammar to be easy or regular.


----------



## Awwal12

Penyafort said:


> A natural one?


An artificial one, for the latter part at least.


----------



## dojibear

Awwal12 said:


> At least there definitely may be a language with the simplest phonology and an entirely regular grammar.


Simple phonology _for everyone _is doubtful. Different languages have different phonetic features.

For example, some languages distinguish (use to distinguish different words):
- plosive vs. non-plosive consonants
- voiced vs. non-voiced consonants
- retroflex vs. non-retroflex consonants
- short-duration vs. longer duration vowels
- different kinds of consonants (harsh, lax, doubled, emphatic...I don't know the linguistic terms)
- syllable timing: stress-based or syllable-based

If your native language lacks a distinction, it is difficult to even *hear *that distinction in a new language, much less reproduce it clearly. I've noticed the issues listed above in just 4 languages (including English). Imagine how many other distinctions other languages have!

So "simple/easy phonology" varies widely around the world.


----------



## rarabara

hahahaha    , hey lols , you miss many many details.
of course, I won't be able to respond all the queries (if it happens)
but, I wonder really : why does not anyone consider any secret gateways between such an interesting query?? (What I mean is both simple and difficult when we point the case out to the topic)

consider this: do birds or cats have their own language??
I think yes.
one another question: do or should we really say that a problematic thing should be considered a natural and NOT a problem when it scientifically NOT resolved??
ah, humans (by default many of them !) are limited (cannot do everything)


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> Simple phonology _for everyone _is doubtful. Different languages have different phonetic features.
> 
> For example, some languages distinguish (use to distinguish different words):
> - plosive vs. non-plosive consonants
> - voiced vs. non-voiced consonants
> - retroflex vs. non-retroflex consonants
> - short-duration vs. longer duration vowels
> - different kinds of consonants (harsh, lax, doubled, emphatic...I don't know the linguistic terms)
> - syllable timing: stress-based or syllable-based
> 
> If your native language lacks a distinction, it is difficult to even *hear *that distinction in a new language, much less reproduce it clearly. I've noticed the issues listed above in just 4 languages (including English). Imagine how many other distinctions other languages have!
> 
> So "simple/easy phonology" varies widely around the world.


The thing is, the Polynesian languages mentioned above (at least for the most part, I cannot vouch for all of them) have *none* of those distinctions.  And they also have the simplest phonotactics, to that matter.


----------



## dojibear

Awwal12 said:


> The thing is, the Polynesian languages mentioned above (at least for the most part, I cannot vouch for all of them) have *none* of those distinctions.


Oh good! That means they don't have both T and D, or both P and B, or both K and G. 

There is also a phonetic problem between the new language and the learner's native language. How difficult is it for them to hear and speak sounds that don't exist in their native language? But that isn't avoidable, and only means it will be harder for some people to learn than for others.


----------



## dojibear

Hawaiian phonology - Wikipedia
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Hawaiian has only eight consonant phonemes: /p, k ⁓ t, ʔ, h, m, n, l ⁓ ɾ, w ⁓ v/. There is allophonic variation of [k] with [t], [w] with [v], and [l] with [ɾ]. The [t]–[k] variation is highly unusual among the world's languages. 

"if the long vowels and diphthongs are treated as separate, unit phonemes, there are 25 vowel phonemes. The short vowel phonemes are /u, i, o, e, a/. If long vowels are counted separately, they are /uː, iː, oː, eː, aː/. If diphthongs are counted separately, they are /iu, ou, oi, eu, ei, au, ai, ao, ae, oːu, eːi, aːu, aːi, aːo, aːe/

"Phonological processes in Hawaiian include palatalization and deletion of consonants and the raising, diphthongization, deletion, and compensatory lengthening of vowels.
-------------------------------------------------------------

_Esperanto is looking better and better..._


----------



## rarabara

Awwal12 said:


> At least there definitely may be a language with the simplest phonology and an entirely regular grammar.


By default, Arabic language is the best language , lets learn some Arabic.
(I do not know what simple & regular grammar  (also entirely?) mean? hahaha )


----------



## dojibear

rarabara said:


> (I do not know what simple & regular grammar (also entirely?) mean? hahaha )


"Entirely regular grammar" means that all words follow the same rules. It means there are no exceptions.

Do you know Arabic?


----------



## rarabara

dojibear said:


> "Entirely regular grammar" means that all words follow the same rules. It means there are no exceptions.


then be sure , including mines , all of artificial implementations (i.e. constructed languages) will be NOT the best prototype. 



> Do you know Arabic?


I think in B1 level or higher, yes.
inshaAllah I shall learn it up to C2 (including C2) . I am hopeful really.


----------



## Awwal12

rarabara said:


> By default, Arabic language is the best language , lets learn some Arabic.
> (I do not know what simple & regular grammar (also entirely?) mean? hahaha )


"Entirely regular" means certain grammatical relations are expressed in a totally uniform manner. No different conjugation and inflection paradigms, no empty categories like grammatical gender, etc.
Also I'd add that simple grammar would normally persume avoiding morphological fusion (granted, it potentially makes the language more compact, but also tends to multiply morphemes beyond necessity).


----------



## rarabara

Awwal12 said:


> "Entirely regular" means certain grammatical relations are expressed in a totally uniform manner. No different conjugation and inflection paradigms, no empty categories like grammatical gender, etc.
> Also I'd add that simple grammar would normally persume avoiding morphological fusion.


   
and is not this an artificial implementation or idea? (which is NOT good)


----------



## Awwal12

rarabara said:


> and is not this an artificial implementation or idea? (which is NOT good)


Not good for what?


----------



## rarabara

Awwal12 said:


> Not good for what?


simply for everything.
(i think that it would be good to define what I have meant by "artificial" here by my personal implication.
it means "an implementation done by a human"


----------



## Penyafort

dojibear said:


> Simple phonology _for everyone _is doubtful. Different languages have different phonetic features.
> 
> For example, some languages distinguish (use to distinguish different words):
> - plosive vs. non-plosive consonants
> - voiced vs. non-voiced consonants
> - retroflex vs. non-retroflex consonants
> - short-duration vs. longer duration vowels
> - different kinds of consonants (harsh, lax, doubled, emphatic...I don't know the linguistic terms)
> - syllable timing: stress-based or syllable-based
> 
> If your native language lacks a distinction, it is difficult to even *hear *that distinction in a new language, much less reproduce it clearly. I've noticed the issues listed above in just 4 languages (including English). Imagine how many other distinctions other languages have!
> 
> So "simple/easy phonology" varies widely around the world.


It all comes down to what feature is regarded as simple by a majority.

A simple phonology should be then understood, for instance, as that one which uses the most common phonemes in most languages, which means, /m, k, j, p, w, n, s, t/ (then judge if we should extend it to /b, l, h, ɡ, ŋ, d/).

This means, the two main nasals (m, n), the three main stops (p, t, k), the two main approximants (j, w), and a fricative (s).

If such was the case, the fact that some speakers would make them aspirated or retroflex wouldn't really matter, as that would not hinder communication at all. For instance, a Spanish speaker understands English speakers perfectly when they speak Spanish aspirating the stops in [pʰero], [tʰakʰo] etc.

Obviously the inventory of phonemes being so restricted would mean that either new ones should be incorporated (perhaps an _l/r_, _h_, and _ŋ_ in non-initial position) or create a language which would not absorb much in international vocabulary, as those words could get as distorted as some from English or French do in the Polynesian languages.

Vowels should be restricted to the three/five 'basic' ones (i/a/u + e/o), so that making them a bit more open/close, back/front, lax/tense or short/long didn't really matter.


----------



## pimlicodude

If simplicity were required, why not Spanish? Cardinal vowels, no weird sounds, the accent normally on the penultimate, a lot of conjugations, but mainly regular, a small vocabulary compared with English. It could be the ideal world language (and nearly did become so under Philip II). You could even argue it will become that again, once America becomes part of Latin America.


----------



## rarabara

pimlicodude said:


> If simplicity were required, why not Spanish? Cardinal vowels, no weird sounds, the accent normally on the penultimate, a lot of conjugations, but mainly regular, a small vocabulary compared with English. It could be the ideal world language (and nearly did become so under Philip II). You could even argue it will become that again, once America becomes part of Latin America.


  
and you suggest that Spanish was simple. Good.
And I do not believe that.   

NOTATION: unfortunately I do not know anything about Spanish language, but at the same time I do not believe that it would be simple. In fact, there is no simple or difficult property for any language (because these are relative as you know or stated. )


----------



## dojibear

Phonetically, I think Spanish is simpler than most languages.



Penyafort said:


> Obviously the catalogue of phonemes being so restricted would mean that either new ones should be incorporated (perhaps an _l/r_, _h_, and _ŋ_ in non-initial position) or create a language which would not drink much in international vocabulary, as those words could get as distorted as some from English or French do in the Polynesian languages.


In general, English isn't a good language to copy phonemes from. English has too many uncommon sounds. 
- English R is different from (almost) every other language's R. 
- Some English vowels (i in hit, e in bed) are uncommon. 
- English L is hard to pronounce. 
- English Y and W are diphthongs (glides between two vowels) in some languages, not consonants. 
- English restricts *ŋ* to non-initial positions, but other languages do not.


----------



## Hulalessar

The White Queen sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast, but I think even she would have had difficulty persuading herself that the verbal system of Spanish was simple. This page sets out all the possible (non-continuous) forms a Spanish verb can take. There are 18 different finite categories and you have to know which one to use, though in modern Spanish the future subjunctive forms will only be found in legal or other highly formal texts and a few of the other forms might be regarded as more literary than everyday. The compound forms on the right are all formed in the same way by using the appropriate category of the auxiliary verb and the past participle. The simple forms present 56 different endings, 48 if you discount the first and third person singular being identical in some forms. However not all conjugations have the same endings; compare _comer_ with _amar_.

That is just the start. You also have radical changing verbs where the form of the root depends in whether it is stressed. Whether a root will change and if so how is not predictable. And then there are irregular verbs. Some are no more than verbs requiring changes to comply with the rules of Spanish orthography and some are only slightly irregular. Even so, you need to know them. Over all my Spanish grammar gives 65 different forms.

By contrast, the morphology of nouns is simple. They do not inflect except for plural and the rules are straightforward with very few exceptions.

So, is Spanish simple or complex? Like any language some aspects are simple and others complex. Complexity is difficult to measure, but from what I have read, most linguists consider all languages to be more or less equally complex. When it comes to learning, some languages are "front end loaded" and some jestingly characterised as "you have to know everything before you can say anything". Others may appear deceptively simple when you start, only for you to realise they are trickier than you thought when you get into them.


----------



## elroy

dojibear said:


> - English restricts *ŋ* to non-initial positions, but other languages do not.


That makes English easier, not harder.


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> Phonetically, I think Spanish is simpler than most languages.


As far as its phonetic inventory is concerned, sure. Spanish phonotactics, on the other hand, allows many consonant clusters totally unpronounceable for, say, Japanese (including -str-, which may be considered a typical IE phonetic marker; at least it doesn't occur word-initially anymore, but that's of little help).


----------



## Olaszinhok

pimlicodude said:


> onjugations, but mainly regular, a small vocabulary compared with Englis


The Spanish Subjunctive is a pain in the neck and the sequence of verb tenses too. Besides, prosody is completely different in the two languages: English is a stress-timed language, while Spanish is a syllable-timed language.
By the way, English is far from being easy for me:
the use of articles is so tricky,
verbs + ing, to, both or base form,
countable and uncountable nouns,
some verb tenses are not that straightforward,
a lot of quantifiers,
the proper order of words in a sentece is also complicated.


----------



## pimlicodude

Olaszinhok said:


> By the way, English is far from being easy for me:
> the use of articles is so tricky,
> verbs + ing, to, both or base form,
> countable and uncountable nouns,
> some verb tenses are not that straightforward,
> a lot of quantifiers,
> the proper order of words in a sentece is also complicated.


But you can get all of those things wrong and still be understood...


----------



## dojibear

I like the subjunctive in English. I understood it better after studying Latin and Spanish in high school.



Olaszinhok said:


> English is syllable-timed language, while Spanish is a stress-timed language.


That is backwards, but their syllable timing is different, which is a significant issue.

Isochrony - Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a whole article about the 3 main different syllable timings in languages.

Syllable timed: French, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, Icelandic, Cantonese, Mandarin Chinese, Georgian, Romanian, Armenian, Turkish and Korean.

Stress timed:  English, Thai, German, Russian, Danish, Swedish, Catalan, Norwegian, Faroese, Dutch, European Portuguese, and Persian.

Mora timed: Japanese, Gilbertese, Slovak and Ganda.


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> I like the subjunctive in English. I understood it better after studying Latin and Spanish in high school.


And I like the subjunctive in Russian much more.  English still produces tense differences which aren't really much relevant for situations that are by definition irreal. Russian doesn't, and uses the same mood for irreal conditions to the top of it (with the simplest morphology as a bonus - just бы + preterite). One of those few cases when Russian grammar is actually easier for a change.


----------



## Dymn

It's true a language is much more than communication, but of course people who like discussing languages on WordReference ascribe too much importance to other "idealistic" factors. People outside the Anglosphere rarely learn English to read Jane Austen and Walt Whitman, or be marveled by the quirks and intricacies of the language. They are pragmatic and learn it to communicate with people from other countries. That's why most don't really care about honing their English past a given stage, they can already do that.

In that regard, a minimalistic auxlang with no initial culture is a plus, because it gets the job done in an easier way and on top of that doesn't give an unfair advantage to a single ethnic group.

Devising such a language with, say, the top 10 most representative languages in mind shouldn't be difficult.


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> Devising such a language with, say, the top 10 most representative languages in mind shouldn't be difficult.


That depends on what one understands by 'most representative'. Because if it's about the ten most spoken or widespread, we'll also benefit a reduced number of families, so that a particular set of features and vocabulary is going to prevail.


----------



## Dymn

I was thinking: Mandarin, Swahili, Arabic, Indonesian, Tamil, Turkish, Japanese, Vietnamese; Hindustani, Spanish, English, and Russian. That covers all primary language families with more than 100 million speakers, and includes four Indo-European representants from four different subfamilies with more than 100 million speakers too.


----------



## merquiades

I doubt Catalan is a stress-timed language.  Whereas it is true that Eastern dialects neutralized unstressed vowel sounds, each syllable does get its due beat. You don't reduce and drop syllables or rush through unimportant words like in Portuguese, English and Russian.  Nothing like "chokl't cov'rd d'zirt". No one would say "g'ron" or "brs'lon".
*Apostrophe for a very weak schwa.
@dojibear


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> I like the subjunctive in English. I understood it better after studying Latin and Spanish in high school.


I will be the first to agree that "What does he of English know, who only English knows?" but only in the sense that learning foreign languages can give you insights into your own language, making you realise that there is more than one way of saying things. No one needs to "understand" their own language. Every language should be considered in its own terms, and not in the terms of any other. If you start to think of the subjunctive in English in terms of Latin or Spanish you run the risk of wondering if, or insisting that, the subjunctive, such as it is which is not much, is needed where it does not belong.

The subjunctive in English is moribund, but not quite so moribund in the US as in the UK. Ignoring the verb "to be", the subjunctive as a form only exists in the third person singular present tense, so its operation is very limited. That rather deflates the arguments put forward for it. Take:

A. _John insists that his son behave well._

and 

B. _John insists that his son behaves well_.

An advocate of the subjunctive will tell you that A means that John requires his son to behave well, while B means that John is confirming his son behaves well. However, if we put an "s" on "son" it has to be:

C. _John insists that his sons behave well._

The distinction cannot be made and the supposed ambiguity is not avoided. In practice, ambiguity is in any event not going to arise because utterances are not made in isolation. A is likely to be preceded by an assertion that John is a strict father and B by some suggestion that John's son is not well behaved.

When I was a teenager at school in England in the sixties the word "subjunctive" never came up in (otherwise generally traditional) English lessons and examples such as A and B were never given for us to follow. It barely gets a mention in _The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language_.


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> I was thinking: Mandarin, Swahili, Arabic, Indonesian, Tamil, Turkish, Japanese, Vietnamese; Hindustani, Spanish, English, and Russian. That covers all primary language families with more than 100 million speakers, and includes four Indo-European representants from four different subfamilies with more than 100 million speakers too.


Well, I find that much more balanced, although IE still is predictably going to prevail.

I've always considered the five macrocultural ones (Latin, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit and Chinese) to be a first to consider when it is about borrowing vocabulary, since the five of them have been the ones to affect the lexikon of most languages.



merquiades said:


> I doubt Catalan is a stress-timed language.  Whereas it is true that Eastern dialects neutralized unstressed vowel sounds, each syllable does get its due beat.


There have been some studies about it, with no conclusive agreement reached. It is clearly not a typical syllable-timed language like Spanish or Italian, but it's not so stress-timed either as English. The position seems to be intermediate. Vowels suffer from reduction and one can notice this very clearly when the word is the same as in Spanish: patata is pronounced PA TA TA in Spanish, while the Catalan patata is more similar to the way an English speaker would say it if he didn't aspirate stops.



merquiades said:


> You don't reduce and drop syllables or rush through unimportant words like in Portuguese, English and Russian.  Nothing like "chokl't cov'rd d'zirt". No one would say "g'ron" or "brs'lon".


Many schwas are dropped in speech, specially when merging with a following vowel, so that segments like _Quina hora és? _('What's the time?') becomes /kinɔ'ɾes/. (Pronouncing it without dropping/merging reveals you're not native). Words such as _taronja_, _caramel_, etc. are commonly pronounced _tronja_, c_'rmel. _In some cases, even the variant has eventually become accepted (caragol and cargol).


----------



## Olaszinhok

Western Catalan shouldn't be stress-timed, there is no vowel reduction in that variety of Catalan, nor in Valencian. In my view, also French is an odd  syllable- timed language: when words are strung together in French to form sentences, stress is placed on the final syllable of the phrase. In a sense, French speakers treat a phrase like they treat a single word, they place the stress at the end.


----------



## dojibear

Dymn said:


> In that regard, a minimalistic auxlang with no initial culture is a plus, because it gets the job done in an easier way and on top of that doesn't give an unfair advantage to a single ethnic group.
> 
> Devising such a language with, say, the top 10 most representative languages in mind shouldn't be difficult.





Dymn said:


> I was thinking: Mandarin, Swahili, Arabic, Indonesian, Tamil, Turkish, Japanese, Vietnamese; Hindustani, Spanish, English, and Russian. That covers all primary language families with more than 100 million speakers


Your list omits Bengali, French, Portuguese and German, which are all over 100 million, and includes some languages with only 85 million speakers. But it is a good list for "most representative" languages.

The list covers quite a few sound systems. Without detailed research, it seems like there are many sounds that some of these 10 cannot pronounce, and very few sounds that all 10 of them use. Not to mention different writing systems: alphabets, abugidas, syllable-based, sound+meaning logographies (based on ancient sounds). 

How about teaching people to pronounce every phoneme in these 10 languages, and creating a writing system for all the phonemes? True, it will have 98 consonants and 67 vowels (plus 6 tones). Is that a problem?


----------



## dojibear

Hulalessar said:


> An advocate of the subjunctive


Do we get badges? Is there a flag?   



Hulalessar said:


> When I was a teenager at school in England in the sixties the word "subjunctive" never came up


When I was a teenager at school in the US in the sixties, "subjunctive" was a normal part of grammar. When I saw "grammars of AE" in the 2010s that used the term "past tense" instead of "subjunctive", I freaked out. It weakened my belief in grammars (I even turned in my badge ), though not in the subjunctive.

But you have already commented on the UK/US difference:


Hulalessar said:


> The subjunctive in English is moribund, but not quite so moribund in the US as in the UK.


----------



## merquiades

dojibear said:


> Do we get badges? Is there a flag?
> 
> 
> When I was a teenager at school in the US in the sixties, "subjunctive" was a normal part of grammar. When I saw "grammars of AE" in the 2010s that used the term "past tense" instead of "subjunctive", I freaked out. It weakened my belief in grammars (I even turned in my badge ), though not in the subjunctive.
> 
> But you have already commented on the UK/US difference:


Yes, I was shocked with those new grammar books from England calling it past tense and back shifting to express doubt, contrary to fact and non-existence.  I had teachers teach the subjunctive and was enriched by that. It was alive and kicking, used pretty much daily.  It's essential you be on time for class.  Would that she learn her lesson once and for all.  Were I you I'd think twice before doing that.


----------



## Hulalessar

merquiades said:


> Yes, I was shocked with those new grammar books from England calling it past tense and back shifting to express doubt, contrary to fact and non-existence.  I had teachers teach the subjunctive and was enriched by that. It was alive and kicking, used pretty much daily.  It's essential you be on time for class.  Would that she learn her lesson once and for all.  Were I you I'd think twice before doing that.


Whether I would be annoyed by the use of "past tense" depends on whether it is used to describe form or function.

Contrary to the belief of most literate Britons, Standard American English is in some respects (though only in very few) more conservative than Standard British English. The continued use of the subjunctive, such as it is, is an instance. That cannot be objected to and certainly not classed as incorrect. I would though raise an eyebrow if a failure to use the subjunctive where prescribed is classed as incorrect.

The subjunctive, like "whom", is best described as unstable. If you have to be taught something it can probably be classed as unstable. Native Spanish speakers are not taught how to use the subjunctive just as native English speakers are not taught how to use continuous forms of the verb.

Perhaps the difference between American and British English on this issue should be characterised as one of style rather than grammar. The English (I cannot speak for the Scottish, Irish or Welsh) are inclined to think that a good style avoids ostentation or pretentiousness. Without I hope causing offence, I have to say that the instances you give strike me as somewhat strained.

What is historically a subjunctive is preserved in what may be referred to as minor or irregular sentences or set phrases. People are not going to stop saying "Come what may", "So be it" and "Heaven help us!" Apart from that, as a form the subjunctive barely exists. When it comes to function we should not go looking for it where it does not exist by comparing English with another language or with an earlier form of English.


----------



## bearded

Hulalessar said:


> the instances you give strike me as somewhat strained.


Just out of curiosity: would you say ''was I you'' instead of ''were I you'' in the last example?


----------



## merquiades

Hulalessar said:


> I have to say that the instances you give strike me as somewhat strained.


The second example is admittedly strained, the third example purposely formal, but a structure like "to be" + adj + subjunctive" I couldn't imagine any other way.  It's preferable we use subjunctive.

I'm not sure that the objective of good English is always to avoid being ostentatious or pretentious. Journal articles often go for the opposite.

I just read that under influence from American and Australian English the subjunctive is being reintroduced in Britain.


----------



## Penyafort

Olaszinhok said:


> Western Catalan shouldn't be stress-timed, there is no vowel reduction in that variety of Catalan, nor in Valencian. In my view, also French is an odd  syllable- timed language: when words are strung together in French to form sentences, stress is placed on the final syllable of the phrase. In a sense, French speakers treat a phrase like they treat a single word, they place the stress at the end.


I was naturally referring to Standard Central Catalan, the most spoken and most taught of all the varieties of the language. But yes, the position of Western Catalan (including Valencian) would be closer to the syllable-timed ones. (I remember having read somewhere that some foreigners hearing Valencian though it was Italian) 

In the same way, European Portuguese is much more stress-timed than Brazilian Portuguese. And I'd dare say some varieties of Spanish are clearly less syllable-timed than others too.



dojibear said:


> Your list omits Bengali, French, Portuguese and German, which are all over 100 million, and includes some languages with only 85 million speakers. But it is a good list for "most representative" languages.


I guess Dymn omitted them in order to add only one per family. Some may debate whether it should be Spanish instead of French, though.



dojibear said:


> The list covers quite a few sound systems. Without detailed research, it seems like there are many sounds that some of these 10 cannot pronounce, and very few sounds that all 10 of them use. Not to mention different writing systems: alphabets, abugidas, syllable-based, sound+meaning logographies (based on ancient sounds).


It is commonplace to consider the Latin alphabet as the one more fitted for an auxlang, as it is de facto the simple alphabet known by most people who use a different one. 



dojibear said:


> How about teaching people to pronounce every phoneme in these 10 languages, and creating a writing system for all the phonemes? True, it will have 98 consonants and 67 vowels (plus 6 tones). Is that a problem?


I still think phonemes should be restricted to the ones we mentioned above, with some possible 'expansion'. But a simple writing system which didn't privilege the Latin one would be an excellent idea, if feasible.


----------



## Hulalessar

bearded said:


> Just out of curiosity: would you say ''was I you'' instead of ''were I you'' in the last example?


No, but then I am not going to say "Were I you" either unless being mock pretentious. I would say "If I were you" rather than "If I was you", but would be slow to condemn the latter.

Is the "were" in fact a subjunctive? I would say it is a conditional which employs the form of the past tense. Is "had" subjunctive in "If I had a larger house I would buy a piano"?


----------



## merquiades

I find nothing pretentious about "were I you...", "had I gone..." and other similar constructions.
I always correct "If I was you...." but gently, without condemning it.


----------



## Dymn

Penyafort said:


> I've always considered the five macrocultural ones (Latin, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit and Chinese) to be a first to consider when it is about borrowing vocabulary, since the five of them have been the ones to affect the lexikon of most languages.


The idea is these classical languages are already represented in modern ones. Each of them has loaned extensively to at least three of the languages in my list.



dojibear said:


> Without detailed research, it seems like there are many sounds that some of these 10 cannot pronounce, and very few sounds that all 10 of them use.


If it had to be unanimous, the phonological repertory would be ridiculously small. I would settle for 8 or even 7 out of 12.


----------



## dojibear

Penyafort said:


> It is commonplace to consider the Latin alphabet as the one more fitted for an auxlang, as it is de facto the simple alphabet known by most people who use a different one.


Seems reasonable. I've noticed 3 natural languages that changed their written form (in the last 100 years) to one based on the Latin alphabet.

Even China uses uses the Latin alphabet for phonetic "pinyin" (Mandarin phonetic writing), which is what schoolchildren learn first. Learning all those characters takes years. Pinyin is also used to enter Mandarin text into computers and smartphones (for example: text chat). Type the sound in pinyin, then choose from the characters the computer pops up.


----------



## bearded

Hulalessar said:


> Is "had" subjunctive in "If I had a larger house I would buy a piano"?


I feel that here ''I would buy'' is conditional, and ''had'' is subjunctive.

However, I admit that I'm influenced by similar structures in Italian (my mother tongue). English grammar definitions are often different.


----------



## Olaszinhok

In my view, (If) _I were_ is a subjunctive just like_ Ich  wäre_ in German. As far as I know, the Subjunctive only survives  in a few fossilised forms in English and _If I were_ is one of them (in my opinion). With other verbs, the Past Simple is used instead, as in_ If I had a house._..Something similar happens in French, for instance.

Subjunctive | Grammar | EnglishClub


----------



## Awwal12

Olaszinhok said:


> I also think (If) _I were_ is a subjunctive just like_ Ich  wäre_ in German.


It's the matter of definitions, but what's obvious is that the condition and the thing being conditioned utilize quite different grammatical structures in English (which is always a problem for Russian learners; even I may occasionally hold for a moment to understand what form I should actually employ).


----------



## dojibear

Olaszinhok said:


> As far as I know, the Subjunctive only survives in a few fossilised forms in English and _If I were_ is one of them (in my opinion). With other verbs, the Past Simple is used instead


I disagree. English has very few subjunctive verbs that have *different spellings* than the past tense of the same verb: "were" is one of them. But English is full of same-spelling same-sounding words with different meanings, so that does not mean the subjunctive mood is rare. The subjunctive mood is quite common in English. It is a little more common in AE than in BE, but it is used in both.


----------



## Red Arrow

dojibear said:


> I disagree. English has very few subjunctive verbs that have *different spellings* than the past tense of the same verb: "were" is one of them. But English is full of same-spelling same-sounding words with different meanings, so that does not mean the subjunctive mood is rare. The subjunctive mood is quite common in English. It is a little more common in AE than in BE, but it is used in both.


Can you give an example of a subjunctive that is only distinct in spoken English?


----------



## dojibear

Red Arrow said:


> Can you give an example of a subjunctive that is only distinct in spoken English?





dojibear said:


> English is full of same-spelling same-sounding words with different meanings


Same-sounding words are not distinct in spoken English.


----------



## Olaszinhok

dojibear said:


> English has very few subjunctive verbs that have *different spellings* than the past tense of the same verb: "were" is one of them. But English is full of same-spelling same-sounding words with different meanings, so that does not mean the subjunctive


Hello Dojibear,

As you said, morphologically speaking,  there are very few forms of the Subjunctive in English. Only _were_, _be_ and the third person singular without the final s (as in _I suggest that he go_ in *American English*) pop into my mind. I may be wrong, though. You can also have a look at the link I shared in my post #250. As for the Preterit/Past simple that I mentioned in my previous post, I was just referring to the second Conditional, where the Past Simple is normally used in a sentence with if: _If I lived in the UK, my English would be much better.  _
In addition, I have to say that I've got several textbooks of English as a foreign language (up to C1/C2), published in the UK, in which the Subjunctive is not explained at all, with the only exception of _if I were._ However,  it is considered to be ever more formal in British English, according to the authors of these books.


----------



## dojibear

Olaszinhok said:


> As you said, morphologically speaking, there are very few forms of the Subjunctive in English.


I don't really understand what this means. There are plenty of subjunctive forms in English. They just match (in both speech and writing) indicative preterite forms.

But that is very common in English. I eat. You eat. He eats. We eat. You(pl) eat. They eat. In many languages, that is 6 forms. In English, just 2. Are there very few forms of present tense Indicative?


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> The idea is these classical languages are already represented in modern ones. Each of them has loaned extensively to at least three of the languages in my list.


That can be tricky, though.

Think about all those words that Esperanto took from a Latin/French source, usually taking into account their presence too in a few other European languages:

*kuz(in)o*, from French _cousin_ (Latin CONSOBRINUS; Italian _cugino_, Catalan _cosí_, etc; English _cousin_, German _Cousin_, etc.)​*nevo*, from French _neveu_ (Latin NEPOT-, Italian _nipote_, Catalan _nebot_, Romanian _nepot_; English _nephew_, German _Neffe_, Dutch _neef_, Swedish _nevö_, etc.)​*manĝi* 'to eat', from either French _manger_ or Italian _mangiare_ (Latin MANDUCARE, Catalan _menjar_, Romanian _mânca_, etc)​*voli* 'to want', from either Italian volere or French vouloir (Latin VOLERE, Catalan _voler_, Romanian _vrea_; German _wollen_, Dutch _willen_, Swedish _vilja_, etc)​*paroli* 'to speak', from either Italian _parola_/_parlare_ or French _parole_/_parler_ (Latin PARABOLARE, Catalan _parlar_; English _parley_, _palaver_)​*preni* 'to take', from either French _prendre_ or Italian _prendere_ (Latin PRENDERE, Catalan _prendre_)​etc.​​Now, if we consider Spanish as the representative of the Romance languages, all of the words above would not be candidate anymore, as Spanish has _primo, sobrino, comer, querer, hablar_ and _tomar/coger_ instead. Not using Latin or French can be a hard decision to make, since we'd be getting rid of an important source for several languages in Europe (and beyond).

I also find that something is missing without Persian in the list. But at the same time, I'd say the counterbalance is quite good, if we see it like this:

"Latin" : Spanish, _English_, _Russian_​"Arabic" : Arabic, _Turkish_, _Hindustani_, _Indonesian_​"Sanskrit" : Hindustani, _Tamil_, _Indonesian_​"Chinese" : Mandarin, _Japanese_, _Vietnamese_​


----------



## dojibear

Penyafort said:


> I'd say the counterbalance is quite good, if we see it like this:
> 
> "Latin" : Spanish, _English_, _Russian_
> "Arabic" : Arabic, _Turkish_, _Hindustani_, _Indonesian_
> "Sanskrit" : Hindustani, _Tamil_, _Indonesian_
> "Chinese" : Mandarin, _Japanese_, _Vietnamese_


There might be loanwords (due to proximity or conquest) but not derivation, for many of these:

In phonetics and grammar, Arabic(VSO) is not similar to Turkish(SOV) or Hindustani(IE) or Indonesian(IE).

In phonetics and grammar, Chinese (SVO) is not similar to that of Japanese (SOV).

I don't think Sanskrit (IE) is close to Tamil (non-IE).


----------



## Dymn

Penyafort said:


> Think about all those words that Esperanto took from a Latin/French source, usually taking into account their presence too in a few other European languages:


Well my idea would be to have vocabulary created mostly from scratch, and only include internationalisms when they're widespread enough.



Penyafort said:


> I also find that something is missing without Persian in the list.


Yes, it could be a contendant too. It's the most spoken Iranian language, a subfamily with more than 150 million native speakers, which is distinct enough from Indo-Aryan languages.



Penyafort said:


> "Arabic" : Arabic, _Turkish_, _Hindustani_, _Indonesian_


Swahili has lots of loanwords from Arabic too.


----------



## Uncreative Name

Dymn said:


> Well my idea would be to have vocabulary created mostly from scratch, and only include internationalisms when they're widespread enough.


The main drawback to using A Posteriori vocabulary is that it provides an unfair advantage to people who speak the source languages; creating a vocabulary from scratch attempts to level the field, by making it harder for everyone.  I think a better solution would be to broaden the number of languages used as sources.

Of course, some words "belong" to a certain language - for example, most languages draw the word for "chocolate" either directly or indirectly from Nahuatl "chocolatl" /t͡ʃɔkɔlat͡ɬ/.  These "Wonderworts" should definitely be present in an auxiliary language.


----------



## Hulalessar

Creating a lexicon which will please everyone is never going to happen.

If you start from scratch everyone has to learn everything. Learning can up to a point be reduced by using affixes to form new words, but the snag with that is that it will not always be apparent precisely what effect the suffix has. If you have to be told then you effectively have to learn a new word.

If going for basing the lexicon on existing languages the more languages you bring in the less appeal it will have to a speaker of any of the languages chosen. The ten most widely spoken languages are:



English16.5%Mandarin Chinese14.6%Hindi8.3%Spanish7.0%French3.6%Arabic3.6%Bengali3.4%Russian3.4%Portuguese3.3%Indonesian2.6%


Lexiconwise, English, Spanish, French and Portuguese can be classed together as all contain a significant number of words ultimately derived from Latin - though see also below. Googling, I found opinions differ on how close Hindi and Bengal are in terms of lexicon. So, taking the above languages only, there is the possibility of drawing on five or six sources meaning that anyone learning the language familiar with one source only has help with a fifth or sixth of the vocabulary - and that assumes that the need for a modest inventory of phonemes has not mangled some words so as to make them unrecognisable. The more languages you add into the mix the less attractive it will be.

The above table shows that if you speak English, Spanish, French and Portuguese you can communicate with almost a third of the world's population. Would a conlang drawing on those languages not be a more practical option? There are of course existing conlangs, such as Interlingua, that already do that. However, whilst such languages may be relatively successful in writing in higher registers (though perhaps not in speech), everyday language is another story. The words in the following list are likely to be learned in the first lesson as they all relate to something to be found in a classroom. None of the French or Spanish words match the English words and most of the French and Spanish words are significantly different from each other.



*English**French**Spanish*doorportepuertafloorplanchersueloceilingplafondtechowindowfenêtreventanadeskpupitrepupitreblackboardtableau noirpizarrachalkcraietizapencilcrayonlápizbooklivrelibroexercise bookcahiercuadernowallmurmuro/paredpupilélèvealumno/a


And that is just vocabulary. There is no way a one size fits all grammar can be devised.


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> Well my idea would be to have vocabulary created mostly from scratch, and only include internationalisms when they're widespread enough.


In my opinion, if we created it from scratch, like, randomly generating it with a computer, opposition to it would even be higher. I think one of the good points for choosing not the ten most spoken but ten representatives of a major family was the fact that the counterbalance among them created a sort of diversity index for the choosing of words.



Dymn said:


> Yes, it could be a contendant too. It's the most spoken Iranian language, a subfamily with more than 150 million native speakers, which is distinct enough from Indo-Aryan languages.


Not only that, it also can be considered a 'Classical language', in the sense that it has had its share of influence upon others, from Europe to Indonesia. Although not to the point of the five I mentioned, of course.



Dymn said:


> Swahili has lots of loanwords from Arabic too.


Indeed. And that makes me think that Arabic might even be a little privileged in this system, after all.


----------



## Dymn

Uncreative Name said:


> creating a vocabulary from scratch attempts to level the field, by making it harder for everyone. I think a better solution would be to broaden the number of languages used as sources.





Penyafort said:


> In my opinion, if we created it from scratch, like, randomly generating it with a computer, opposition to it would even be higher. I think one of the good points for choosing not the ten most spoken but ten representatives of a major family was the fact that the counterbalance among them created a sort of diversity index for the choosing of words.


I'm aware of the pitfalls of a posteriori constructed languages, but honestly, we're talking about castles in the sky here, so my personal taste is make _tabula rasa _and put everyone on an equal footing. I don't like the mishmash that would result from taking a bit from here and there.

Unfortunately with grammar and phonology we can't intend to do that, so an average of the most representative languages should be considered. For example, is SVO or SOV more representative? You can come up with all sorts of reasons but none are objective. Just take a list like mine (just a proposal) and we get 7 votes for SVO (zh, sw, id, vi, es, en, ru), 4 for SOV (ta, tr, ja, hi), 1 for VSO (ar). And do the same with every aspect (maybe the list can be reduced if it gets too laborious).



Hulalessar said:


> If you have to be told then you effectively have to learn a new word.


Of course you have, but it's easier to remember a word like _Zuckerkrankheit _(sugar disease) made up of familiar words instead of its English equivalent _diabetes _with no internal meaning.


----------



## dojibear

Hulalessar said:


> The above table shows that if you speak English, Spanish, French and Portuguese you can communicate with almost a third of the world's population. Would a conlang drawing on those languages not be a more practical option?





Hulalessar said:


> Mandarin Chinese14.6%Hindi8.3%


I think we can ignore these two languages, despite large numbers of speakers.

Mandarin Chinese is a _lingua franca_ in one country (China), where 70% of the people speak it. It is only an official language there and in Singapore and Taiwan.  Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) is a _lingua franca_ only in northern India and in Pakistan, not worldwide. 

English, Spanish, French are spoken in many countries. Plus they share a sound system -- if you remove a few unusual sounds in English, most of the sounds match.


----------



## Uncreative Name

Hulalessar said:


> And that is just vocabulary. There is no way a one size fits all grammar can be devised.


How about a one-size-fits-all phonology?

The Iroquoisan languages don't have anything remotely similar to /p/ or /f/, so your AuxLang shouldn't have those.  Hawaiian doesn't distinguish between /t/ and /k/, so your AuxLang shouldn't distinguish these.  Spanish doesn't distinguish aspiration, and Mandarin doesn't distinguish voicedness, so your AuxLang shouldn't distinguish either of them.  Arabic only has three vowels, so your AuxLang should only use those three.  There are several languages that don't allow consonant clusters, and several that don't allow diphthongs, so your AuxLang must conform to a strict CV syllable structure.  Most Romance languages don't have anything remotely similar to /h~x/, so your AuxLang can't have that.  Many languages consider the lateral approximant /l/ to be a rhotic, so it can't be a separate phoneme.

All languages considered (as far as I know), you are left with four consonants /n t s r/, and three vowels /a i u/, and a strict CV syllable structure.  This leaves only 15 possible syllables, and that's assuming that vowels are allowed word-initially.


----------



## dojibear

Dymn said:


> Just take a list like mine (just a proposal) and we get 7 votes for SVO (zh, sw, id, vi, es, en, ru), 4 for SOV (ta, tr, ja, hi), 1 for VSO (ar).


Where is that list? Found it: way back at post #233. What is "zh"? What is "es"?


Dymn said:


> I was thinking: Mandarin, Swahili, Arabic, Indonesian, Tamil, Turkish, Japanese, Vietnamese; Hindustani, Spanish, English, and Russian.


Apparently "zh" stands for "Chinese" (using its Chinese name 中文 *zh*ongwen). and "es" stands for Spanish (using its Spanish name *es*pañol). Is this a contest? Did I win a prize?   One could use English for all of them and write "ch" and "sp"...but I suppose that would be too boring.

Back to the comments. There is SVO, and then there is SVO. I've studied Mandarin Chinese (in theory SVO) for some time and can read and write some things. But whenever I post a sentence in the Chinese forum, it's wrong. Badly wrong. Apparently not all SVOs are alike.


----------



## dojibear

Uncreative Name said:


> All languages considered (as far as I know), you are left with four consonants /n t s r/, and three vowels /a i u/, and a strict CV syllable structure. This leaves only 15 possible syllables, and that's assuming that vowels are allowed word-initially.


It's worse -- the English R sound exists in very few other languages in the world. It is allowed in the syllable "ar" in Mandarin Chinese. That's about it. All other major languages use a different R sound: one that English doesn't use.


----------



## Stoggler

dojibear said:


> Where is that list? Found it: way back at post #233. What is "zh"? What is "es"?
> 
> Apparently "zh" stands for "Chinese" (using its Chinese name 中文 *zh*ongwen). and "es" stands for Spanish (using its Spanish name *es*pañol). Is this a contest? Did I win a prize?   One could use English for all of them and write "ch" and "sp"...but I suppose that would be too boring.
> 
> Back to the comments. There is SVO, and then there is SVO. I've studied Mandarin Chinese (in theory SVO) for some time and can read and write some things. But whenever I post a sentence in the Chinese forum, it's wrong. Badly wrong. Apparently not all SVOs are alike.



The two-letter codes are standard ISO codes for languages (ISO-639).


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> I'm aware of the pitfalls of a posteriori constructed languages, but honestly, we're talking about castles in the sky here, so my personal taste is make _tabula rasa _and put everyone on an equal footing. I don't like the mishmash that would result from taking a bit from here and there.


But what was the point then in choosing ten representative languages?

The mishmash would eventually 'make sense' because that was actually the point: not reducing the look of words to just one group, even if it is the one many of us are more used to. Or we'd just be creating another Esperantoid.

Besides, the reduced number of phonemes would make that mishmash quite uniform in the end.



Dymn said:


> Unfortunately with grammar and phonology we can't intend to do that, so an average of the most representative languages should be considered. For example, is SVO or SOV more representative? You can come up with all sorts of reasons but none are objective. Just take a list like mine (just a proposal) and we get 7 votes for SVO (zh, sw, id, vi, es, en, ru), 4 for SOV (ta, tr, ja, hi), 1 for VSO (ar). And do the same with every aspect (maybe the list can be reduced if it gets too laborious).


Not only in your list, I'd say SVO is the most generalized one and therefore the one to privilege, of course.



dojibear said:


> I think we can ignore these two languages, despite large numbers of speakers.
> 
> Mandarin Chinese is a _lingua franca_ in one country (China), where 70% of the people speak it. It is only an official language there and in Singapore and Taiwan.  Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) is a _lingua franca_ only in northern India and in Pakistan, not worldwide.
> 
> English, Spanish, French are spoken in many countries. Plus they share a sound system -- if you remove a few unusual sounds in English, most of the sounds match.


I don't agree. Except for English, which is the only one that's gone really global, most other major ones can be considered just as regional. Spanish is just as reduced to one corner of the world as Chinese or Hindustani. Would you think the other way round if China was divided into twenty countries and Latin America was just one single country? French is (or was) certainly more disperse but the bulge of it is found in West-Central Africa (by 2050, 85% of Francophones will be from that area). So everything is quite relative.

Besides, the spine of many learned words in most Eastern and Southern languages of Asia goes back to Chinese and Sanskrit. Disregarding Chinese and Hindi would almost mean disregarding the most populated continent on Earth, that is, the two most spoken languages when the West is sleeping.


----------



## elroy

Penyafort said:


> I'd say SVO is the most generalized one and therefore the one to privilege, of course.


Wasn’t the point NOT to give anyone an unfair advantage?  This and a number of other comments suggest that the opposite is being pursued.


----------



## Penyafort

elroy said:


> Wasn’t the point NOT to give anyone an unfair advantage?  This and a number of other comments suggest that the opposite is being pursued.


A language must have phonemes and a structure. By doing this, you're not giving an unfair advantage to one language or language group. You're just choosing what is common to a majority of them, regardless of their group.


----------



## elroy

Penyafort said:


> You're just choosing what is common to a majority of them, regardless of their group.


And in doing so, you are privileging people who speak languages with those features and disadvantaging those who don’t.

If you’re saying that the goal is to make it _as neutral as possible_ and that in practice neutrality is impossible, then I agree with the latter and therefore strongly question the notion of neutrality as one of the rationales for a constructed/auxiliary language.  If it’s impossible to achieve, then it’s not a possible benefit.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> Of course you have, but it's easier to remember a word like _Zuckerkrankheit _(sugar disease) made up of familiar words instead of its English equivalent _diabetes _with no internal meaning.


I was not thinking of compound words, but rather words being formed by agglutination.

The Esperanto for hospital is _malsanulejo_.  The root is _san-_ carrying the idea of health, which is recognisable by at least some Romance language speakers. _Mal_- is a prefix meaning "the opposite of"; _-ul-_ a suffix meaning "person associated with"; _-ej-_ a suffix indicating "place associated with"; and _-o _a suffix indicating the word is a noun. A person familiar with Esperanto suffixes and knowing that _sana_ means "healthy" can work out that _malsanulejo _means "place where unhealthy people are". However, the meaning is by no means transparent to a Romance language speaker, or indeed anyone else, who knows no Esperanto.

"Place where unhealthy people are" is somewhat generic. It certainly covers "hospital", but it also covers many other places where sick people are to be expected which are not hospitals. Natural languages develop by a mysterious process by which a convention is established. If Esperanto were a natural language its speakers would have decided if _malsanulejo _is (a) generic, (b) specific or (c) both generic and specific leaving context to decide which.

If you look up _malsanulejo_ in an Esperanto dictionary it gives not only "hospital", but also "ambulance". It is not of course unusual for natural languages to have words with more than one meaning, but they normally operate in different spheres so that confusion is unlikely to arise. One would though expect a conlang (other than one made up for amusement or artistic purposes) to rule out ambiguity. Having the same word for "hospital" and "ambulance" allows for confusion. It seems that those in charge of Esperanto have realised it. If you look up "hospital" you are given not only _malsanulejo_ but also _hospitalo_; if you look up "ambulance" you are given not only _malsanulejo_ but also_ ambulanco_. That seems sensible, but does rather undermine the claims made for Esperanto. Whilst the roots and affixes can be manipulated to form new words, once you get a word like _malsanulejo _its meaning becomes opaque so that the supposed benefit of having roots like _san-_ gets lost.

Whether it comes to phonology, lexicon, morphology or syntax you are not going to be able to please everyone. A fully functional language cannot be founded on supposed logical principles or built up from a limited array of roots. Natural languages evolve organically and are messy because human experience is messy. A conlang can be declared "easy" if it lacks conjugations, declensions, gender and whatever else its creator considers a complication. However, the only truly simple languages are pidgins, not generally considered to be complete languages. A pidgin becomes a creole, a fully developed language, because a community has worked on it and made it a vehicle to communicate the way humans want and need to communicate with all its messiness and subtleties. What conlangs lack is messiness and subtleties. They can only develop them by being adopted by a community, but not a disparate one which communicates over distance and only meets at organised events.

Zamenhof was an idealist. He believed with justification that language can divide people. He did not envisage Esperanto being anything other than an auxiliary language. He said:

"I am profoundly convinced that every nationalism offers humanity only the greatest unhappiness …. It is true that the nationalism of oppressed peoples – as a natural self-defensive reaction – is much more excusable than the nationalism of peoples who oppress; but, if the nationalism of the strong is ignoble, the nationalism of the weak is imprudent; both give birth to and support each other…"


----------



## elroy

Hulalessar said:


> Natural languages evolve organically and are messy because human experience is messy.


  

The non-organic-ness/non-messiness is probably the biggest thing that turns me off constructed languages.


----------



## Uncreative Name

elroy said:


> The non-organic-ness/non-messiness is probably the biggest thing that turns me off constructed languages.


I think the problem is that we're trying to compare constructed languages to natural languages -- they serve completely different purposes, and should be treated as different things.

I don't want to support or defend "auxiliary" languages like Esperanto, but there are several other types of constructed languages that exist for different purposes.  We shouldn't brush them away just because they didn't evolve naturally -- often times, the point is that they didn't.


----------



## Dymn

Penyafort said:


> But what was the point then in choosing ten representative languages?


Deciding what phonology and grammar are best. It's just a personal taste, nothing more. I don't like conlangs that look too artificial. I would like to see the idea of an "average language" implemented. I also think your idea of the four language spheres is correct but at least somewhat arbitrary.



elroy said:


> If it’s impossible to achieve, then it’s not a possible benefit.


The current word lingua franca is English, which is totally *not *neutral. Even if you have to settle on a common grammar and specific choices might favor some languages over others, that doesn't make it any less neutral.

In political terms, a government that leaves some satisfied and others unsatisfied is not ideal but there's no other way around and it's still a democracy as long as the vote is fair. Compare this to a single-party dictatorship.



Hulalessar said:


> I was not thinking of compound words, but rather words being formed by agglutination.


What's the difference? Both derivation and compounding create new words from existing ones and make them easier to learn.



Hulalessar said:


> once you get a word like _malsanulejo _its meaning becomes opaque so that the supposed benefit of having roots like _san-_ gets lost.


You're of course right the meaning of "hospital" can't be directly derived from _malsanulejo_ with 100% confidence, however, compared to an arbitrary sequence of phonemes: (1) you can get a pretty good of idea of its meaning just by reading it, (2) it makes it easier to learn because in case of doubt you can always think of its underlying morphemes.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> Deciding what phonology and grammar are best. It's just a personal taste, nothing more. I don't like conlangs that look too artificial. I would like to see the idea of an "average language" implemented. I also think your idea of the four language spheres is correct but at least somewhat arbitrary.
> 
> 
> The current word lingua franca is English, which is totally *not *neutral. Even if you have to settle on a common grammar and specific choices might favor some languages over others, that doesn't make it any less neutral.
> 
> In political terms, a government that leaves some satisfied and others unsatisfied is not ideal but there's no other way around and it's still a democracy as long as the vote is fair. Compare this to a single-party dictatorship.
> 
> 
> What's the difference? Both derivation and compounding create new words from existing ones and make them easier to learn.
> 
> 
> You're of course right the meaning of "hospital" can't be directly derived from _malsanulejo_ with 100% confidence, however, compared to an arbitrary sequence of phonemes: (1) you can get a pretty good of idea of its meaning just by reading it, (2) it makes it easier to learn because in case of doubt you can always think of its underlying morphemes.



I am having difficulty seeing how you can arrive at an "average language". How do you average out grammatical features?

Have we not reached the stage where English has become neutral for most people? 

If you produce something which is "fair" because it takes in several languages, no one will appreciate it as anyone whose language is featured will probably not recognise its contribution. It will be like Volapük which took its vocabulary mostly from English but mangled it. "Volapük" is barely recognisable as deriving from "world speech".

I have never studied German, but I understand that some German compounds are not semantically transparent and present difficulties for learners. Affixes have the potential to provide different meanings. Does _malsana _mean "sick" or "unhealthy"?

Most of the of the affixes in Esperanto change the meaning of a word rather than indicate its function. Are such derivational affixes as readily taken in as grammatical ones?


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> I don't really understand what this means. There are plenty of subjunctive forms in English. They just match (in both speech and writing) indicative preterite forms.
> 
> But that is very common in English. I eat. You eat. He eats. We eat. You(pl) eat. They eat. In many languages, that is 6 forms. In English, just 2. Are there very few forms of present tense Indicative?


When talking about the subjunctive you need to consider whether you are referring to form or mood; the two are not always clearly distinguished. Forms get names and sometimes the name only fits with one function of the form. It is a pity that grammars of Indo-European languages do not follow the practice of Arabic grammars and number the forms.

If we take Spanish, finite verbs have forms labelled either indicative or subjunctive. In all paradigms of every verb there is no overlapping and the subjunctive is quite distinctive from the indicative. The subjunctive has more than one use. It is very common.

In French the situation is a bit different. For most verbs the present indicative is only different in the first and second persons plural and then only slightly:



IndicativeSubjunctiveporteporteportesportesporteporteportonsportionsportezportiezportentportent


However, with some verbs, including some of the most common, the subjunctive form is quite distinct. So, even though for most verbs the subjunctive is not much of a form, insisting that in "Il faut que je porte" "porte" is subjunctive, despite having the same form as the indicative, can be justified. The reduction of forms for most verbs may explain why the subjunctive is used a lot less than in Spanish.

When it comes to English it is a different story. It is not unreasonable to suggest that French/Spanish grammar is being imposed on English and that "subjunctive" is not a concept that fits easily with modern English. As a form the present subjunctive barely exists. Such purpose as it serves only operates with the third person singular so any perceived benefit is limited. Insisting that in "He insists I go" "go" is subjunctive is pressing it somewhat. Few when actually saying it feel they are making any sort of distinction simply because of the lack of a distinctive form.

Describing forms such as "If I were you" and "If I had money" as past subjunctives is something of a misnomer. All that should be said about such conditional forms is that they require the past tense. Whilst I think English should only be considered in its own terms, it is instructive to note that in Spanish "If I were you" requires the imperfect subjunctive, while in French the imperfect indicative is used just as in English. The fact that the imperfect is normally "I was" does not justify classifying "If I were" as subjunctive.

In short, forms described as subjunctive are more profitably described as oddities or leftovers from an earlier form of the language. When you speak Spanish you need to "think subjunctively" because Spanish regularly makes distinctions which English leaves unexpressed. You do not need to think subjunctively when speaking English.


----------



## elroy

Dymn said:


> Even if you have to settle on a common grammar and specific choices might favor some languages over others, that doesn't make it any less neutral.


I don't follow; can you elaborate?

To my mind, a language that privileges some languages over others is not neutral.  Can you explain why you feel that it's still neutral even if it privileges certain languages over others? 



Dymn said:


> In political terms, a government that leaves some satisfied and others unsatisfied is not ideal but there's no other way around and it's still a democracy as long as the vote is fair.


Wait, who's voting here?  In what way is this a democracy?

But also, my point is this: 

Why strive to create something that has the same problem as the status quo?  Why invest all that energy and effort if you're going to wind up with another version of what you already have?

Neutrality was mentioned as one of the possible benefits of a constructed/auxiliary language, but so far I don't see anything that suggests that it's achievable. And if it's not achievable, then it's not a benefit.


----------



## pimlicodude

bearded said:


> I feel that here ''I would buy'' is conditional, and ''had'' is subjunctive.
> 
> However, I admit that I'm influenced by similar structures in Italian (my mother tongue). English grammar definitions are often different.


"If I had" is the past subjunctive, yes, but it is morphologically identical to the past indicative, and there is only one verb where the difference is seen (If I were). That's the problem. But you can generally expand other past subjunctives with "were". "if I bought you a car" = "if I were to buy you a car" = "were I to buy you a car" = "if I should buy you a car" = "should I buy you car" (should I buy you a car, it would be purple). There are therefore five forms of the past subjunctive in English. Having said that "if I were to have" for "if I had" sounds overwrought. It's odd that the subjunctive survives in real usage in the English population (a large percentage of them, maybe a large minority, 30-40???, guesstimating), but occurs precisely 0% of the time on the BBC. I think the BBC has a style guide which tells their presenters not to use the subjunctive.


----------



## bearded

pimlicodude said:


> I think the BBC has a style guide which tells their presenters not to use the subjunctive.


Incredible! In this country we have the (evidently unjustified) bias that the BBC speaks a very 'conservative' English..


----------



## Olaszinhok

Hulalessar said:


> If I were you" requires the imperfect subjunctive, while in French the imperfect indicative is used just as in English. The fact that the imperfect is normally "I was" does not justify classifying "If I were" as subjunctive.


How would you explain the use of _were_ instead of _was _in the first and third person singular for the Second Conditional in if clauses? Secondly, what about the following formal phrase: _Were I to do_ ... Do you consider this _were_ to be a Preterit, too? As regards French, the Imperferct Subjunctive is not used in Conditionals in modern French and it is a literary and extremely rare verb tense at large,  nowadays.


----------



## pimlicodude

bearded said:


> Incredible! In this country we have the (evidently unjustified) bias that the BBC speaks a very 'conservative' English..


That used to be the case, but they are going for more and more demotic forms of English nowadays.


----------



## Hulalessar

Olaszinhok said:


> How would you explain the use of _were_ instead of _was _in the first and third person singular for the Second Conditional in if clauses? Secondly, what about the following formal phrase: _Were I to do_ ... Do you consider this _were_ to be a Preterit, too? As regards French, the Imperferct Subjunctive is not used in Conditionals in modern French and it is a literary and extremely rare verb tense at large,  nowadays.


"Were" would seem to be explained historically by the Old English past subjunctive "wær".

I would consider all of "If I were", "were I" and if "If I was" to be forms of what is called the past tense but which have nothing to do with the past. In "If I knew what to do I would do it" the knowing element is very much in the present; I do not know now. The same thought could be expressed by "I do not know; if I did I would do it" which emphasises that the not knowing is in the present. The sentence contains a counterfactual conditional.

If we ask whether counterfactual conditionals involve something called the subjunctive we need to consider whether we are asking what form of verb is needed or what grammatical mood is being expressed. We can highlight that this a tricky question by comparing French and Spanish. "If I knew..." expresses a counterfactual condition. In French the verb needs to be in the imperfect indicative while in Spanish it needs to be in the imperfect subjunctive. In both cases the verb expresses the same mood. We either have to conclude either that "subjunctive" is no more than a label for a form of the verb, or that "subjunctive" is a concept which varies from language to language. In practice it can amount to something of both.

Despite the fudge, we need to be clear, especially in the case of English, whether we are talking about form or mood. Given the paucity of form, we should be slow to label a verb as a subjunctive just because it lacks an _s_ or looks like a past tense. A different way of describing what is going on is needed.


----------



## Hulalessar

pimlicodude said:


> That used to be the case, but they are going for more and more demotic forms of English nowadays.


It is nothing new. Writing in 1908 Henry Fowler said:

"The use of true subjunctive forms (if he be, though it happen) in conditional sentences is for various reasons not recommended. These forms, with the single exception of _were,_ are perishing so rapidly that an experienced word actuary puts their expectation of life at one generation. As a matter of style, they should be avoided, being certain to give a pretentious air when handled by any one except the skilful and practised writers who need no advice from us. And as a matter of grammar, the instinct for using subjunctives rightly is dying with the subjunctive, so that even the still surviving _were_ is often used where it is completely wrong."

The experienced word actuary has been proved incorrect. However, the advice is sound.

See further here: Conditionals. Fowler, H. W. 1908. The King's English


----------



## pimlicodude

Hulalessar said:


> It is nothing new. Writing in 1908 Henry Fowler said:
> 
> "The use of true subjunctive forms (if he be, though it happen) in conditional sentences is for various reasons not recommended. These forms, with the single exception of _were,_ are perishing so rapidly that an experienced word actuary puts their expectation of life at one generation. As a matter of style, they should be avoided, being certain to give a pretentious air when handled by any one except the skilful and practised writers who need no advice from us. And as a matter of grammar, the instinct for using subjunctives rightly is dying with the subjunctive, so that even the still surviving _were_ is often used where it is completely wrong."
> 
> The experienced word actuary has been proved incorrect. However, the advice is sound:
> 
> See further here: Conditionals. Fowler, H. W. 1908. The King's English


Well, he's talking there about the present subjunctive only ("with the single exception of were"). Things like "if he have" are indeed defunct. But there are many English people who still say "if I were you".


----------



## Dymn

Hulalessar said:


> I am having difficulty seeing how you can arrive at an "average language". How do you average out grammatical features?


I did at #263. You can follow a similar approach for every aspect you can think of.



Hulalessar said:


> Have we not reached the stage where English has become neutral for most people?


No.



Hulalessar said:


> I have never studied German, but I understand that some German compounds are not semantically transparent and present difficulties for learners.


It helps. Is a glove literally a shoe in your hand? No, but it's much easier to learn "_Handschuh_" than "_glove_" in English which doesn't mean anything internally. Is a rhinoceros just an animal with a horn on its nose? No, but "_Nashorn_" is easier to learn than "_rhinoceros_" (which actually means the same thing but it isn't evident if you don't know Greek). Etc.



Hulalessar said:


> Are such derivational affixes as readily taken in as grammatical ones?


They can't be because you're trying to encapsulate reality into words. To truly capture what a word stands for it should be sentence long. However they sometimes do a good job. For example in European languages the adjective associated with a country is quite irregular. In Esperanto, you just have to change _-(i)o_ with _-a_. It's equally as easy in East Asian languages, which shows languages can do this naturally too.



elroy said:


> To my mind, a language that privileges some languages over others is not neutral. Can you explain why you feel that it's still neutral even if it privileges certain languages over others?


Because the reasoning behind it takes into account all languages (through representatives), and it doesn't belong to one particular nation. 

Let's say two teams have to meet in a neutral field to play a game. Does it have to be exactly halfway between both? Would a field that is 200 km from one team and 100 km from the other not be neutral, in fact it would be just as partial as just playing in the field of one of the teams?

In fact I don't even think the word "neutral" has to imply equidistance or the pretence of equidistance to all. Esperanto is obviously a European language but it's still neutral in comparison with English, because it doesn't belong to a single nation.



elroy said:


> Wait, who's voting here? In what way is this a democracy?


#263.


----------



## Hulalessar

I do not think that the proposal in post 263 is going to make any conlang adopting it more democratic or attractive. Even assuming each feature is to be chosen according to the number of speakers who use it, rather than the number of languages which have it, if you chose a feature according to its popularity, that is all you are doing. There is no "average" or compromise between different word orders - it is either one thing or another. If the most common word order is used by, say, 40% and all the others are much lower you have the situation where 60% are ignored. Word order is only one thing. If the same principle is applied to all aspects of grammar you will end up with something where some people will ask: "Why haven't you got these features?" while others will ask: "Why are you bothering with these features?"

This discussion is very interesting, but essentially hypothetical when considering conlangs as auxiliary languages. There is no general feeling that the world needs one. Even if there was (or if you prefer were) in a world where it took 20 years for everyone to agree that North Macedonia should be called North Macedonia, there is never going to be agreement.

A native English speaker is not perhaps the right person to offer an opinion on whether English has become neutral. However, I think it can safely be said that in many former British colonies it serves a useful function. Nigeria, for example, has 525 languages. No way can any country have 525 official languages. It makes some sort of sense for English to be the only official language. Do Nigerians consider English to be neutral? Have they reached the stage where they feel it no longer carries any colonial baggage? Do they take a pragmatic view saying they will stick with English because it is the world language par excellence?


----------



## dojibear

Hulalessar said:


> Given the paucity of form, we should be slow to label a verb as a subjunctive just because it lacks an _s_ or looks like a past tense.
> A different way of describing what is going on is needed.


It is not a good idea to label something "subjunctive" because of its written spelling. If it acts like a duck, call it a duck. We don't need a different way to describe it. I really don't care if every variation has a unique written form or if you use "marklar" for all nouns like Kyle:

https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=BSymxjrzdXc



Penyafort said:


> I'd say SVO is the most generalized one and therefore the one to privilege, of course.


I don't consider the SVO to SOV transition difficult. When I studied Japanese, that change was trivially easy for me. So was the Japanese use of post-particles (similar to noun endings in Latin). By contrast, it was much harder to learn Mandarin Chinese. Both Mandarin and English are SVO and rely heavily on word order. But they use very different word order.


----------



## dojibear

Penyafort said:


> Spanish is just as reduced to one corner of the world as Chinese or Hindustani. Would you think the other way round if China was divided into twenty countries and Latin America was just one single country?


China is about the same size as the combined Spanish-speaking countries, so it is a reasonable comparison. Hindustani covers a region almost as big.

China has 302 languages. Central and South America have many regional languages, unrelated to Spanish. Northern India has many languages.

I see your point. Based on area covered and number of local/regional languages, all 3 languages are comparabe.


----------



## Dymn

Hulalessar said:


> There is no "average" or compromise between different word orders - it is either one thing or another.


Well, you can, Romance languages for example are SVO by default but put object pronouns before verbs. Although arguably a simple language should be consistent. Anyway whatever preference there is in choosing one order or the other may be set off with other aspects.



Hulalessar said:


> This discussion is very interesting, but essentially hypothetical


Yes, that's the way I look at it. You're right people wouldn't stop complaining. That's what happens with Esperanto. That doesn't mean some of these critiques in this thread don't look dishonest to me.



Hulalessar said:


> Do they take a pragmatic view saying they will stick with English because it is the world language par excellence?


Rather because it's a colonial heritage that is useful as a lingua franca, first, and neutral among the various ethnic groups, second. Same thing for French or Portuguese in other former colonies. However on a global scale, English, French, or Portuguese wouldn't be neutral.


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> It is not a good idea to label something "subjunctive" because of its written spelling. If it acts like a duck, call it a duck. We don't need a different way to describe it.


Cross linguistically, the word "subjunctive" is a bit problematic, at least in part because it is not always made clear whether what is being talked about is a form of the verb or a mood.  It tends to be the case for any given language that the number of what are referred to as moods correspond with the labels attached to verb forms. Both French and Spanish have verb forms called subjunctive, but they are not used in the same way. For example, as indicated above, when it comes to counterfactual conditions French uses the indicative while Spanish uses the subjunctive. That leaves us wondering if the subjunctive, considered as a mood, is something different in French and Spanish. If it is, then there is difficulty providing a universally applicable definition of the subjunctive as a mood.

It is completely justifiable to distinguish between indicative and subjunctive as forms in Spanish because there is no overlapping. In French there has been some convergence, but the distinction is still justifiable. Apart from "to be", no English verb has more than five forms and no form is exclusively used for what is described as the subjunctive mood. That compares with something like 50 forms in Spanish. Given that, it is not unreasonable to ask if it is appropriate to classify English verbs using the same terminology as used for Romance languages.

Much better would be to describe each form using a number. For "give" it would be Form 1: give; Form 2: gives; Form 3: giving; Form 4: gave; Form 5: given. Neutral labels avoids any preconception about what the form can express. It also avoids awkward terms like "bare infinitive". It would also rule out the need to have a discussion about whether "knew" in "If I knew" is the past tense or subjunctive. You would just say you have to use Form 4.


----------



## Hulalessar

Dymn said:


> Rather because it's a colonial heritage that is useful as a lingua franca, first, and neutral among the various ethnic groups, second. Same thing for French or Portuguese in other former colonies. However on a global scale, English, French, or Portuguese wouldn't be neutral.


If a language is the sole official language and used in government, law, commerce and education, I think it is more than a lingua franca, which I think of as describing a language when people speaking different languages resort to it as a language they have in common.

Zamenhof was right that language can cause conflict, but not everyone everywhere gets excited about language. Problems are usually stirred up by demagogues with an agenda.


----------



## Penyafort

Yes, there is a difference. In some African countries, standard English or French are the official languages (therefore used in government, education, law and formal media) but the _lingua franca_, the one used for communication in common informal situations, is either a widespread local language or an English/French-based creole.

Generally speaking, I don't particularly like the term 'neutral', though. No natural language, whichever its size or history, is going to be 'neutral', as it always brings a cultural extension included in the pack. But we'd also be lying if we thought that a constructed auxiliary language would remain 'neutral' (or 'cultureless') for a long time after its initial stage. Whether it'd then serve the purpose of generating a really neutral global culture alongside the local ones, that is, in my opinion, hard to predict.


----------



## dojibear

Hulalessar said:


> There is no "average" or compromise between different word orders - it is either one thing or another.


It isn't that simple, for 2 reasons:

(1) Some languages have strict word order. Some languages (Latin, Japanese, Korean) do not. It's a decision.

(2) Natural languages that "are SVO" are not SVO in every clause. Some languages (Russian, Turkish) use both OV and VO. Some languages (German, Dutch) are SVO in the main clause, but SOV in subordinate clauses. Some languages (English) change the word order in passive sentence and questions, and even have non-SVO main sentences: "In the garden sat a cat."

So calling each language SVO or SOV is over-simplifying. Part of creating a language involves deciding the details.


----------



## Hulalessar

dojibear said:


> It isn't that simple etc


I cannot disagree with anything you say. I was of course referring to the default or preferred word order.

My main point is that what seems natural and necessary to the speaker of one language, may come across as weird and unnecessary to the speaker of another.


----------



## Awwal12

dojibear said:


> Some languages (Russian, Turkish) use both OV and VO.


In the case of Russian it's even difficult to deduce the basic word order, as it's heavily influenced by pragmatics and everyday speech is full of emphatic dislocations. I've encountered opinions that colloquial Russian is, in fact, more inclined to OV than to VO.


----------



## Hulalessar

Penyafort said:


> Generally speaking, I don't particularly like the term 'neutral', though. No natural language, whichever its size or history, is going to be 'neutral', as it always brings a cultural extension included in the pack. But we'd also be lying if we thought that a constructed auxiliary language would remain 'neutral' (or 'cultureless') for a long time after its initial stage. Whether it'd then serve the purpose of generating a really neutral global culture alongside the local ones, that is, in my opinion, hard to predict.


I think it probably comes down to a question of degree, with people in the same community holding different views. If we take India, anyone born in the year of independence is now in their mid seventies, so anyone with a significant memory of British rule has to be well into their eighties. Of course stories will be handed down and people will read books. The Wikipedia article on Indian English says: "The view of the English language among many Indians has changed over time. It used to be associated primarily with colonialism; it is now primarily associated with economic progress, and English continues to be an official language of India." I suggest that Indians feel they "own" Indian English just as Americans feel they own American English and that it has its own cultural baggage. It is quite possible for two different cultures to share a common language. In most places English is about as neutral as football.


----------

