Re: On the design of an ideal language

Hallo!

On Mon, 1 May 2006 16:52:37 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:

> I have spent probably more time than is good for me
> on the AUXLANG mailing list, and have observed that
> people who agree about the desirability of an auxiliary
> language can't agree about the criteria for an ideal
> auxlang or their relative importance when they conflict.
Yes.  What is "easy to learn" depends on which kinds of languages one is used
to.  For Europeans, an euroclone with much recognizable vocabulary is easy,
but Africans or Asians may think differently.  An often-advanced argument is
that many terms such as "telephone" or "automobile" are "international", but
in fact most non-European language prefer uing their own coinages: the
Japanese words for these two, for example, are _denwa_ and _jidousha_,
respectively.

And then ease of learning is just *one* design goal.  The language must be
expressive enough to handle *any* mode of human communication, up to
scientific papers and legal documents.  A crude trade jargon is useless.

Another design goal is cultural neutrality, which is not without problems,
either.

It is therefore really no wonder that there are so many different auxlang
designs on the market.  The auxlangers' siege tower has grown to an equal
of the Tower of Babel which the auxlangers intend to raze.

> And that's when considering conlangs with a relatively
> narrow range of purposes and design goals.  For an
> "ideal language" in the abstract with no further specification
> of language's purposes and uses, agreement is probably
> even more illusory.
Amen.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Replies