Re: artlangs/auxlangs/engelangs (was Re: LCC2: Meeting our Community)

Hallo!

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:49:30 -0400, i_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET wrote:

> > [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jorg Rhiemeier
> >
> > [auxlang advocacy and the CONLANG/AUXLANG split]
> >
> > Yes.  This is indeed the case.  People who design new auxlangs are
> > always aware that many, many other auxlangs have been proposed
> before,
> > and sooner or later are confronted with the question, "What's so
> great
> > about your proposal that we should adopt it rather than English or
> > Esperanto?"  This question gives an auxlanger only two options:
> >
> > 1. Abandon the proposal and shut up.
> >
> > 2. Tell the world that all other auxlang proposals (especially the
> >    major ones) are crap, and that a new proposal is necessary.
> >
> > Most auxlangers are too proud to choose option #1 and instead
> > go for option #2.
>
> The problem with this is that it's not that black or white.  Designing
> an auxlang is a form of problem solving, and there are often many
> diffent approaches and solutions to achieve the same goal.
True.  Not all auxlang designers are like that.  However, there
is some sort of "slippery slope" involved here - once you come out
with a new auxlang, soon others will ask you, "Why a new proposal,
can't we agree on Esperanto?" and the debate begins.

> It's true that there are some auxlangers behave like religious
> fanatics, but not all.  I prefer to design auxlangs because of the
> problem-solving aspects involved, and because it puts me in touch with
> a variety of natangs while I conduct research for them.
Yes, and that is OK.  Actually, I also have spent some thoughts
on auxlang design for the intellectual challenge of the problem
(see http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html ),
and one day, I will perhaps distill these thoughts into an actual
auxlang - not to tell the rest of the world that all previous
auxlangs suck, but to play with the challenge of designing a
language which *could* serve as a means of international
communication.  I guess, however, that my scheme will improve
over Esperanto, Novial & co. only in details, if at all.

>        I have no
> great expectations that any of my creations will ever become anything,
> and would even be surprised if one of them got a small cult following.
> Regardless, the design criteria used will still be based upon auxlang
> usage.  I also have a couple of engelangs.  The closest I have to an
> artlang would probably be the personal language I'm working on.  It's
> goal is simply to be anything I want it to be.
Sure.  You can design an auxlang just for the enjoyment of the
intellectual challenge and without any attempts to proselytize;
however, it is somewhat more typical of auxlang designers to
peddle their scheme to whomever they could, and many people
*will* ask the question, "Why do you think we need yet another
auxlang?  Don't we have enough proposals already?"

Note also that only a small minority of the people on AUXLANG
are actually auxlang *designers*.  Most are merely disciples
of this or that auxlang scheme designed by someone else, and
many of them are sectarian about their favourite auxlang.
So we have Esperantists vs. Idists vs. Novialists vs.
whatever-ists.  All that used to go on in CONLANG, and it
bored and annoyed the language designers.

> > And there we have that proselytization business that caused such
> > heated debate in CONLANG before it was banned, and still does so in
> > AUXLANG.  The problem is simply that international auxiliary
> languages
> > are subject what I semi-humorously call the "Highlander condition":
> > *There can be only one.*  The point of an auxlang, after all, is
> that
> > the whole world adopts *one single language* for international
> > communication.  *One* language will be chosen (if at all), and *all
> > others* go to the junkyard.
>
> Yes, that's the idea.  But that doesn't mean *we* (as a collective
> group) have to choose one.  We could (though that's not the reality
> right now) conduct it like a friendly rivalry and see which one, if
> any, ultimately prevails, but you are right that there is a warlike
> approach to the situation where many choose a language and view the
> others as "the enemy."
I agree whole-heartedly.  We are not the ones to decide which
auxlang to be adopted.  And even though the auxlang milieu is
competitive by its nature, that doesn't mean that this
competition has to be conducted as a war.  Make it a peaceful,
friendly contest in which the contenders respect each other.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Replies