Re: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG

At 7:30 pm +0100 23/4/01, Daniel44 wrote:
[snip]
>
>You call Uusisuom 'another obscure conlang'. It's worth mentioning here that
>EVERY conlang, including Esperanto is obscure to the vast majority of people
>in the world.
Yes, but some conlangs are more obscure than others.  All dictionaries list
Esperanto and most list Volapuk.  I know of none that list, e.g. Lips-Kith,
Ejl, Kinya, Eurial, etc., etc.   A surprising number of the 'general
public' know something about Klingon (a colleague of mine once said to me:
"It's a proper language, you know, with a full grammar & full vocabulary".
"I know", I replied, without probing what she, a non-linguist, meant by
'full' grammar and 'full' vocabulary); but few if any have heard of Tepa,
Tokana, Teonaht etc., etc., etc.

[snip]
>
>I think that Zamenhof's Esperanto was an excellent beginner's artlang.
Do you?  I'm not sure Zamenhof would've been over-pleased.  Esperanto was
the result of several years development and reshaping as the young Zamenhof
became acquainted with more languages.  It was not his first effort.

[snip]
>
>Just because Uusisuom does not stink of rehashed Latin does not mean it is a
>'naive' language or somehow bad or inadequate as you seem to imply.
Hang on. Where did Oskar mention anything about Latin?  Where did Oskar say
Uusisuom is bad?

I grant naive might imply inadequacy - tho not necessarily IMO - but since
when has _naive_ meant _bad_?  IME in certain contexts it is regarded as a
positive quality.

In fact, if you care to follow what Askar himself is actually doing, i.e. a
a_priori core to Unilang, I find the referrence to "stink of rehashed
Latin" very strange and weird.  What has that to do with whether a conlang
- auxlang or not - is naive!!  I have seen some very naive neo-Latin or
neo-Romance conlangs, likewise I know of quite a few non-naive auxlangs
that have nothing to with Latin.

[snip]
>simple totally regular grammar,
I detect hubris here, I'm afraid.  Have you tried writing an automatic
parser for Uusisuom?  That is a most enlightening test of how "totally
regular" a grammar is (or is not).  I've seen exactly this claim made by
Esperanto extremists; the fact is, as Esperanto moderates will conceed, is
that it is not _totally_ regular.  I'm afraid we fallible humans are going
to be hard-put to produce _totally regular_ grammars of languages that are
to be used for everyday social intercourse.  You will have succeeded,
methinks, where no one else has so far.

As for "simplicity" - my long experience has taught me that what one
persons finds simple, another finds difficult.

>no accusative case and no articles.
Maybe - but plenty of other cases from the five lessons I've seen.

[snip]
>
>To be honest, I am not interested in studying more linguistics. I have found
>many linguists to be tedious, back biting and pretentious and I know enough
>of languages from my own study (as was the case with Zamenhof) that I have
>the confidence to create and promote my language.
Sorry - but I think you will have put up the backs of many here with that
silly paragraph.

I am only an amateur linguist, basically self-taught over some 40 to 50
years.  Yet I still want to know more.  I am still interested in studying
more linguistics.

I don't know what linguists you have met, but I would like to put it on
public record that I have not found any of the trained linguists on this
list either tedious, back-biting or pretentious.  Indeed, I have often
profited from their input and have _always_ found them helpful and
enlightening.  (Thanks, guys  :)

I have been studying every language I can get my hands on for the past 50
years - that's quite a few, but a mere drop in the vast number of languages
spoken on this planet.  I still do not know a fraction of all the languages
I would like to know.

>I am not interested in 'improving' Uusisuom for the same reasons that
>Zamenhof largely rejected demands to 'improve' Esperanto.
In real history, one finds quite the reverse - it was early Esperantists
that dissuaded Zamenhof from making quite a drastic revision of his
language (e.g. removing "all those ridiculous Js", as he put in, and have
plural in -s, inter alia).  Their argument was (and experience in some
other projects suggests they were right) that if one kept changing the
language it would put people off - better to stick with a project that
might not be perfect, but was working.

[snip]
>>From what I can gather, criticisms of Uusisuom come from those who are quick
>to judge and even quicker to criticise.
I hope you have noticed that I have _not_ crticized Uusisuom or, indeed,
passed any judgment on it.

>I have not simply picked at bits
>>from other languages, nor have I attempted to copy an existing auxlang.
But it's not the first auxlang that can claim this.

Oskar said quite clearly, and I quote:
"....... no offence to Daniel (Uusisuom's author) or anyone else involved
:) As for my opinion on Uusisuom, I wholeheartedly agree with most that it
would make an excellent beginner's artlang, while at best a naive auxlang.
I hope the friendly comments and criticisms of this list will inspire
Daniel to study more linguistics, especially phonology, to improve his
designs..."

Note: "...no offence to Daniel.....the friendly comments & criticisms of
this list...."

I am sorry you have not replied in the same vein.

In Rick Harrison's _excellent_ article "Farewell to Auxiliary Languages"
(2th Feb. 1997), he says:
"The difference in these two social climates [artlangs & auxlangs] is worth
noting. The auxlang milieu is competitive; publishing a new project is a
subtle way of telling all those who published previously that they got it
wrong, and now the auxlang designer du jour is going to show how it really
should be done. ...... The artlang milieu is
a little more coöperative....."

My only slight criticism is that Rick should have said "far more
cooperative" rather than "a little more cooperative".

But I truly commend the article.  I think it should be compulsory reading
for all auxlangers who want to use our list.

A few days back, I over-reacted to something David wrote.  I apologized
both to the list and to David.  I hope, Daniel, that your reply was just an
over-reaction to Oskar's mail which clearly was meant to be helpful -
because that's the way we are on this list.

Ray.


=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================

Replies