Re: Ba'l-a-i-bal-an

Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> taliesin the storyteller skrev:
>
>> * Yahya Abdal-Aziz said on 2006-05-20 09:08:31 +0200
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Having seen a brief mention of "Balaibalan", as the earliest written
>>> conlang, I thought I would investigate.
>>> Wikipedia was disappointing, at least in English, though the
>>> Norwegian version does have an article which I understand only
>>> imperfectly.   Would some list member be able to translate this:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/r9zxg and add the result to http://en.wikipedia.org ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've started a page at
>>
>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaleissin/Balaibalan
>>
>> feel free to chip in. I'll translate as well as I can then move/copy it
>> to a new page.
Great - interesting stuff. I have been thinking recently that our
tripartite division of conlangs into artlangs, auxlangs & engelangs does
not really cater for things like Bala-i-balan or Hildegard's 'Lingua
Ignota' - languages of cult or worship. Probably the ceremonial language
Damin should be considered in the same category.

I would guess that cultic and/or ceremonial conlangs were the most
common type before westerners began constructing 'philosophical'
languages as auxlangs in the 17th century. What would one call such
conlangs? 'esolangs' <-- eso(teric) lang(uage)s???


>> t., whose L1 is Norwegian
>>
>
> It should be pointed out that the Norwegian article
> differs in some aspects from how I remember Bausani's
> account.  I have forever misplaced the copy of the
> German translation I had access to, but if someone
> fluent in Italian is interested I do have a photocopy
> of the Italian version somewhere.  I could try to dig
> it up, scan it and send it.
Yes please - tho I cannot, alas, speak Italian fluently, I can at least
read it fairly fluently.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply