Re: Con-phonologies (was: Zaik! (Hi there!) - Description of Lyanjen)

At 4:08 pm -0500 31/8/00, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
[....]
>The former [conlangs as seen on this group] sees the result as a holistic
>entity, complete in and of itself, whose
>own existence justifies itself.   The latter [auxlangs] sees the creation
>as a teleological tool
>to accomplish some end, say, world peace.
>It often suggests the idea that the
>details are unimportant as long as the goal is accomplished.
To some extent, I agree.  Certainly IMO the worst conIALs IMHO owe many of
their less desirable features to (a) the simplistic and naive single goal
of world peace & apple pie for everyone (1), and (b) the lack of linguistic
knowledge of their idealist founder(s).  Indeed, it is, I genuinely
believe, a sad fact that so often the idealism is in direct proportion to
the lack of liguistic ability of its author.

(1) Please not even think I do not consider world peace to be "a good
thing" - I most certainly do.  But one does not IMO do the ideal justice by
thinking that there can be a simple panacea - quite the reverse.  Peace has
to be worked for.  And as for language - IMHO it has little relevance to
the question.  For 30 years people in the six counties of Northern Ireland
who share the same language engaged in civil strife; not so long ago the
peoples of the Lebanon, all sharing a common language, were engaged in a
bitter civil war; and not so long ago the peoples who spoke a single
language, commonly called Serbo-Croat in the western word, engaged in some
of the bloodiest "ethnic cleansing" seen in Europe since the demise of the
Nazis.

>It is for this reason
>that we see the bloody fields of the Esperanto Wars about structure, because
>languages do not, and cannot, accomplish such a feat in the abstract without
>a host of other sociological factors like a decent economy and political
>stability,
>factors which have little if anything to do with language.
Absolutely - quite agree.

Switzerland with its four official languages seems to have got on quite
peaceably for as long as anyone can remember.

But we should not IMHO treat all conIALs the same - they are not.  Some
creators are very realistic and some have been liguists of some merit.
IIRC Jespersen held three doctorates in the field of linguistics.  He did
_not_ in any way think the details unimportant - quite the contrary.  And
on our own list we have Leo Moser.  His project began IIRC some thirty
years ago; and no one can accuse Leo of overlooking details - quite the
contrary.  I never cease to admire the painstaking research he has done in
the creation (still proceeding) of Acadon.

>So, yes, in the philosophical sense, all constructed languages are contrived
>qua constructed languages.  But practically speaking, auxlangs too often carry
>about  with them religious airs that confuse what the language is supposed to
>be about in the first place:
Oh yes, as anyone who has at any time been on the AUXLANG list will know
only too well.  It's one reason I quit & have never felt the urge to rejoin.

It is also BTW one reason my own 'briefscript' has gone so slowly.  One
(but only one) aim is that it could, in theory, serve as an IAL.  But when
I began the project - so very long ago - I did as primarily as an
intellectual exercise.  After being on AUXLANG for a time, I became alarmed
lest, if I got it completed, some might take the thing seriously and
promote it with all the blind fanaticism of conIAL extremists.

But don't judge all conIALs the same.  Thankfully, there are sane people
like Jespersen & Leo Moser.

Ray.





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