Re: Futurese

At 6:16 pm -0500 28/4/02, Peter Clark wrote:
>On Sunday 28 April 2002 16:59, Javier BF wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like people to comment on this project, intended
>> to meet the requirements of a globally acceptable IAL.
[snip]

>the Highlander Problem, that is, There Can Be Only One. Now, some may be
>magnimonious and say that there can be two IALs, but those are few and far
>between.
Tho this must, in fact, be so.  I cannot imagine for one moment the
Esperanto community, which is international, readily dropping their
language in favor of another constructed IAL.  Why, indeed, should they?

>In creating an IAL, one basically is expressing dissatisfaction with
>all the other auxlangs competing for the title of IAL.
>        Thus: what's wrong with all the other auxlangs that your auxlang
>will solve?
>(BTW, this is not meant to start a flame war to all of you who are making a
>reflexive grab for your asbestos underwear. :)
Indeed not - and I have no wish to start any similar flame-war (I'd join a
different list if that's what I wanted   :)

But Peter has a very valid point.  It has often been observed that in the
realm of articial IALs supply far exceeds demand.  There are literally
hundreds of constructed languages which, according to their designers, are
the idea IAL.  Most don't get many adherents besides designer & a few
friends and don't survive the designer's death.  But some have become
better known.

If you want to add to the already long list then it is very reasonable, it
seems to me, to ask: "What is wrong with all the alternatives?" "What are
you offering that is different?"

(My own BrSc is offering brevity and morphemic self-segregations as added
extras  :)

>        And, even though I am one of those dreaded native English speakers
>(boo,
>hiss), I must object to your calling English a "national" language.
Yes, indeed.  It is the national language of English - hence the name.  But
it is also the main language of the USA, the official language of
Australia, New Zealand & Canda, has equal status with another national
language in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, many Africans countries and is widely
used in the Indian sub-continent.  My apologies to any I've missed out.


>It is
>properly an international language, spoken natively all over the world.
Yes - the same can be said of French, Portuguese and, especially, Spanish,
and also of Arabic.  They're all _international_ languages.

[snip]

>        Ok, I'll get off my soapbox and get back to conlanging. :)
I've clipped the rest of Peter's soapbox, but I agree with every syllable
of it.

[snip]
>
>> The main goal of futurese is to be as culturally neutral,
>> logical and easy to use and learn as possible.
>
>        Ok, I'll try to frame this as a "features" question: how do these
>features
>compare with other auxlangs? I've heard the exact same thing a dozen times
>before,
Exactly - precisely the same things ccan surely be claimed by the inventors
of Glosa, Acadon etc etc.

[snip]
>parts of the world. What do you mean by "logical"? Are we taking Lojban
>logical here, or just "no irregulars"?
...and that last is not easy as many designers have discovered. The best
one can claim, I think, is to try to be more regular than natlangs tend to
be.

[snip]
>
>> 3) Phoneme chart:
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> .............|. labial .| dent-alve | palat-velar | gl |
>> -------------------------------------------------------|
>> plosives: ...| p .......|. t .......|......... k .|. ' |
>> .............| b .......|. d .......|......... g .|....|
>> fricatives: .|...... f .|....... s .|. c .........|. h |
>> .............|...... v .|....... z .|. x .........|....|
>> nasals: .....| m .......|. n .......|......... q .|....|
>> liquids: ....|..........|. l .......|.............|....|
>> .............|..........|. r .......|.............|....|
>> semivowels: .|..........|...........|. j ..... w .|....|
>> -------------|-----------------------------------------|
>        Hmm...both [h] and [x]. Interesting. Or does |x| represent [S]
>(sh)? But it
>seems as though it is voiced. What do |c| and |q| represent? Is |r| retroflex
>(American English and Mandarin), trilled, or tapped? Oh, and I just noticed
>the ', which I assume to be a glottal stop. That's very unusual for an
>auxlang.
It is indeed.  Way back in the 19th cent. Schleyer was worried about having
both /r/ and /l/ and designed his Volapük with only /l/ (tho the De Jong
revival also revived /r/.  But if you're catering for Chinese, Japanese,
Korean and other speakers and want cultural neutrality it is questionable
whether both should be included.

>
>> vowels: .....|........................ i . y . u ..... |
>> .............|.......................... e . o ....... |
>> .............|............................ a ......... |
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> (p, t and k, aspirated; y, schwa)
>        Why insist on aspiration?
Indeed - why, e.g. do French speakers have to aspirate the voiceless stops?
I know from experience they find this difficult.

[snip]
>
>> 5) Basic vocabulary: MONOSYLLABIC
Ah, just like Mon-ling    :)

>> 6) Vocabulary sources:
>> (a) onomatopoeic / expressive
>> (b) "inspired" by existing languages (Lojban's method)
>        What languages are on your list of inspiration?
The same ones as lojban?  Or will you use a much broader spectrum like,
e.g. Acadon?

I suppose the point Peter and I making is that we've heard almost exactly
the same things before from other IAL constructors.  I feel that if (and
it's a very big IF in my opinion) a contructed IAL is going to take off
it'll need some extra "secret ingredient".

Earlier this month Carlos posted stuff about his constructed IAL
'Interlect' (Hope I've remembered the name aright); it was IMO quite a
pleasing artlang and could pass for a Romance-based pidgin or creole.  It
had a charm of its own.

I'll say no more of BrSc which, however it turns out, won't be like your
average conIAL  :)

Ray.

======================
   XRICTOC ANECTH
======================

Reply