Re: Futurese

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.
> But, PLEASE, I'm not that silly as to think an IAL
> would save the world and all that; I believe an IAL
> is necessary because I MYSELF FEEL THE NEED FOR IT:
> I hate having to use a national language like English
> to be able to communicate internationally.
        Ok, at least you're not silly to think that an IAL will solve the world's
problems. And there's nothing wrong in trying to create one. Alas, there are
two wee problems with creating an IAL; one, adoption (Esperanto has been
around 100 years and still hasn't caught on enough, but we'll leave this to
one side with some hand-waving) and two, the problem I lovingly refer to as
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. 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. :)
        And, even though I am one of those dreaded native English speakers (boo,
hiss), I must object to your calling English a "national" language. It is
properly an international language, spoken natively all over the world.
Perhaps you don't like it, but at this present time, English is the de facto
lingua france. In another century, it could easily be Spanish, Mandarin, or
Hixkaryana. :) Such has always been the case; lingua francas change,
depending on time and geography. At one point or another, French, Latin,
Greek, and Aramaic have all been the languages of international politics and
trade but no longer occupy that prestigious position. Sic transit gloria
mundi. :)
        Ok, I'll get off my soapbox and get back to conlanging. :)

> So, I'm not here to discuss the necessity or convenience
> for an IAL, just to comment on the FEATURES of the language.
        Heh heh, oops. :) Ok, I'll behave.

> Just think of futurese (this is just a working nickname,
> not meant as the definitive name for the language) it as a
> conlang devised so as to meet certain requirements.
        I'm glad you mentioned that, because "Futurese" is definitely an English
coin word.

> 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, but few get past the "easy phonology" part. Be specific: what about
the features are culturally neutral? After all, what some people consider
"culturally neutral" would be immediately labeled as very Western in many
parts of the world. What do you mean by "logical"? Are we taking Lojban
logical here, or just "no irregulars"? How is it easy to use and learn?
Hawaiian is easy to pronounce for me, and Quechua is almost completely
regular, but neither recommend themselves as IALs.

> Here's a short summary of some of its main features:
>
> 1) Structure: ISOLATING
        Ok, this is probably the best choice, but having tutored native Russian
speakers, some people may find this more difficult than at first glance.

> 2) Script: standard 26-letter ROMAN ALPHABET
        While this is the best choice for our technological society, there are many
who would feel that this is not necessarily culturally neutral. Just an
observation. :)

> 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.


> vowels: .....|........................ i . y . u ..... |
> .............|.......................... e . o ....... |
> .............|............................ a ......... |
> --------------------------------------------------------
> (p, t and k, aspirated; y, schwa)
        Why insist on aspiration?

> 4) Syllable structure: (C)V(C)
> (glottal stop inherent in syllable-initial vowels)
        Is this the only time the glottal stop occurs? If so, why mention it?
Speakers who are used to inserting a glottal stop will naturally do so, those
who are not will still be understood perfectly.

> 5) Basic vocabulary: MONOSYLLABIC
>
> 6) Vocabulary sources:
> (a) onomatopoeic / expressive
> (b) "inspired" by existing languages (Lojban's method)
        What languages are on your list of inspiration?

> 7) Right-branching
>
> 8) Basic sentence structure: theme - predicator - rheme
        Sorry, I'm not exactly familiar with that terminology. Do you mean it's SVO
(Subject-Verb-Object)?
        :Peter

Reply