Re: The Great Sundering (was Re: basic morphemes of a loglang)

Hallo!

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:35:39 -0800,
Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...> wrote:

> --- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
> wrote:
>
> > [...] All I wanted to say is that
> > the line between
> > auxlang design discussion and auxlang advocacy
> > is easily crossed,
>
> Yes. Intending to create an auxlang pretty much
> sets one up as an auxlang advocate. I haven't yet
> met an auxlang (with the possible exception of
> Europanto)
...which is rather a joke...

>       that hasn't had some level of
> political advocacy behind it.
I agree.  Every serious auxlang proposal claims to be
the solution to the "language problem" - by definition.

>       Throwing your hat
> into that ring is tantamount to saying aloud and
> very clearly "My language is better than yours
> and the following Manifesto will elucidate the 96
> Critical Points upon which your pitiful 'project'
> will be crucified." There are simply certain
> fundamentals that auxlangers subscribe to by
> definition.
It's what I call the "Highlander condition":
there can be only one.  The goal of all auxlanging is to
set up ONE language to be used by everyone in the world;
this inevitably means that ONE proposal will eventually
be chosen to be that one, and all others be rejected.
Thus, every new auxlang proposal implies unspokenly
a rejection of every previous proposal.

> > and some people possibly keep their auxlang
> > design issues out of
> > CONLANG because they don't want to risk
> > treading loose an auxlang
> > advocacy thread in CONLANG.
>
> With any luck.
Well, the really frantic auxlangers don't give a shoot
about whether auxlang advocacy is welcome or not in CONLANG,
and merrily go forth proselytizing for their proposals.
Fortunately, this doesn't happen very often.

> > Or they believe that the artlangers
> > that make up the majority of CONLANG are a
> > pesky lot of snobs who
> > (1) don't care a heck of solving international
> > communication problems
>
> Certainly not in the way they advocate!
>
> > and (2) want to keep out everyone who
> > stirs them up from their game.  Of course,
> > that's not what CONLANG is like.
>
> True.
As I have said before, I see nothing wrong with
discussing auxlang or loglang *design* here
(and most people here agree with me, I think);
the problem only arises when the topic shifts to
auxlang *advocacy*, which, however, happens easily.

> > [AUXLANG flamewars between very similar languages]
>
> This is the sort of nonsense that I (at least)
> don't want dragged into this place. Unhappily, it
> is nonsense engrained in the whole activity.
Yes, it is really a big bucket of bilge.  It is astounding
how much bile is shed on how minute details.  Esperanto
and Ido, the two hottest contenders, are really so similar
that one has to look hard to spot the differences,
and yet the followers of them are dead hostile to each other.
That is childish, really, really childish, and not worthy
of people who consider themselves civilized and progressive.

> > [...] AUXLANG would indeed
> > be a much more
> > interesting place if it was about auxlang
> > *design*
> > (which was, as far as I know, the original
> > purpose of CONLANG,
> > before we evil artlangers took over ;-) ).
>
> I'll leave it for auxlang designers to stage a
> coup over thonder and retake Auxlang for the
> language designers.
Yeah!  That would be a show.  But it is not our problem.
On the other hand, it is a good thing that there exists
- in AUXLANG - a forum where auxlang advocacy is OK;
it helps keeping that kind of debate out of CONLANG.

> > > [auxlangs designed as artlangs]
> >
> > Yes, there are such cases, but the "typical"
> > auxlang is designed to better the world.
>
> Correct. The notions of "ease of use",
> "simplicity to learn", "global impact and
> outreach". That sort of thing. This is why I'd
> consider BrSc et al to be artlangs, even if they
> could in principal be implemented as auxlangs.
Well, in theory, any fully developed conlang (as well
as any natlang) could serve as an auxlang.  Whether
the language in question is easy to learn etc. remains
an open question.  And part of the joy of artlanging
is that one need not answer it.  So I can happily design
a language with active case marking, suffixaufnahme,
initial consonant mutations and three kinds of umlaut,
which would be a monster to have in an auxlang ;-)

> > There is no such thing as a well-defined line
> > that reliably
> > separates auxlangs from artlangs.
>
> Of course not. The only real difference between
> Esperanto and Kerno, or your Q is the politics
> behind them.
Yes.  Objectively, they are all the same - conlangs.
It is only the intention of the inventors which make
them different.

>       The one strives to serve specific
> communications goals and may have political
> asperations or connections; the others serve no
> purpose other than to exist in beauty -
> basically, they are art.
Exactly.  And a conlang that is meant to represent
a *fictional* auxlang (such as Ill Bethisad's equivalent
of Esperanto, or the speedtalk/loglang scheme of a future
transhumanist sect) is art, too.  Even *real* auxlangs
can be looked upon as art.  One need not believe in the
fitness of an auxlang proposal as the ultimate international
language to appreciate it.  For example, I am of the opinion
that Novial is elegantly designed, which is independent from
my general scepticism with regard to the auxlang idea itself.

> > Of course one can design
> > an auxlang as an artlang, e.g. a fictional
> > auxlang of a
> > fictional world.  (Are there auxlangs in Ill
> > Bethisad, and if yes,
> > has anyone actually designed one?)
>
> Ha! You missed the psuedo-auxlang flame war we
> held a while back.
Now that you mention it, I remember such a threat.  The name
"Kernopanto" springs to my mind.  I did not follow it in detail,
because (1) I wasn't all too interested in matters concerning
Ill Bethisad, and (2) I didn't take it seriously.

>       I foget who won - I think it
> was the Wenedyk contender (a just vicotry as Dr.
> Zamenhof was from that region of the world). I am
> entertaining the idea of creating an IB auxlang.
It would be interesting to explore the possibility that the
auxlang movement took a very different path *there* than *here*.
Perhaps they are still messing about with a priori philosophical
languages?

> But I think the idea is a nonstarter in IB, which
> is a truly international and polyglot place. Even
> the Americans *there* speak more than one
> language.
Yes, that fits the overall tone of Ill Bethisad.

> > And then there are those
> > who take an artlang and propose it as an
> > auxlang.  I have seen
> > such proposals for Quenya and Klingon.
>
> I did that for Kerno once. Can't recall if I did
> so on Auxlang or on Usenet somewhere.
Well, most auxlangers would find fault in quite a number
of features of Kerno, such as cases, initial mutations,
irregular verbs, etc.

> Padraic.
>
> =====
> la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
I tried to make sense of this, but my knowledge of Kerno is
sadly insufficient.  Could you please give a translation?

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:18:46 +0000,
Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 11:21 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > This is indeed true.  I occasionally look into the AUXLANG archive,
> > and there are hardly ever any design issues discussed there.
> > It is almost entirely about Esperanto vs. Ido vs. Interlingua
> > vs. Acadon vs. ...,
>
> or even Novial vs. Novial!  That's when I finally quit.
Novial vs. Novial... a really sad thing.  IMHO, Novial is the most
elegant of the a posteriori auxlangs I have yet studied.
That's just childish, as I have written above.  Shame on them.

> > that are so similar to each other that they are probably mutually
> > intelligible, which makes all that bickering especially pointless.
>
> ...all the "euroclones" (and the are the overwhelming majority)
> are close to 100% mutually intelligible.
Yes.  I haven't learned *any* auxlang, but yet I can make out the
rough meaning of a text written in Esperanto or Interlingua with
rather little difficulty.  I have no doubt that at least Esperanto
and Ido are indeed mutually intelligible.

> > has anyone actually designed one?)  And then there are those
> > who take an artlang and propose it as an auxlang.  I have seen
> > such proposals for Quenya and Klingon.
>
> Nice idea - but alas if Quenya were subject to that fate, the bickering
> would start.
Certainly.

> JRRT didn't leave Quenya in a fully fledged form needed for an IAL - I can
> just imagine the heated arguments raging between the different factions
> who believed their way was the only true one and all the others were
> heresies to be exterminated at all costs.  Of course, each side would claim
> to know the mind of JRRT.  If you think I exaggerated - look at the
> archives
> of the Novial civil wars where certain parties claimed to know the mind of
> Jespersen!
>
> No, no! Please save JRRT and Quenya from such a fate - both deserve better.
It is bad enough how Quenya and Sindarin are treated by those scholars
at places like Elfling.  Many of them have turned blind for the beauty
of the languages and bicker about reconstructions of words and
grammatical forms that are not attested in what has been published
so far of Tolkien's writings.  There are a number of "grailkeepers"
who see themselves as defenders of the true Tolkienian traditon and
violently reject any such "fill-in" attempts.  The word _vinyacárië_
(`new creation') has developed negative connotations on Elfling,
which is a sad thing as it denotes something very much in style
for the Elves!  Tolkien and his language haven't deserved that.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Replies