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

Hallo!

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:35:10 -0800,
Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...> wrote:

> --- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:35:39 -0800,
> > Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > [Europanto]
> >
> > ...which is rather a joke...
>
> True. The people (UN translators/interpreters)
EU translators/interpreters, to be exact.

> that created it understand it to be a joke as
> well.
Yes.  Only the people at SIL misunderstood it, it seems,
and listed it as a language in actual use.

> > Well, in theory, any fully developed conlang
> > (as well
> > as any natlang) could serve as an auxlang.
>
> Of course. We're using one of the most popular
> auxlangs in history right now.
Yes, and it has such a great head-start that it seems unlikely
that any of the artificial auxlangs will make it - not even Esperanto.
Like it or not, English has won.

> > Whether
> > the language in question is easy to learn etc.
> > remains an open question.
>
> Of course. I didn't find E-o particularly
> difficult; but it wasn't as easy as I-a. It's a
> moot point anyway, because we (as a group) tend
> to be more facile with languages than the average
> person anyway.
True.

> > 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
> > ;-)
>
> Sounds like Q!
It *is* Q.  There are no initial mutations in Proto-Q, though,
but they occur in several daughter languages.

>       What does the "Q" stand for (if
> anything) anyway?
Nothing in particular; it is from the old designation "Quendic",
and serves as a provisional designation until I have decided
on a new name.

> > 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?
>
> Now that's an idea!
Yes.  It is, from a conlanging viewpoint, far more interesting than
a replay of the euroclone auxlang story that happened *here*.

> > > [proposal of Kerno as auxlang]
> >
> > Well, most auxlangers would find fault in quite
> > a number
> > of features of Kerno, such as cases, initial
> > mutations, irregular verbs, etc.
>
> Naturally! It certainly wasn't a serious
> proposal, after all.
Of course.

> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:18:46 +0000,
> > Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > or even Novial vs. Novial!  That's when I
> > finally quit.
> >
> > Novial vs. Novial... a really sad thing.
>
> It meboggles. There must be two versions of the
> same language...
Yes.  I think it was about a revision of Jepserson's original
proposal from 1928, probably concerning really minute details.
Tells a lot about the way auxlangers tick.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply