Meddelelser: 81
Sprog: English
robinast (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 12.30.50
'conlang' means a 'constructed languge', right? So, Eo IS a conlang, isn't it? Seemingly, most widespread and most successful, seemingly evolving, seemingly very much like any other 'natural' language (yes, I do think that Eo is both constructed and 'natural') - yet a conlang due to it's origin as I understand.
rheotaxis (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 13.12.38
Esperanto was a conlang in the beginning, because it was invented and constructed by its original author. How can we object to the label that describes its origin? To deny its authentic origins seems like "branding" it one thing or another simply because we don't like the connotations implied by what we assume is negative "branding". In the end all efforts to control "branding" is a form of central planning, and some politicians will tell you, even some who spoke Esperanto, central planning is "a road to serfdom."
Miland (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 15.14.46
robinast:'conlang' means a 'constructed language', right? ..+1
Miland (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 16.08.27
On the subject of conlangs, I came just across an interesting website, of the Language Creation Society. Their flag ironically has the design of the Tower of Babel, and so depicts the very problem that Esperanto was designed to solve. Interestingly, in their list of recommended books, Arika Okrent's is at the top of the list.
Here's the relevance to Esperanto: we could send enthusiasts for other AILs there, so that they could get the urge to contribute to "Babel" out of their system, before they return to the bells of wisdom!
Here's the relevance to Esperanto: we could send enthusiasts for other AILs there, so that they could get the urge to contribute to "Babel" out of their system, before they return to the bells of wisdom!
Hauxkins (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 16.29.05
the Language Creation Society. Their flag ironically has the design of the Tower of Babel, and so depicts the very problem that Esperanto was designed to solve.If the tower is standing, that's less ironic! God didn't start playing silly buggers with people's linguistic skills until he'd smashed up the tower in one of his classic old-testament rages.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 19.28.30
sudanglo:I respectfully disagree. (We are all mature adults here, and we can respectfully and politely disagree.)Therefore, Esperanto is most definitely and unquestionably a conlang, just as much so as Klingon or Toki PonaYou miss my point Bartlett - which is precisely that Esperanto is not a conlang (as the term is usually understood) and that it is sufficiently different that it should not be labelled as such.
This would be true even if Esperanto, like Klingon, had no lingua franca aspirations.
It is the facts of usage, development through time, and social consensus over meaning and correctness of forms which distinguish it from the conlangs. {trim}
Constructed languages (conlangs) tend to fall into two rough categories, a priori and a posteriori. There are some approximately pure types, but also some mixed types with some features of both, among which is Esperanto. I still maintain that E-o is unquestionably a constructed language, a conlang in the strict sense of the term, being, obviously, constructed.
The issue, as I see it, is more one of attitude rather than of strict terminology. Indeed, I have known of advocates and users of Interlingua who insist stridently that Interlingua is not a conlang, i.e., a constructed language (they assert that it is extracted, not constructed, whatever that means), whereas Esperanto most definitely is a constructed language, i.e., a conlang, just as much as and no less than Klingon, Toki Pona, Suma, Sona, Ro, Oz, aUI, Berendt, and many, many others.
As a matter of attitude, my own position is that it matters little in any of the cases. How is a language used, whether a conlang or natlang? What is the likelihood that it may have significant success in becoming a widely used international auxiliary language (IAL), if its advocates wish to promote it as such?
Although I do not have numbers, I myself have no doubt that E-o has more active, competent users than all the other conIALs combined, but that does not mean that it is any less a conlang. I submit that it is entirely correct and proper to label E-o as a conlang. It is just the most successful one to date as an auxlang. I say that an unwillingness to call E-o a conlang is a sort of "guilt by association" matter, not wanting to associate it with conIALs with smaller user bases (Interlingua and Ido come to mind, which actually do have active users), or conIAL projects which have almost no bases. But a guilt by association attitude has nothing to do with whether Esperanto is a conlang, which it most definitely and unquestionably is.
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 22. dec. 2011 23.04.52
Esperanto has grown out of being a conlang - obviously.
Of course, we should disassociate ourselves from the conlangers.
What most of them are upto is distinctly nutty, and any movement with serious political aims, even if it is single issue politics, would do well to draw a clear distiction between itself and the activities of the conlangers.
If the nuttiness of the conlangers is not obvious let me explain.
CASE 1 - you have designed an auxlang.
Even if you think you have good grounds for believing that your pet project is superior in its linguistic characteristics, you will still need to prove that, in practice, it will work, and be stable in an international environment.
The example of Esperanto shows how much work is involved in this.
The example of Esperanto also shows that the chances of your pet project reaching the test stage with a substantial body of speakers is very low.
Count up the number of failed projects and compare with the unique success of Esperanto.
What sort of sanity is there in creating another auxlang when the Esperanto already exists with proven practicality and viability.
CASE 2 - You are trying to prove some theory of language or improve human communication.
This seems, on the surface, slightly less nutty, until you realise that you have to persuade a lot of people to learn it and use it as a language before you can draw any conclusions. A very unlikely scenario.
CASE 3. - Your conlang is for play-acting some fantasy world. This is nutty almost by definition
Of course, we should disassociate ourselves from the conlangers.
What most of them are upto is distinctly nutty, and any movement with serious political aims, even if it is single issue politics, would do well to draw a clear distiction between itself and the activities of the conlangers.
If the nuttiness of the conlangers is not obvious let me explain.
CASE 1 - you have designed an auxlang.
Even if you think you have good grounds for believing that your pet project is superior in its linguistic characteristics, you will still need to prove that, in practice, it will work, and be stable in an international environment.
The example of Esperanto shows how much work is involved in this.
The example of Esperanto also shows that the chances of your pet project reaching the test stage with a substantial body of speakers is very low.
Count up the number of failed projects and compare with the unique success of Esperanto.
What sort of sanity is there in creating another auxlang when the Esperanto already exists with proven practicality and viability.
CASE 2 - You are trying to prove some theory of language or improve human communication.
This seems, on the surface, slightly less nutty, until you realise that you have to persuade a lot of people to learn it and use it as a language before you can draw any conclusions. A very unlikely scenario.
CASE 3. - Your conlang is for play-acting some fantasy world. This is nutty almost by definition
RiotNrrd (Vise profilen) 23. dec. 2011 00.12.18
I'm sorry, sudanglo, but I have to disagree.
Of course Esperanto is a conlang. It was constructed. Conlang means constructed language. Which Esperanto is. You can say black is white until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it true.
Esperanto is also an auxlang. That's what it was built for.
These are just classifications. Objecting to them is like objecting to the placing of humans amongst the great apes. Whether you like it or not is of little relevance. That's where things fall within accepted classifications.
I think we should draw an additional distinction between languages that sometimes seems to be forgotten, though.
Klingon, Elvish, Na'vi, (and similar), as well as being conlangs, have the additional distinction of being fictional languages.
That, and only that, account for their popularity.
If there was no Star Trek, there'd be no Klingon, but even if there was, no one would bother learning it. It's ridiculously hard, and useless for most purposes.
If Tolkien hadn't written the stories he did, Elvish and the rest of his languages would have rotted away, unknown to most, in his notebooks.
No Avatar, no Na'vi. And so on.
Esperanto, while having been used in some works of fiction, is most definitely NOT fictional. So, my objection to the current state of things is more along the lines of objecting to Esperanto continuing to be placed amongst fictional languages like Klingon and Elvish. THAT is wrong.
Of course Esperanto is a conlang. It was constructed. Conlang means constructed language. Which Esperanto is. You can say black is white until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it true.
Esperanto is also an auxlang. That's what it was built for.
These are just classifications. Objecting to them is like objecting to the placing of humans amongst the great apes. Whether you like it or not is of little relevance. That's where things fall within accepted classifications.
I think we should draw an additional distinction between languages that sometimes seems to be forgotten, though.
Klingon, Elvish, Na'vi, (and similar), as well as being conlangs, have the additional distinction of being fictional languages.
That, and only that, account for their popularity.
If there was no Star Trek, there'd be no Klingon, but even if there was, no one would bother learning it. It's ridiculously hard, and useless for most purposes.
If Tolkien hadn't written the stories he did, Elvish and the rest of his languages would have rotted away, unknown to most, in his notebooks.
No Avatar, no Na'vi. And so on.
Esperanto, while having been used in some works of fiction, is most definitely NOT fictional. So, my objection to the current state of things is more along the lines of objecting to Esperanto continuing to be placed amongst fictional languages like Klingon and Elvish. THAT is wrong.
RiotNrrd (Vise profilen) 23. dec. 2011 01.02.21
On the other hand - and this is where I cringe a little - one of the only times the general public ever even hears about Esperanto is when it gets included in discussions of fictional languages.
There's lots of fans of various stories and story universes. They're often interested in the languages of the stories they like. So they'll search out things written about these languages (such as Anita Okrent's book), and, lucky for us, Esperanto often gets a mention. From what I've heard, Anita's book paints Esperanto in a positive light (I haven't read it myself, though).
So, lumping us in with the fictionals may be a net positive, even though I die a little inside every time I see it happen.
Talking about Klingon and Esperanto as if they were even remotely similar and/or widespread is just... wrong. But people want to read about Klingon. They probably haven't heard about Esperanto. So, linking the two may not be so terrible from a practical standpoint.
There's lots of fans of various stories and story universes. They're often interested in the languages of the stories they like. So they'll search out things written about these languages (such as Anita Okrent's book), and, lucky for us, Esperanto often gets a mention. From what I've heard, Anita's book paints Esperanto in a positive light (I haven't read it myself, though).
So, lumping us in with the fictionals may be a net positive, even though I die a little inside every time I see it happen.
Talking about Klingon and Esperanto as if they were even remotely similar and/or widespread is just... wrong. But people want to read about Klingon. They probably haven't heard about Esperanto. So, linking the two may not be so terrible from a practical standpoint.
ludomastro (Vise profilen) 23. dec. 2011 03.44.44
RiotNrrd:Talking about Klingon and Esperanto as if they were even remotely similar and/or widespread is just... wrong. But people want to read about Klingon. They probably haven't heard about Esperanto. So, linking the two may not be so terrible from a practical standpoint.Old journalism expression: The only bad press is no press.
The mention of E-o was very positive if a little thin. She basically took time to explain the basic goals of E-o, covered a bit on Zamenhof and mentioned the Esperanto culture (again in a positive light). In all it was about the best you could hope for given that she really only singled out four recent languages for discussion.
Loglan/Lojban - Logical constructions
Bliss Symbolics - Pictographs
Klingon - which she admitted an academic fondness for
and Esperanto
The truth of the mater is that the rest of the world (from my exposure to it at least) views ALL constructed languages (fictional, axillary, art, etc.) as crazy. I once had a friend refer to E-o as "that nerd language." He saw no point in learning ANY auxiliary language as he speaks English. He also maintained that English will remain the de facto lingua franca for at least as long as he lives - and he is probably right.
Thus, I can understand the desire to separate E-o from everything else. I just ask that we do it in a respectful way. In my business I give vendors one warning: If they can't distinguish their product without resorting to trashing the other guy, then I won't buy from them. Tearing down the other guy makes me think they don't have anything unique to offer that sets them apart from the competition.