I think it's sudanglo's opinion that other constructed languages aren't really languages because their communities are small or nonexistant.

I don't think that this opinion is shared by most Esperantists, and I don't personally agree with him, but sudanglo has a right to his opinion.

If anyone would like to debate the point with sudanglo it is probably best done by private message because in my opinion it's been done to death in this forum already, and at this point I think we're all aware of each other's points of view on the topic, and I doubt that anyone will convince anyone else.

---

In my opinion, though, most Esperantists are fairly positive on the idea of conlangs in general. It's hard to find exactly the right words to express this, but although most Esperantists believe that Esperanto is the most effective constructed language, and they have chosen Esperanto as "their" international language, as it were, they maintain an interest in other constructed languages. I think that many Esperanto speakers have a sympathy for other constructed languages. Though they feel that Esperanto is the best solution, they are interested in learning about how other constructed languages did things in different ways. It isn't uncommon to meet a committed Esperanto speaker who has a basic reading and writing ability in one or more other constructed language. I think that in particular there is great sympathy for Volapuk, because it is our predecessor in many ways. Volapuk has almost no community (20-30 speakers, most or all of which also speak Esperanto) and almost no web presence, with the exception of a couple of websites, Wikipedia, and a list of links published by an Esperanto speaker. Yet an Esperanto/Volapuk dictionary was published in 2003, and a grammar of Volapuk, written in Esperanto, in 1995. I think that Volapuk would be fully dead and mostly forgotten if not for the interest and support of Esperanto speakers. It's a bit like putting in money to keep an antique car running, even though you don't really want to be driving around in that on an everyday basis. You just think it's cool and charming and old-fashioned, and an interesting predecessor to today's cars, so you hate to let it just die.

razlem:

dbiswinner:Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the only conlang formally recognized as a living language.

Citation requested.

From the website of UEA:

"In 1954 the UNESCO General Conference recognised that the achievements of Esperanto match UNESCO's aims and ideals, and official relations were established between UNESCO and UEA. In 1985 the General Conference called on member states and international organisations to promote the teaching of Esperanto in schools and its use in international affairs. UEA also has official relationships with the United Nations, UNICEF, the Council of Europe, the Organisation of American States, and the International Standards Organisation (ISO)."

I'm not aware of anything similar concerning other IALs, but I haven't looked; by all means make it known if you find anything.

On the subject of whether IALs besides Esperanto are "languages", Zamenhof himself did refer to Volapuk as a lingvo, so I don't mind following his example by using the term for Ido, Glosa, Novial, or any other serious attempt at an IAL. Whether Klingon is a serious attempt or a joke, I'm not quite sure. Maybe an impartial and knowledgeable authority like ceigered can fill me in on this.

Regarding using Interlingua as a step towards learning Romance languages... I would avoid it if only because it can just put too much other information in your head. Having studied French and dabbled in Latin, Italian and Spanish, I find that sometimes the closeness of the languages is more confusing than helpful. I'm always putting French words into my Italian sentences or Italian words into my Spanish.

Don't get me wrong... I am interested in Interlingua. But if it's really about learning the other Romance languages, I would just learn them.

A language is a system of communication that has semantics, syntax, a lexicon, and speakers

Yes, speakers Todd.

But this isn't enough, there must be social consensus. What does this word/ sentence really mean. How is it used.

The link you gave gives the game away, doesn't it.

One other good thing about this (the book publication) is that Interlingua as a naturalistic IAL is a bit more prone to being changed on a whim by certain users depending on their mother tongue, and the more standardized literature there is the less likely it is that people will treat it as a project they can play around with as opposed to a real language.

Sudanglo, mind what you say, since it doesnt look well researched. The fact Interlingua has conferences exactly like Eos (if you care to check their main website you'll find a video of an interlingua only conferrnce there), a podcast and the odd occasional translated reading material shows very good evidence of speakers.

And re interlingua being prone to user made modifications, there is only evidence to the contrary - the more rigid and complocated nature of the grammar means less experimentation, thus a beginner of interlingua will start on a rocky incline but will probably become more anal about correct grammar than an intermediate esperantist (at advanced level the comparison no longer matters). Thus, i prefer reading EO since theres always more... Ahem... Creativity (you might call it bad grammar, i call it art (until it gets annoying haha)).

Miland, re klingon, i think it was originally an artistic idea that became fun between drunken star trek fans that became something serioua!

Erinja, in the circles that I have moved in during the 50 years that I have been an Esperantist, I have met only a few Esperantists who are interested in conlang projects.

But, of course, my generation, I'm a contemporary of Humphrey Tonkin and John Wells, were largely Finvenkista. Raŭmismo is, for people of my age, a Johnny-come-lately.

And, I expect, Ceiger, you could find U-tube Videos of Trekkies having a go at Klingon - So what.

sudanglo:Yes, speakers Todd.

But this isn't enough, there must be social consensus. What does this word/ sentence really mean. How is it used.

There are Native American tongues whose speakers have all died out, and there is no longer any consensus concerning basic grammar, let alone vocabulary. Yet these are still languages.

Even if there are only 50 speakers, it is still a language. There are some ancient Indian languages that only have a handful of speakers.

There is the Klingon Language Institute that sticks to canonical vocabulary, so that people do not just make up missing words. This is different than a project though. The grammar and phonotactics have been established and utilized, and now all that remains is vocabulary, which is developed by Mark Okrand himself.

If you still don't buy it, then give us linguistic parameters. What is a language, sudanglo?

For the thread topic, just learn Spanish.

sudanglo:

A language is a system of communication that has semantics, syntax, a lexicon, and speakers

Yes, speakers Todd.

But this isn't enough, there must be social consensus. What does this word/ sentence really mean. How is it used.

Well yes, that's what speakers do. There's no evidence that this is missing in Interlingua, and plenty of evidence that it's present. Of course, there are always those who take liberties and borrow forms from their native languages in a pinch, such as using a word like "onies". But the existence of a stream of published content over decades is more than enough evidence of a speech community large enough to motivate it.

But the gavel has been rapped on this digression. Returning to the original question, Interlingua is a naturalistic language, so it should offer a good introduction to some properties of its source languages. But I have to agree with the view that it's so naturalistic that the time might be better spent learning one of those actual languages.

50 speakers of a language, that is for all those speakers a denaska lingvo, might be enough.

Similarly, 50 denaskaj speakers who are all now dead might be enough to refer to it as having been a language.

The issue here is not so much the casual use of the term language. The issue is the vital distinction between Esperanto and conlangs (pure projects and those who have found some practioners.)

Here, having a few books published and the occasional get-together of enthusiasts falls far short of the mark.

I suppose the essential features of a real language are the scope of and stability of usage.

How can the general public be expected to see the distinction, if we (I mean Esperantists) don't forcibly assert it ourseves.