Talk:International auxiliary language/Archive 1

Removed piece
The following text that looks like an essay (or even a copy from some webpage) was removed (addition: 03:54, 28 Jan 2005 203.164.126.205). Is there anything reusable? Mikkalai 00:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Su Cheng Zhong gives another idea of international language by his linguistic law (see linguistic law) that it gives an idea of legality of international language. Which language will be the best and legal language for a globalization age? Two points are the most concerned. The first one is that it could describe clearer idea than the rest languages. The second one is that it must easier to learn than the rest of languages. From the view of phonetic patterns, we found a language with more phonetic patterns will be the suitable language. I called it as pixel theory. From common sense we know that only smaller pixels could describe the information in large pixels. In language, the fact is that a language with more phonetic patterns will automatically turned to be smaller or shorter in pronunciation. Let us check the word 'pork', it was explained as 'the meat of pig', what if we use 'pig meat' instead 'pork'? It will be no different, the only thing inconvenient is that for 'pork' we use less phonetic patterns to express the same idea, therefor we may save the oral actions and energy. On the contrary, for the 'pig meat' we use more phonetic patterns. For a butcher, he may express the idea of 'pork' thousand times, that means he will save thousand phonetic patterns in one day by using 'pork' not 'pig meat'. On the other hand, rarely some one using the meat of donkey, therefor, we didn't design a single word for this idea. That means to say, when we design a language, the first thing to concern is give the high frequency idea shorter pronouncing style, while the rarely used idea, we have no choice, but give them a longer pronouncing style. If only the phonetic patterns increased sharply, then the less high frequent idea and some of the rarely used idea will turn to be shorter, for people are lazy. If only they have the chance to make the express shorter, they will not chose the longer one. A language with more phonetic pattern will always express a word in a language that have less phonetic patterns easily. The key issue is that it has shorter pronouncing system, therefor easy to put a group short word together as a compound or semantic word. Suppose a language has the word of 'pig' as 'pi' and the word of 'meat' as 'me', they could put them easily as 'pime' to indicate the idea of 'pork', while using the same phonetic patterns as English. Therefor it is unnecessary to create a word like 'pork' in English. The language user will understand it automatically, not like English speaker has to remember a new word like 'pork'. From this we know the design of word 'pork' is saving phonetic patterns or oral actions, under the condition of keeping a new word 'pork' in mind.
 * If a language has much more phonetic patterns than English does, obviously it will not have a word like 'pork', not only this, all the words that can be separated into few words could be disappeared. That means to say, in this language, they have much less words to remember than English does, while it express the same knowledge field as English and may be more. We know when people learn a word, the more times to repeat it, the clearer he remember it. A language with less word means the speaker will repeat it more times than a language with more words. If such a language has only 1/10 of the words of English has, then the speaker will repeat their words ten times as English speaker does. There are some English dictionaries that employed 5000 common words to explain all the few hundred thousands entry in it. It says that words could explain each other, but to explain all the words in a certain language, it at least has 5000 basic words. On the other hand, since every entry in such a dictionaries can be explain by a sentence that created by the 5000 words, then we can pick up all the key words in that sentence and put them together to create a self explained word for this entry. For it just like what we have done for the word 'alto'. Let lowest + female +voice = alto. If every such compound word is made by two common explaining words, then 5000 explaining words can create 5000¡Á5000=25000000 such word. Far more than any human language has.
 * Supposing, lo= lowest, fe= female and vo= voice, then we may use 'lofevo' to replace the word 'alto'. Although they spend roughly the same length of time to pronounce it, yet the 'lofevo' has some property that 'alto' hasn't. Supposing, we need a word as 'lowest male voice', and the word 'male' is as short as 'ma' then, we can easily write a word as 'lomavo' without any explanation, any one will accept it, no need to create a word as English 'basso'. Imagining a language has a word as the 'lowest girl's voice' while the word 'girl' is indicated as 'gi' then we may easily write a word as 'logivo'. This demonstrated what we said before that a language with more phonetic patterns would make clearer idea easier to learn than a language with less phonetic patterns. For the language that has more phonetic patterns will always translate the words of a language with less phonetic patterns automatically, while the later could not do the same job. It gives us the legal idea that the language that has utmost phonetic patterns will be the best language for international language.
 * (See also the entries of 'linguistic law', 'phonetic pattern' and 'linguistics')
 * for more detail: intelligent888@hotmail.com

You're more tolerant than I am, Mikkalai. I would simply have deleted the above as patent nonsense. --Angr 09:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

International language
International language redirects here, however I think "international language" and "international auxiliary language" have different nuances. International language would be like (at one point in history, according to some people's perspectives) English, French, or Latin. As support for the claim that today's international language is English, most countries' schools that call themselves "international schools" teach in English. Also, any of the six official languages of UN may be considered international, to a degree. On the other hand, international auxiliary language has been used mostly by people interested in conlangs, a.k.a. artificial languages. —Tokek 04:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting on conlang policy has started
Voting has started on the conlang notability/verifiablity criteria at Conlangs/Votes. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

atlango
there doesn't seem to be anything on google about this language that wasn't written by the author, is it really established enough to be listed here?

Trimming the list
I've trimmed the list a bit, trying to give the benefit of the doubt to marginal cases.--Chris 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

 * Ceqli. One-man-project (OMP), does not claim to be an IAL.
 * Dunia. Uncompleted project.
 * Kosmos. No information.
 * Kotava. No information.
 * Living Latin. Not a constructed language.
 * Lojban. Does not claim to be an IAL.
 * Progressiva. Uncompleted OMP.

Spared, for now

 * Atlango. OMP.
 * Fasile. Claims 500 users (improbably)
 * Mondlango. Functioning egroup.
 * Romanica. OMP, some interest by Interlinguists
 * Romanico. Apparently OMP, despite probably fictional history on Babel website.
 * Romanid. Some historical interest, but maybe not enough to retain it.
 * Romanova. OMP.
 * Slovio. Some interest, developed by prof. linguist.


 * Fasile should be kept on. It's the only one of those languages I've heard of, and I know there has been some considerable discussion on it by Esperantists. Andrew 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andrew--Chris 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clear historical interest

 * Babm
 * Mondolinco
 * Ro
 * Sona

My response
I would even go a little further: remove this list entirely. The problem is that we already have too many lists around. Both this page and the list of constructed languages contain a list of IALs. Likewise, we have no less than three different lists of fictional languages, not even to mention the ones listed on the list of constructed languages. And the latter does not even mention the existence of engineered languages. It's a mess, really. So what I will do, is to merge all these lists into one (a renewed list of constructed languages), and replacing all the lists on pages like this one with a link to the corresponding section. I hope you'll understand that and agree with me.

As for your deletions: I agree that Ceqli, Living Latin and Lojban shouldn't be on a list of IALs, because they belong primarily to other language families. But I do not agree that OMPs should be ruled out by definition, nor should uncompleted projects. Such a language will probably suck as an IAL, but it may very well be notable for different reasons. Besides, one of the conclusions of many previous AfDs was that even if a language does not warrant an article on its own that does not mean that it may not be included in a list of languages.

So don't feel offended if some of the languages you deleted will reemerge on the list I've prepared, and feel free to edit at will. Do however keep in mind what I wrote above. And of course, if you find articles about IALs that you believe are not notable enough for inclusion, do not hesitate to nominate them for deletion. &mdash;IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij  11:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I agree with moving the list. I don't agree with keeping uncompleted projects as a rule; I'm not sure about OMPs. Perhaps they should have their own category, Minor Projects. A German interlinguistics specialist (yes, it's his real job), Detlev Blanke, worked out a scale for evaluating the impact of IALs. I should document it. It's rather biased toward Esperanto, but at least it would give us a tool for separating major and minor projects.--Chris 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to see that scale. Anyway, glad you approve. I have some comments regarding the deletions you made on the new page, but I'll address them there. In the meantime: we have a brand new WikiProject Constructed languages. In case you're interested, feel free to add your name to the list of participants and give any input you like! &mdash;IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij  14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Creating constant IDs for Wikipedia
I think that Wikipedia could contribute this progress by creating Wiki of concepts and topics, so that people could register their concepts.

First while getting to know various ways of data syndycation (microformats, RSS, etc.), I thought of this:

Imagine that every article in Wikipedia has a unique ID that people could easily see, so they could index their content in the blogs and elsewhere semantically, depending on the topics that their content is related with.

 HTML

This could give an advantage to see all the semantically related content on the web, rather than searching through the variety of ways to direct the same thing, which makes searching difficult, as we have to try out various synonims for the same thing. You could easily find what people are writing on the web on a specific topic in Wikipedia

Considering that knowing the subject is half-way to communicating any thought, browsers could automatically show the subjects, so people could much faster understand what the text is about, in their language, if possible.

However, there are so many subjects in the world, and Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, wouldn't allow so easily register your new subjects, related with specific persons that don't have a userpage, etc., that there would be a requirement of a new specialized database - a wiki for topics. (I think concepts and some of the most most important world's topics could be covered by the Wikipedia).

After we had these numbers for the concepts (Wikipedia) and topics (Wiki???), and these are started being used, they could be learned, and people would learn them just because they will have to use them for the markup.

After that we could further search for the ways to create the language, but the thing is, that there might need no grammar, just flow of concepts could be enough to tell quite a lot of thoughts.

When everyone starts thinking in concepts rather than in sentences, they would say something like:

[time]-[condition] [people]-[beginning]-[frequent] [concept]-[type]-[thought]-[style] [infrequent]-[sentence]-[style]-[thought] [consequence] [people]-[talk] [instant]-[posession] [this]-[sort]-[thing]: ...

-- [my]-[thought] [future] [we] [posession] [few]-[grammar]. [reason]: [grammar] [no] [need]. [reason]: [any]-[thought] [ability]-[expression] [concept]-[usage]-[only]-[method]. --

Yea, I know, to think in concepts is something unusual to our brains, as brain is not used to quickly abstract and find the proper concepts to express something. We are used to english or else what.

However, what is the closest to this conceptual method, is perhaps Chinese language, which has perhaps the simplest grammar in the world, and thoughts are kind of made up this way, by agglutinating characters that have concepts.

I have not learned Chinese (only Japanese), but I made such an impression from very little of experience.

Sentence like "How is your mom's and dad's work?(going)"

[you] [mom] [dad] [work] [how]?

I mean, they don't have any conjugation or inflections, and still convey the meaning. You get used to it, and it sounds natural.

If we had those IDs for concepts (or at least of Wikipedia provided constant IDs for concepts inside of it), these things could start happening from indexing the content on the web I think..

(consider this as a personal note for future consideration) Inyuki 15:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Kotava
upper citation : deleted : Kotava. No information.

You have removed Kotava from your list, for lack of information. If you don't know it yet, you can discover it on their official site www.kotava.org. There is also a forum www.kotava.org/phpBB2/ which seems rather active. And I even saw that they started to create their own encyclopaedia www.kotava.be.

I don't know if it's sufficient to consider Kotava as a credible auxiliary language, but it seems to me that it's already more than the large majority of the other conlangs which are listed here.