I admit I'm surprised. I hadn't meant to dump Inlis in your collective lap and run off giggling maniacally, but that's roughly what I accomplished. So I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition when I checked in again. (I know: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" So I'm a nobody. This is news?)
There should have been a comment explaining that regular English is bad enough without caricaturing it as a kind of creole.
Simply put, the rationale for Inlis derives from the following premises:
1. Most of the people in the auxlang target demographic know English.
2. They don't know it well enough to feel comfortable in it.
3. English as such is too complicated in sounds, vocabulary, and idioms for most learners to achieve effectively native fluency in it.
4. As with most natlangs, the gulf between native and non-native speakers will intimidate learners.
5. In only another generation or so, most people will speak Bad English. It will be bad either because they aren't native speakers; because they natively speak a non-prestige dialect developed almost from a pidgin (Hinglish, Ebonics, whatever); or because they grew up in North America, Britain, or Australia and are out to sabotage English from within.
6. On the other hand, some will speak Funny English, though that's subjective: Brits in the US, Americans in Britain, Australians pretty much anywhere. Funny English can be fun, even cool--useful traits for an auxlang.
Question: What if there were an artificial Funny English that would make us all sound not just like L2 English-speakers but fun/cool ones? Non-native English-speakers wouldn't sound any sillier than natives, and we could all have a good laugh, loosen up, and get on with life.
This is the goal of Inlis. It's meant to be easier and more predictable than English, intelligible to those who already know English to any extent (the investment in learning English isn't wasted), not the property of any group (native English-speakers won't have any real advantage), and about as extensible as English proper.
Next up, I'll explain the history of the project
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em
I should apologize for the last post. I won't, but I thought I should mention that I know I should. Conspiracy theories generally trigger my gag reflex, and "English is an International Conspiracy" is no exception.
But in any case, I'm about to quote myself, which demonstrates how authoritative this blog is: I don't quote just anyone, you know!
Or more specifically, these people know at least some English. Shouldn't we use that?
Some auxlangs do--they have a fair amount of English vocabulary. But even then there's generally a negative attitude: Watch out, folks! It's English, so get out your hazmat suits!
Not a good sign.
More sincere efforts generally involve making English easier to learn by starting with a simplified version: Basic English, Globish, and various types of spelling reform.
But none of this addresses the fundamental problems of mastering English--the synonyms ("big" or "large"?), the idiomatic use of prepositions (not just an English issue), hard-to-pronounce words (e.g., "world"), and so on. They also further entrench the superiority of native speakers, with only the hope that their number will continue to grow and perhaps your children will be among them.
In the spirit of "If you can't beat 'em, get a bigger club," I'm proposing an alternative. I won't even explain what follows except to say that the consonants are essentially English and the vowels the usual five found in most auxlangs. Read it out and follow the sound, not the spelling. (I've updated this so many times I hope it's truly current, but at least it'll give you some idea of what I'm up to.)
1. Da total at bifo hav wan lanwij plas da seim wad.
2. Taim dat da pipal du bigin go istan, dem notis da flat-ples in da Shinar lan; plas dem go risaidin da ples.
3. Dem tok ta ichada "Kamon! Wi mek da brik plas du kukin dem in faya!" Dem du yusin da brik insted rok plas da tari insted brik glu.
4. Dem tok ta ichada, "Kamon! Wi mek da siti plas da tawa, wich hav da hed in skai! Wi mek big wi neim gol wi no leita get skata tru da total at!"
5. Yawe go daun gol si da siti plas da tawa, wich da pipal mek.
6. Yawe tok, "Si! Dem bi wan pipal, plas dem hav wan lanwij, plas dem bi ebal du da hia tin! Foloen dis, ziro tin, wich dem du trai, bi tumach no-isi!
7. "Kamon! Wi go daun plas wi mek konfusin dem lanwij gol dem no du andastan ichada!"
8. Yawe du skata dem tru da total at, plas dem no kipon mek da siti.
9. Foloen dis, da ples get neim Babel, bikos Yawe mek konfusin da lanwij av da total at, plas auta dea ples Yawe du skata da pipal tru da total at.
I'll try to explain all this next time.
But in any case, I'm about to quote myself, which demonstrates how authoritative this blog is: I don't quote just anyone, you know!
Our target demographic is relatively small, educated, and (incidentally) westernized.
Or more specifically, these people know at least some English. Shouldn't we use that?
Some auxlangs do--they have a fair amount of English vocabulary. But even then there's generally a negative attitude: Watch out, folks! It's English, so get out your hazmat suits!
Not a good sign.
More sincere efforts generally involve making English easier to learn by starting with a simplified version: Basic English, Globish, and various types of spelling reform.
But none of this addresses the fundamental problems of mastering English--the synonyms ("big" or "large"?), the idiomatic use of prepositions (not just an English issue), hard-to-pronounce words (e.g., "world"), and so on. They also further entrench the superiority of native speakers, with only the hope that their number will continue to grow and perhaps your children will be among them.
In the spirit of "If you can't beat 'em, get a bigger club," I'm proposing an alternative. I won't even explain what follows except to say that the consonants are essentially English and the vowels the usual five found in most auxlangs. Read it out and follow the sound, not the spelling. (I've updated this so many times I hope it's truly current, but at least it'll give you some idea of what I'm up to.)
1. Da total at bifo hav wan lanwij plas da seim wad.
2. Taim dat da pipal du bigin go istan, dem notis da flat-ples in da Shinar lan; plas dem go risaidin da ples.
3. Dem tok ta ichada "Kamon! Wi mek da brik plas du kukin dem in faya!" Dem du yusin da brik insted rok plas da tari insted brik glu.
4. Dem tok ta ichada, "Kamon! Wi mek da siti plas da tawa, wich hav da hed in skai! Wi mek big wi neim gol wi no leita get skata tru da total at!"
5. Yawe go daun gol si da siti plas da tawa, wich da pipal mek.
6. Yawe tok, "Si! Dem bi wan pipal, plas dem hav wan lanwij, plas dem bi ebal du da hia tin! Foloen dis, ziro tin, wich dem du trai, bi tumach no-isi!
7. "Kamon! Wi go daun plas wi mek konfusin dem lanwij gol dem no du andastan ichada!"
8. Yawe du skata dem tru da total at, plas dem no kipon mek da siti.
9. Foloen dis, da ples get neim Babel, bikos Yawe mek konfusin da lanwij av da total at, plas auta dea ples Yawe du skata da pipal tru da total at.
I'll try to explain all this next time.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
English: Threat or Menace?
I had hoped to avoid the English Thread for a while--I've already partly written posts on worldlangs, literature, and so forth--but apparently it's keeping people up nights. English is everywhere, friends--upstairs, downstairs, and in milady's chamber. Probably in your undies, too. Go ahead and check; I won't watch.
Done? Good. Now take some deep breaths and consider some facts:
English is not the Antichrist. You aren't damned for speaking or learning it, though you may feel otherwise. It's just The Language right now, much as Latin was in the Middle Ages or French for a few centuries after that.
They weren't the Antichrist either.
It's not a good idea to try a frontal assault on English. There's an allegorical movie about the result of defying this principle, and you can watch several versions on YouTube. Stick with the original: it's honest. And remember that Godzilla is English, Bambi is Esperanto, and every other auxlang in the world is a flea or tick on Bambi's back. Get the picture?
The twin problems of English are its difficulty and its user base. "Difficulty" includes irregular forms and demented spelling. English was developed by people whose chief linguistic skill was illiteracy and whose chief talent was operating while intoxicated. The French and the Goidelic Celts, who had the same general characteristics, were no help at all, except in the drinking department.
"User base" refers to people who are currently advantaged by their knowledge, imperfect as it likely is, of English. They are not about to give up that advantage for the sake of the less fortunate.
But wait! There's more!
Unfortunately, several decades ago, a bunch of non-native speakers who hadn't quite learned English decided to pass on their questionable skills to the next generation, leading to native speakers of very odd forms of English: Chinglish, Hinglish, Don't-Touch-That-Thinglish--they all complicate matters further.
Depressed? Good: that's reality setting in. But there is also good news. Remember, a problem is just an opportunity that has turned bully and wants to beat you up. We'll look for the silver lining next time.
Done? Good. Now take some deep breaths and consider some facts:
English is not the Antichrist. You aren't damned for speaking or learning it, though you may feel otherwise. It's just The Language right now, much as Latin was in the Middle Ages or French for a few centuries after that.
They weren't the Antichrist either.
It's not a good idea to try a frontal assault on English. There's an allegorical movie about the result of defying this principle, and you can watch several versions on YouTube. Stick with the original: it's honest. And remember that Godzilla is English, Bambi is Esperanto, and every other auxlang in the world is a flea or tick on Bambi's back. Get the picture?
The twin problems of English are its difficulty and its user base. "Difficulty" includes irregular forms and demented spelling. English was developed by people whose chief linguistic skill was illiteracy and whose chief talent was operating while intoxicated. The French and the Goidelic Celts, who had the same general characteristics, were no help at all, except in the drinking department.
"User base" refers to people who are currently advantaged by their knowledge, imperfect as it likely is, of English. They are not about to give up that advantage for the sake of the less fortunate.
But wait! There's more!
Unfortunately, several decades ago, a bunch of non-native speakers who hadn't quite learned English decided to pass on their questionable skills to the next generation, leading to native speakers of very odd forms of English: Chinglish, Hinglish, Don't-Touch-That-Thinglish--they all complicate matters further.
Depressed? Good: that's reality setting in. But there is also good news. Remember, a problem is just an opportunity that has turned bully and wants to beat you up. We'll look for the silver lining next time.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Achieving the Epiphany 3: Proving Superiority
This has two components, one easy, the other very difficult.
The easy one involves learnability, and as often happens, Esperanto is apparently the only auxlang with hard data in its favor, if only because it's large enough to attract study. Still, anyone familiar with other major auxlangs will probably find them easier to use (at least passively) than natlangs. Indeed, since most major auxlangs were designed for Outcome Neutrality, they allow not just (or primarily) the superficial ease of some natlangs, which are easy to learn at a basic level but nearly impossible to master (English being a case in point); rather, they allow true mastery: near-native fluency. That's a largely auxlang claim, and if you want to be an active user, writing prose or poetry or even just advertising copy, it should matter.
The second component is more intractable: having learned the auxlang, then what? Is it worth using? Jespersen gave a good response in An International Language:
I would add that you seldom get the full effect of a natlang even from most native speakers. For really optimal English you must go to a really good poet or prose writer--the elite of the elite. And auxlangs are the same way: not every Esperantist, Idist, etc., will produce language on a par with the auxlang's literary masters. So arguing from optimal use and users is misleading. As Jespersen says, it's non-native use we must consider, and I think the established auxlangs at least have proportionately more non-native masters than English, for example. I'll come back to this later.
This leaves primarily the question of technical jargon--legal and scientific terminology, for example. The legal language would be especially problematic; I'm not sure it's been settled properly for natlangs. Here Interlingua would probably have the advantage: it could largely adopt en bloc whatever was current. Esperanto and Occidental could probably catch up fairly quickly, while the Idists would have to threaten the Linguala Komitato with death by torture to get results in under a century. (No, I don't like the LK; it's the reification of nearly all that is wrong not so much with Ido proper as with its culture: top-down control instead of the regulated user-based kind found in Esperanto.)
Anyway, rant aside, as people begin to realize that auxlangs are easier to master than natlangs, the necessary vocabulary will begin to arise spontaneously. Lexical growth under pressure of external necessity can be very rapid, and ultimately lawyers proliferate faster than they can be humanely trapped and destroyed. They could generate their own solutions as usual.
The easy one involves learnability, and as often happens, Esperanto is apparently the only auxlang with hard data in its favor, if only because it's large enough to attract study. Still, anyone familiar with other major auxlangs will probably find them easier to use (at least passively) than natlangs. Indeed, since most major auxlangs were designed for Outcome Neutrality, they allow not just (or primarily) the superficial ease of some natlangs, which are easy to learn at a basic level but nearly impossible to master (English being a case in point); rather, they allow true mastery: near-native fluency. That's a largely auxlang claim, and if you want to be an active user, writing prose or poetry or even just advertising copy, it should matter.
The second component is more intractable: having learned the auxlang, then what? Is it worth using? Jespersen gave a good response in An International Language:
An objection which is often raised against constructed languages is that they can never be as good as natural languages. It is true that our Interlanguage is not as rich as English, not as elegant as French, not as vigorous as German, not as beautiful as Italian, not as full of nuances as Russian, not as "homelike" as our mother-tongue. But note this well, that all these good qualities, which one appreciates and praises in the national languages, are found only when they are spoken or written by natives. And the Interlanguage may very well be richer than the English spoken by a Frenchman, more elegant than French as spoken by a Dane, more vigorous than the German of some Italians, more beautiful than the Italian of the English, more full of nuances than the Russian of Germans, and more homelike than my own tongue spoken by Russians. And as our language is an auxiliary language, it can only be compared fairly with natural languages as spoken by foreigners; and then neither Ido nor Novial need feel ashamed of itself.
I would add that you seldom get the full effect of a natlang even from most native speakers. For really optimal English you must go to a really good poet or prose writer--the elite of the elite. And auxlangs are the same way: not every Esperantist, Idist, etc., will produce language on a par with the auxlang's literary masters. So arguing from optimal use and users is misleading. As Jespersen says, it's non-native use we must consider, and I think the established auxlangs at least have proportionately more non-native masters than English, for example. I'll come back to this later.
This leaves primarily the question of technical jargon--legal and scientific terminology, for example. The legal language would be especially problematic; I'm not sure it's been settled properly for natlangs. Here Interlingua would probably have the advantage: it could largely adopt en bloc whatever was current. Esperanto and Occidental could probably catch up fairly quickly, while the Idists would have to threaten the Linguala Komitato with death by torture to get results in under a century. (No, I don't like the LK; it's the reification of nearly all that is wrong not so much with Ido proper as with its culture: top-down control instead of the regulated user-based kind found in Esperanto.)
Anyway, rant aside, as people begin to realize that auxlangs are easier to master than natlangs, the necessary vocabulary will begin to arise spontaneously. Lexical growth under pressure of external necessity can be very rapid, and ultimately lawyers proliferate faster than they can be humanely trapped and destroyed. They could generate their own solutions as usual.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Achieving the Epiphany 2: Practical Uses
Unsurprisingly, the main practical uses of auxlangs are linguistic. Two are relatively well known:
1. First Foreign Language. Esperanto, at least, (and perhaps other auxlangs) can be learned first to speed and ease language acquisition in general. It's a pity this hasn't been attested for other auxlangs, so far as I know, but then Esperanto's adjectival agreement and accusative marking should be especially helpful for those whose native language lacks such traits.
2. Introduction to "International Vocabulary." Not a strong point for Esperanto, but a long-standing strategy for mainstreaming Interlingua in Scandinavia in particular. Instead of learning isolated roots, students can learn roots in a more organic, natural context. This could also be done with Occidental and, to a lesser extent, Lingua Franca Nova. For that matter, Sambahsa could be used for learning western roots in general (and some non-western ones, too), though perhaps at a higher level of abstraction than a beginner would find useful.
There are other possibilities as well. I would suggest Ido for people wanting to learn about linguistic precision--not as jarring as Loglan, for example.
Dave MacLeod has occasionally advocated starting a news site in Occidental or Interlingua. I think (cynically) that a celebrity-gossip site would do better, but using an at-sight language for some kind of information clearinghouse is probably a good idea.
It might also be useful to provide a translation of a European or Latin-American site in Interlingua or Occidental. Properly set up, it will draw some visitors via search engines, and the attention could be useful--so long as copyrights are respected. If the auxlang version is a faithful copy of the original, I doubt there will be much trouble.
What matters in any case is to get the word out--and remember, even if the auxlang that gets the initial publicity isn't your favorite, the improvement in general attitude toward auxlangs will help your favorite. As I've pointed out at various times, anyone who looks up Esperanto on Wikipedia will find plenty of references to other auxlangs too.
Next up, we'll look at the complex issue of proving auxlang superiority.
1. First Foreign Language. Esperanto, at least, (and perhaps other auxlangs) can be learned first to speed and ease language acquisition in general. It's a pity this hasn't been attested for other auxlangs, so far as I know, but then Esperanto's adjectival agreement and accusative marking should be especially helpful for those whose native language lacks such traits.
2. Introduction to "International Vocabulary." Not a strong point for Esperanto, but a long-standing strategy for mainstreaming Interlingua in Scandinavia in particular. Instead of learning isolated roots, students can learn roots in a more organic, natural context. This could also be done with Occidental and, to a lesser extent, Lingua Franca Nova. For that matter, Sambahsa could be used for learning western roots in general (and some non-western ones, too), though perhaps at a higher level of abstraction than a beginner would find useful.
There are other possibilities as well. I would suggest Ido for people wanting to learn about linguistic precision--not as jarring as Loglan, for example.
Dave MacLeod has occasionally advocated starting a news site in Occidental or Interlingua. I think (cynically) that a celebrity-gossip site would do better, but using an at-sight language for some kind of information clearinghouse is probably a good idea.
It might also be useful to provide a translation of a European or Latin-American site in Interlingua or Occidental. Properly set up, it will draw some visitors via search engines, and the attention could be useful--so long as copyrights are respected. If the auxlang version is a faithful copy of the original, I doubt there will be much trouble.
What matters in any case is to get the word out--and remember, even if the auxlang that gets the initial publicity isn't your favorite, the improvement in general attitude toward auxlangs will help your favorite. As I've pointed out at various times, anyone who looks up Esperanto on Wikipedia will find plenty of references to other auxlangs too.
Next up, we'll look at the complex issue of proving auxlang superiority.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Achieving the Epiphany 1: From Fake to Real
In a way, this should be Step Three, not Step One, because the other two steps--demonstrating practical uses and interlinguistic superiority--will lend "realness" to auxlangs. But this is actually the first step, because it is not rational but imaginative. Since the objection isn't rational, the first counterstrike shouldn't be rational either. You can't reason bigotry away, at least initially; you must appeal to the moral imagination--even wake it up--before all else. The other two steps need careful scientific documentation; this requires a human-interest approach.
Today's Amazing Free Clue: You have to make people cry before you can make them think.
1. Choose your representatives carefully. (And read this carefully!) I've said more than once that in order to succeed at present, an auxlang must be either "at sight" (intelligible to many people without prior study) or Esperanto. That's because these two groups are fairly credible at a gut level--Esperanto because of its track record, at-sight auxlangs because they are immediately usable. Esperanto is the weaker auxlang, because its credibility must be argued for, but it can be introduced at an early stage anyway. It's probably better to lead with an established auxlang such as Interlingua, Occidental, or perhaps Lingua Franca Nova, though a really intelligible upstart could also be useful.
2. Use niches cautiously. Those familiar with my views may think this a reversal. It isn't; it's a tweak of an earlier position and a corollary of the first item. The point is, while it's okay to tap in to successful artlangs, there must be a certain precision involved. Dave MacLeod has suggested setting up a clearinghouse for information about Na'vi in an auxlang, for example, and the idea is sound: it would present a useful service to people already inclined to accept the validity of auxlangs and help establish auxlang viability (Step Two). But it doesn't risk identification with an artlang, which could be fatal: "Oh, that's just one of those fake languages the geeks play with." Similarly, it's good to expose people to auxlangs in fiction (often done with Esperanto), but we must be careful to avoid the "just another Klingon" feel, which could undermine the sense of reality we want.
3. Go visceral. The more we appeal to fundamental human experience, the stronger our case. For example, I have advocated writing a book about people brought together romantically by an auxlang, especially if it was their only shared language. (The auxlang will most likely be Esperanto in this case, though there may be instances where Interlingua has a good anecdote.) It's hard to dismiss a language as fake if it's the courting language of real couples. This could also help bridge the gender gap: auxlangers are more often male than female, just as students of Klingon are. This is also why I advocate short story translations that are strongly emotional: I often use "The Selfish Giant" because it's short and very moving. You can't be moved by a story in an auxlang--whether the emotion is awe, romance, horror, or whatever else--and then easily dismiss the auxlang as fake. Your gut reaction will claim otherwise. I've also advocated using auxlang translations of Christmas carols, because Christmas has strong and usually positive associations. "Amazing Grace" and (if you're dealing with people not hostile to the veneration of Mary) "Ave Maria" can also be useful.
This is just a starting point, but implementing these steps will bring auxlangs to life for quite a few people--and they are all practical.
Next we'll look at practical uses for auxlangs.
Today's Amazing Free Clue: You have to make people cry before you can make them think.
1. Choose your representatives carefully. (And read this carefully!) I've said more than once that in order to succeed at present, an auxlang must be either "at sight" (intelligible to many people without prior study) or Esperanto. That's because these two groups are fairly credible at a gut level--Esperanto because of its track record, at-sight auxlangs because they are immediately usable. Esperanto is the weaker auxlang, because its credibility must be argued for, but it can be introduced at an early stage anyway. It's probably better to lead with an established auxlang such as Interlingua, Occidental, or perhaps Lingua Franca Nova, though a really intelligible upstart could also be useful.
2. Use niches cautiously. Those familiar with my views may think this a reversal. It isn't; it's a tweak of an earlier position and a corollary of the first item. The point is, while it's okay to tap in to successful artlangs, there must be a certain precision involved. Dave MacLeod has suggested setting up a clearinghouse for information about Na'vi in an auxlang, for example, and the idea is sound: it would present a useful service to people already inclined to accept the validity of auxlangs and help establish auxlang viability (Step Two). But it doesn't risk identification with an artlang, which could be fatal: "Oh, that's just one of those fake languages the geeks play with." Similarly, it's good to expose people to auxlangs in fiction (often done with Esperanto), but we must be careful to avoid the "just another Klingon" feel, which could undermine the sense of reality we want.
3. Go visceral. The more we appeal to fundamental human experience, the stronger our case. For example, I have advocated writing a book about people brought together romantically by an auxlang, especially if it was their only shared language. (The auxlang will most likely be Esperanto in this case, though there may be instances where Interlingua has a good anecdote.) It's hard to dismiss a language as fake if it's the courting language of real couples. This could also help bridge the gender gap: auxlangers are more often male than female, just as students of Klingon are. This is also why I advocate short story translations that are strongly emotional: I often use "The Selfish Giant" because it's short and very moving. You can't be moved by a story in an auxlang--whether the emotion is awe, romance, horror, or whatever else--and then easily dismiss the auxlang as fake. Your gut reaction will claim otherwise. I've also advocated using auxlang translations of Christmas carols, because Christmas has strong and usually positive associations. "Amazing Grace" and (if you're dealing with people not hostile to the veneration of Mary) "Ave Maria" can also be useful.
This is just a starting point, but implementing these steps will bring auxlangs to life for quite a few people--and they are all practical.
Next we'll look at practical uses for auxlangs.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Auxlang Epiphany
Yes, it's the post everyone at Auxlang knew would turn up sooner or later.
The problem is one of perception: though it is possible to become fluent in an auxlang more quickly and easily than in a natlang, there is still great resistance to auxlangs. I've already mentioned the persistent stories about auxlangs (usually Esperanto) failing in practice. Then there's the dismissal of auxlang-learners as fanboys--the sort who learn Klingon or Na'vi while blogging in their pajamas.
In any case, auxlangs are fake languages. Everyone Knows This. Even linguists, who ought to be more objective, hardly acknowledge Esperanto as a language, despite its credentials. The others are definitely beyond the pale, which is no doubt why Gode and company insisted that Interlingua was not constructed so much as revealed: it had been latent in the source languages all the time. You see, Gode himself didn't believe that it was truly possible to create a language, the evidence of Esperanto notwithstanding.
The more sophisticated argument is that auxlangs are unnecessary; English does the job just fine--at least until you try reading the manual for your latest gadget or invoke tech support. You can quickly learn enough of some languages to get by, and English is one of them. But even reading a newspaper article or novel--or a comic book, for that matter!--will probably overwhelm you until you've spent enough time and effort to thoroughly master an auxlang. Or two or three.
Be that as it may, there are a lot of things that are sensible failures. For example, most people who think about the matter will acknowledge the superiority of Dvorak keyboards, but QWERTY remains the standard.
Auxlangs are in the same position. (Actually worse, since Dvorak isn't rejected as a "fake" keyboard.)
So we need to level the playing field, which means
1. Changing the popular perception of auxlangs as "fake" languages
2. Demonstrating practical uses for auxlangs
3. Demonstrating the superiority of auxlangs as interlanguages.
Let's take these one at a time as part of a practical strategy for ushering in the Auxlang Epiphany. Note that these are cooperative points: it's pointless to argue the comparative merits of this or that auxlang until we have gained a hearing in the first place, so gaining that hearing should be our first concern. We should commit to a truce in the meantime.
Anyway--next up: Changing from "fake" to real.
The problem is one of perception: though it is possible to become fluent in an auxlang more quickly and easily than in a natlang, there is still great resistance to auxlangs. I've already mentioned the persistent stories about auxlangs (usually Esperanto) failing in practice. Then there's the dismissal of auxlang-learners as fanboys--the sort who learn Klingon or Na'vi while blogging in their pajamas.
In any case, auxlangs are fake languages. Everyone Knows This. Even linguists, who ought to be more objective, hardly acknowledge Esperanto as a language, despite its credentials. The others are definitely beyond the pale, which is no doubt why Gode and company insisted that Interlingua was not constructed so much as revealed: it had been latent in the source languages all the time. You see, Gode himself didn't believe that it was truly possible to create a language, the evidence of Esperanto notwithstanding.
The more sophisticated argument is that auxlangs are unnecessary; English does the job just fine--at least until you try reading the manual for your latest gadget or invoke tech support. You can quickly learn enough of some languages to get by, and English is one of them. But even reading a newspaper article or novel--or a comic book, for that matter!--will probably overwhelm you until you've spent enough time and effort to thoroughly master an auxlang. Or two or three.
Be that as it may, there are a lot of things that are sensible failures. For example, most people who think about the matter will acknowledge the superiority of Dvorak keyboards, but QWERTY remains the standard.
Auxlangs are in the same position. (Actually worse, since Dvorak isn't rejected as a "fake" keyboard.)
So we need to level the playing field, which means
1. Changing the popular perception of auxlangs as "fake" languages
2. Demonstrating practical uses for auxlangs
3. Demonstrating the superiority of auxlangs as interlanguages.
Let's take these one at a time as part of a practical strategy for ushering in the Auxlang Epiphany. Note that these are cooperative points: it's pointless to argue the comparative merits of this or that auxlang until we have gained a hearing in the first place, so gaining that hearing should be our first concern. We should commit to a truce in the meantime.
Anyway--next up: Changing from "fake" to real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)