Hallo!

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:17:09 -0500, Herman Miller wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> 
> > Yes, and that is OK.  Actually, I also have spent some thoughts
> > on auxlang design for the intellectual challenge of the problem
> > (see http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html ),
> > and one day, I will perhaps distill these thoughts into an actual
> > auxlang - not to tell the rest of the world that all previous
> > auxlangs suck, but to play with the challenge of designing a
> > language which *could* serve as a means of international
> > communication.  I guess, however, that my scheme will improve
> > over Esperanto, Novial & co. only in details, if at all.
> 
> Interesting observation that _a priori_ auxlangs tend to be 
> philosophical languages. It seems that achieving one of the goals of 
> auxlangs (comparable ease of learning for speakers of any language) 
> would be easier with an a priori vocabulary. But it's certainly easier 
> to borrow words than to come up with a fitting word for each meaning.

Yes.  And those who design a priori auxlangs usually try to be as
"regular" and "logical" as possible and thus come up with
taxonomic schemes.  It is an outcrop of the general tendency
among auxlangers towards keeping arbitrary decisions to a minimum.

Of course, as I wrote in my essay, the designers of taxonomic
languages are entirely on the wrong track - reality is not that
simple, and taxonomic schemes are difficult and cumbersome to use.

> There are aspects of IAL design which can be interesting to explore, 
> even without any serious intention of promoting the language. I might 
> try taking a break from Minza redesign for a while and see what I can 
> come up with. I don't think I've done an a priori con-auxlang yet....

Somewhere back in my mind, there is the idea of doing a Wilkins-style
taxonomic language just for fun.  It could be a fictional 17th/18th
century IAL proposal.  And then I want to try out Leibniz's proposal
of a scheme based on prime numbers one day.

Of course, I *won't* seriously peddle any of such schemes as IALs!

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:52:55 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jorg Rhiemeier
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > True.  Not all auxlang designers are like that.  However, there
> > is some sort of "slippery slope" involved here - once you come out
> > with a new auxlang, soon others will ask you, "Why a new proposal,
> > can't we agree on Esperanto?" and the debate begins.
> 
> Well yes, there is much debate about which language to use.  I could
> go on for a long time about the shortcomings of Esperanto and
> Euroclones as I do on Auxlang, but won't bother here.  Beyond that I
> can say that there are some others that I do like even though they
> aren't my creations.

Yes.  Same to me.  For instance, I like Novial quite much - it is
elegant, it is simple, it avoids most of the weaknesses of Esperanto.
Sure, it is an euroclone a posteriori language and thus not really
"culturally neutral" - but how to define "cultural neutrality"
anyway, and, what's more, how to achieve it if not by a language
that is *difficult* for everybody?

> > > It's true that there are some auxlangers behave like religious
> > > fanatics, but not all.  I prefer to design auxlangs because of the
> > > problem-solving aspects involved, and because it puts me in
> > touch with
> > > a variety of natangs while I conduct research for them.
> >
> > Yes, and that is OK.  Actually, I also have spent some thoughts
> > on auxlang design for the intellectual challenge of the problem
> > (see http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html ),
> > and one day, I will perhaps distill these thoughts into an actual
> > auxlang - not to tell the rest of the world that all previous
> > auxlangs suck, but to play with the challenge of designing a
> > language which *could* serve as a means of international
> > communication.  I guess, however, that my scheme will improve
> > over Esperanto, Novial & co. only in details, if at all.
> 
> I actually have several I'm toying with.  Like I said, I see many
> different ways to tackle a problem, not just one.  I have Sasxsek, of
> course, but also have and English based creolistic type language
> called Ingli, and a couple of Esperantic-style languages that I really
> never would expect anyone to take seriously but made them up just for
> the exercise.  I also have a couple of regional auxlangs that I've
> started.  I have Pasifika, which is designed as an interlanguage for
> the Pacific Rim where the demographics are very different (mainly
> inflenced by Indonesian and Japanese) than those included in a WAL
> design, then I also have Panamerikan which is as the name implies, a
> language for the Americas using mainly English, Spanish and Portuguese
> as its sources.

These projects sound quite interesting, especially Pasifika, which
takes non-Western languages into account.

> > Sure.  You can design an auxlang just for the enjoyment of the
> > intellectual challenge and without any attempts to proselytize;
> > however, it is somewhat more typical of auxlang designers to
> > peddle their scheme to whomever they could, and many people
> > *will* ask the question, "Why do you think we need yet another
> > auxlang?  Don't we have enough proposals already?"
> 
> I have some arguments for that as well, mainly having to do with
> changes in the socio-political makeup of the world since the creation
> of many of them, and how they may have seemed okay then, but fall
> short of today's situation.  One example would be E-o's machinability
> issues.

Sure.  The social context no longer is the same as it was in the 1880s.
We now have computer tractability issues that were non-existent when
Esperanto was designed; we now take non-Western languages and cultures
more seriously.  Zamenhof did not take Chinese, Arabic or Swahili
into account when he designed his language; he focussed solely on
the major languages of Europe.  The non-Western languages simply lay
beyond his field of perception.

> > Note also that only a small minority of the people on AUXLANG
> > are actually auxlang *designers*.  Most are merely disciples
> > of this or that auxlang scheme designed by someone else, and
> > many of them are sectarian about their favourite auxlang.
> > So we have Esperantists vs. Idists vs. Novialists vs.
> > whatever-ists.  All that used to go on in CONLANG, and it
> > bored and annoyed the language designers.
> 
> Oh, yes! This is very true.  Most are not designers, and some are very
> overzealous about their choices, and seem to all think they have found
> the holy grail of languages.

This concurs with my observations.  The debates on AUXLANG are mainly
between mainstream proposals such as Esperanto or Ido, not so much
involving languages designed by list members.  Those are a vanishingly
small minority over there.

> > I agree whole-heartedly.  We are not the ones to decide which
> > auxlang to be adopted.  And even though the auxlang milieu is
> > competitive by its nature, that doesn't mean that this
> > competition has to be conducted as a war.  Make it a peaceful,
> > friendly contest in which the contenders respect each other.
> 
> I'd like to see more of that myself, and the funny thing is that the
> few of us who are actually designers seem to have no problems.  It's
> those non-designers that take on more of a religious attitude toward
> their auxlang-du-jour.

Yes.  It perhaps has to do with the fact that an auxlang *designer*
is very aware of the fact that there are many things in an IAL which
one could take a different approach to - after all, he was faced
with choosing one option out of many when he designed his language.
He knows, from his own experience, that *any* IAL is a compromise
between conflicting design goals.  Many auxlang disciples who have
never designed their own language are not aware of these facts.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:20:35 -0400, John Crowe wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:12:55 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Engelangs are somewhere between artlangs and auxlangs, though not
> >exactly.  They usually are designed to meet (more or less) objectively
> >tested design goals.  This "seriousness" puts them in the vicinity of
> >auxlangs.  But actually, they are more like artlangs.  There are usually
> >many ways to tackle a problem, and just because someone has found a
> >solution for design goal X, there is no reason to seek different,
> >perhaps better solutions for design goal X - or pursue a completely
> >different design goal Y.  Like artlangs, engelangs usually do not strive
> >for world domination.
> 
> I think there is a larger overlap area between artlangs and engelangs than
> one might say. Explore the meanings of 'engelang' and 'artlang' (Langmaker):
> 
> -------
> engelang n. engelanger [< engineered language.] A conlang designed to
> achieve pragmatic rather than artistic goals.
> 
> artlang n., v. artlanged, artlanging [< art(istic) and lang(uage).] n. A
> conlang designed to be artistic and very personal; often, though, intended
> for use by a fictional race. Example: "The artlang I developed for my new
> book is very expressive." v. To develop an artistic language.
> ----------
> 
> If we put aside the fact that it is specifically stated that engelangs are
> not designed to acheive artistic goals, I see no reason here why a lang
> cannot be both.

Sure; a language can be both an engelang and an artlang.

> I also have opinions concerning philosophical conlangs (a type of engelang
> (May I call them philolangs (Not to be confused (of course) with Phillangs
> (conlangs created by persons named Phil (or Phillip))(I like nested
> parentheses.))?)). It seems that philosophical langs are often assumed to
> have a taxonomic (usually hierarchical (analogous to my usage of
> parentheses)) structure. I don't feel that should be part of the definition.

I concur with you.  There are many, many, many other ways a language
can reflect a certain philosophy beyond having a taxonomic vocabulary.
The term "philosophical language" is used mainly for historical reasons,
namely because the most influential scheme of that sort, namely that
of a certain Dr. John Wilkins, had that phrase in its title.

My artlang Old Albic, for instance, surely is not a "philosophical
language" in the Wilkinsian sense; nevertheless, it could be called
a "philosophical" language because it reflects the way the British
Elves think, which in turn is a reflection of my own personal philosophy.

> Langmaker:
> 
> ----------
> A philosophical language (also known as categorical language) is one built
> on a philosophical, or taxonomic, structure. Philosophical languages have
> close ties to logical languages, and both can be qualified as engineered
> languages, or engelangs. Most conlangs created in the 17th century fall in
> this category; more recent examples include Ro. Many philosophical languages
> attempt to rigorously structure vocabulary based on a series of categories,
> so that the make-up of the word reflects its meaning.
> 
> A common strategy in such languages is to assign categories to phonemes and
> positions in a word that become more specific the further one gets into the
> word. For example, a language may designate the initial phoneme /k/ for
> tools or devices. Then it might specify that a following /o/ makes it
> concern music so /ko/ means "musical instrument". Following consonants may
> be used to specify whether it is percussion, wind, et al. This approach may
> unintentionally come close to oligosynthesis, but tends to run the risk of
> confusion as words with similar meanings sound similar and are often
> distinguished only by one or two phonemes.
> 
> This is a traditional meaning of the name "philosophical language". Some
> apply the term to languages with grammars and vocabularies based on a
> philosophical idea (such as Taoism, feminism or socialism), but this usage
> should be considered erroneous. 
> --------------
> 
> (considered erroneous? Perhaps I shouldn't use Langmaker's definitions when
> presenting my arguments...) Philosophy and the categorization of things
> (taxonomy) are related, but what causes them to be used almost synonymously
> eludes me.

I concur with you that the use of the word "philosophical" in its
common meaning can hardly meaningfully be considered "erroneous"
just because it is used, for historical reasons, differently.
(As I wrote above, John Wilkins's scheme is the culprit here.)

I'd rather say that the "traditional" meaning of "philosphical
language" is sort of a misnomer.  I call such schemes "taxonomic
languages".  However, as many people understand the term
"philosophical language" to mean a taxonomic language, it is
better avoided when talking about something completely different,
as that will lead to misunderstanding.

> Imagine a philolang without a taxonomic lexicon:
> 
> Hypothetical philosophy/culture: The purpose of a human's existence is to
> die, be buried, and fertilize the soil so plants may grow better. A virtuous
> being is one that lives to the age where s/he is most massive (and so can
> provide the most nutrients to the plants), and then perhaps intentionally
> eats more and exercises less, and then obesity gives him/her a heart attack,
> causing s/he to die. Plants are highly respected. (Philosophers may wish to
> ponder this.)
> 
> Translation (meaningful morphemes left untouched, hyphenated phrases
> originally one word in hypothetical conlang) of conlang text:
> 
> --------
> In the 4th pentury Before-The-Arrival-Of-The-Long-Leaf-Bush, there was a
> that-which-should-die-for-plants who was respectful-of-plants. She drew on a
> thin-flexible-thing-which-is-made-from-the-trunk-of-a-tree a cat. Her
> drawing the cat is to entering the drawing in a competition as one existing
> is to dying for plants.
> --------

Yes, that could be called a "philosophical language" if the term
hadn't been preoccupied with the meaning "taxonomic language".

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf