Hallo!

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:24:36 +0000, R A Brown wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> > 
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:38:14 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
> > 
> >> [...]
> >> I guess I'll have to tick the lot (assuming TAKE is an artlang - in any 
> >> case the Venusian of my teens was certainly an artlang):
> >> [...] 
> > 
> > I'd say that TAKE is an artlang, no doubt.  While it is an
> > auxlang *within the fictional world of the WHAT*, to my
> > knowledge it doesn't serve the purpose of an auxlang in the
> > real world (at least, this is not *intended* by the author);
> 
> While it could, of course, be used as an auxlang *here* (as, indeed, 
> could Klingon), it is certainly not intended as such. Nor, I think, 
> would it be accepted by the auxlang community (as far as that community 
> accepts anything) - it is too aberrant for the Euroclone aficionados and 
> too European (being based on ancient Greek) for those who abominate 
> Euroclones.

Well, >99% of all those who believe in an artificial IAL
at all are content with Esperanto.  Of the remaining <1%,
most are content with some other auxlang, be it Ido,
Occidental, Novial, Lojban (I know, it was not primarily
intended as an auxlang, but many Lojbanists think using
it for this purpose was a good idea) or whatever.  Only
a small residue of a small residue are discontent with
what is already there - and therefore design their own
auxlangs and won't accept anyone else's.  There simply
is no market for a new IAL - there are too many already.
The siege tower the auxlangers erected to raze the Tower
of Babel has grown to an equal of the Tower of Babel
itself :)

> You are, of course, absolutely correct in saying that the author does 
> not intend it as an auxlang *here.*

Yes; I know yourself well enough to know that you are not
interested in all that quibbling that goes with new auxlang
proposals.  (Nor am I.)

> > and if a fictional natlang is an artlang (which is probably
> > not in doubt at all), a fictional auxlang is an artlang as
> > well.
> 
> Yep - I don't see why not.
> 
> I marked the auxlang box, however, because (a) the majority of my 
> teenage creations were auxlangs

Ah, teenage creations.  I tried an auxlang in my teens, too.
It never went anywhere, and no written records of it are in
existence any more.  I did not check the auxlang box because
serious auxlanging is something I have completely and utterly
left behind.  I may one day come up with a *fictional* auxlang
or a *parody* of an auxlang, or an attempt to flesh out the
design issues I laid down in

http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html

as an intellectual exercise, but I am not going to seriously
propose any of my creations to be used as an auxlang.

The race is already over, at least for the next few centuries
to come (nobody can say what will be in 1000 years); English
is the winner, like it or not.

>       and (b) it is one of the stated  
> objectives of Piashi, tho one I am not pressing (Thinks: "Is Piashi also 
> a fictional auxlang?").

Most auxlangers would probably find fault in Piashi, for
which reason ever.  I don't think it is a good idea to
present it as an auxlang.  You *could* of course make it
into a fictional auxlang in some fictional world, but
I think Piashi could stand very well just as what it is,
namely an experimental engelang, and doesn't really need
a fictional background to it, nor a proposal to use it
as an IAL.
 
> Piashi BTW seems to be taking on a life of its own - and I'm not 
> altogether happy at the way it's going!

At least it is alive.  Don't despair; many projects
happen to turn out somewhat differently than originally
intended.  But if a project goes into the wrong direction,
there is usually the option of saying "Stop!" and guiding
it back onto the right path.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:03:41 +0100, Philip Newton wrote:

> I'd like to disagree on the Klingon front; its vocabulary is much too
> limited to be useful as an auxlang, and the vocabulary canon has
> traditionally been considered closed, with new coinages not being
> licit.
> 
> (I suppose some kind of Neo-Klingon might be elaborated by a kind of
> Klingon Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, but that would be a separate language.)

Most likely, such an attempt to make Klingon ready for
actual use would cause a schism.  The Klingonists insist
that only what has been invented by Okrand himself was
canon, and everything else just fanwankery.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:06:50 -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> The lecxicon isn't closed - Dr. Okrand can still add to it, and does
> so on a regular basis.  But yes, individual speakers are discouraged
> from neologism, so its not really a living language or a viable
> auxlang in its present form.

And that alone would totally blackball such a proposal.
After all, this is an important part of the reason why
Volapük failed - Schleyer declared that he was the only
person in the universe to come up with grammar reforms
or new words, and that (together with the sentiment that
the language was too baroque and in dire need of reform)
was the reason why more than 99% of the Volapükists
defected :)

No, I think we can forget about Klingon as an IAL.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf