On 19/10/2015 18:32, Temporary Conlanger wrote:
> Greeting to everyone!
> I think the below principles are obvious,
Sorry - they are not all obvious to me.
> necessary for a conlang to be adopted as IAL,
> nevertheless there are many conlangs (all to some degree)
> violating them.
The most successful IAL conlang to-date certainly does.
> From conlangs I've read about, "Glosa" and "Lingua Franca
> Nova" seem closest, hence best. Would "Glosa" fit the
> below, if ancient latin/greek vocab would be replaced
> with the below mentioned mostly modern english (written,
> not pronunciation) vocabulary already in use?
I cannot see Glosa being widely adopted whatever you did to
If I had a pound - or even a dollar - for every list of
"obvious principles for an IAL" that I've seen in my
lifetime, I would be a quite a rich man now. Throughout the
centuries, humans have consistently turned to natlangs
(often modified as they become international) as IALs; the
most widespread global IAL today is English and that
violates most of the "obvious principles" :)
On 19/10/2015 19:48, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
> On 19.10.2015 20:08, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>> Hello "temporary", I think you'll get better answers
>> to these questions on the AUXLANG forum (better = from
>> people who have been thinking about these same issues
>> for years and years). Jeffrey
> Let me add something: As discussions of the design
> criteria for IALs easily turn into heated debates which
> IAL proposal is best, we have a long-standing tradition
> to immediately relegate them to AUXLANG - which was split
> off CONLANG in the late 1990s precisely in order to get
> such topics out of CONLANG. Many people here have had
> enough of that and don't care about artificial IALs.
Exactly so. That was certainly my experience on Auxlang.
But I am told that it is now a quieter and better behaved
place; so, with a bit of luck, you may be able to discuss
these matters there without fanning any flame wars - worth a
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".