Print

Print


>>> Many believe that Esperanto is pitched a bit too high for an initial
>>> IAL, but a revised version of it (which is what all realistic auxlangs
>>> are, let's face it) could also be pitched a bit too low.

Larry Sulky & Rex May replied:

>> Antony, I'm not sure what you mean by all realistic auxlangs being
>> revised versions of Esperanto.

> I'm not sure either, and I'd like to hear more.  I can think of at least 
> two, Glosa and LFN, that seem plenty realistic enough if by that you mean 
> ready for actual auxlang use and without any built-in failure features.  
> And they, I'd say, can't be called versions of Eo.

Sorry, I should have expressed that better. What I meant was that a putative IAL must have at least 
as many ideal theoretical IAL attributes as Esperanto in order to be in with a realistic chance. I’d 
accept the view that some “realistic” auxlangs according to this definition are derived from first 
principles rather than being direct Esperanto revisions. 

Having said that, I don’t believe that ANY existing auxlang is ready for actual use on an organised 
global scale. Esperantists (at least) would probably disagree, but I’m quite certain that the mass of 
non-linguists in some countries would simply find it too difficult.

However, we know that Esperanto is still far and away the most popular new constructed auxlang 
worldwide, and I’m equally certain that its relative complexity and sophistication is a large part of 
its appeal. Moreover, I’m sure than an even richer language - the equal of any natlang - would 
have many supporters too.

There is a paradox here. In LangX I have suggested a way of bridging it, and of reconciling these 
opposites.

With a mother tongue the issue of an “entry level” mother tongue, and gradations thereof up to 
the full version, does not arise because the entire learning process takes place informally. But with 
a purely auxiliary language, still in the process of development, I can't see how this can happen. 
The various gradations must therefore be formalised, and so designed that they fit together 
seamlessly. Moreover, the upper gradations in the hierarchy must be left quite fluid so as to allow 
for such vagaries of creolisation as cannot be safely predicted from historical precedent.

This is how I see it, but please supply reasons to correct me if you think I’m wrong! 

Antony Alexander    http://langx.org