Print

Print


On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM, MacLeod Dave <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I think the lesson of Na'vi may end up being that in the beginning,
> communication is secondary to simply having a powerful reason for
> existence, some sort of mythology that people are interested in
> besides just the language. Appealing to groups simply on the basis of
> communication usually just leads to a Nutterist conclusion that
> English is the best way to go since so many speak it anyway. Actually
> the interest in Na'vi is probably a good sign for languages like
> modern Indo-European and Sambahsa, since people that are interested in
> a language clearly don't mind if it's more complex than your average
> auxlang.
>

On the first point, you're probably right about the initial
motivation. Just being a logical language isn't that much of an
incentive. The reason people learn Klingon or Na'vi is because of
their interest in the culture. Similarly, a lot of the interest in
Esperanto is because it is seen as a language of peace or something
like that.

On the second issue, about the complexity of language, I don't think
you can really say it so easily. Just as a simple example, although
Chinese is a quite useful language in terms of the speaker community,
a lot of Americans will choose French instead partly because of the
perceived complexity of Chinese (especially the writing). The same
thing may go for Arabic. So the perception of how hard a language is
does end up being an influence. With Klingon, paradoxically, the
difficulty of the pronunciation might be a booster because people
learn that language due to the fact that it sounds strange. I don't
know how this applies to Na'vi.

But it's clear that when people actually use an interlanguage like a
pidgin language, it ends up being simpler than most national
languages.


-- 
Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa (patwa.pbwiki.com)