Print

Print


On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:18:37 +0200, Kjell Rehnstr?&#246;m <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Isn't it possible that the IAL might have the same kind of influence in
>countries as English has nowadays? 


Yes! And even more. The planned auxiliary language can have much more 
influence if it has a high number of mother tongue speakers ,because it's easy.
The easiness of the planned language will encourage more people to learn the 
world language ,because it takes less time to learn ,and this will cause much 
larger portions of the societies to speak this conlang. This is good to the global 
economy ,but it could damage the natural languages more. What I am trying to 
say is that we need to gain these economical benefits without damaging the 
natural languages. We want a very easy language that has few native 
speakers a long with other protective features e.g. My thinking is that Ardano 
can have only a few number of native speakers. And in case the conlang has 
millions of native speakers ,it is more possible at the end to see the whole 
world speaking this easy and logical artifitial language as a mother tongue ,and 
somebody needs to ask whether this will make human life smarter or the 
opposite. 

Our children are able to learn the most difficult natural languages without 
feeling their difficulties ,because they are their mother tongues. I don't know 
what would happen if humanity started to use a constructed language with 
very simple logic as a mother tongue for centuries and centuries. The problem 
is not just that ,because having only this problem is not a big one. We all know 
that how language is used by different cultures is a way of thinking ,and 
humanity needs different ways of thinking. Now imagine that all natural 
languages and cultures disappeared ,and we had one language ,and only one 
language , we will start to use this language in the same way ,the very same 
adverbs , the same adjectives with the same semantics...etc. All of this will 
happen while we don't know any other mother tongues that can affect the 
way we use and deal with this same world language. Also this is not the 
biggest problem ,we should think about what is next. When one mother tongue 
is present in the world ,then if for example a cartoon series becomes a hit ,and 
nearly all of our children through out the world watch it ,and this is repeated 
with other cartoons ,all humans are watching the same products even after 
they grow up ,they will watch the same succesful movies and so on. After all 
of this we will have an even much narrower spectrum of thinking. What I am 
trying to say is that we need to study the options in front of us, what will 
happen if we chose a world language? What will happen if we didn't ?  How will 
be the shape of this world language? We have only one planet until now ,and 
one humanity , one life our children will live after us ,and we should see a wide 
picture and then choose wisely. 

It's not correct to ignore the economical advantages that will be gained if one 
world language was chosen ,and instead we choose to not have any world 
language or to impose a large number of them. I am saying maybe we can have 
two or three world languages in a way that one of them is more leading and 
prominent ,and the other easy languages are also present. In the end it's a 
proposal ,and we can choose or modify how it will work. For example I have 
chosen to make Ardano very similar to Esperanto and Ido in grammar with 
easiness of translation and exchange with them. So the idea of more than one 
world language is an applicable option if we chose a group of conlangs with a 
similar basic structure. Yet we can ignore this advatage if we saw that it is not 
useful. It's all about giving more and more advantages with less risks.