This should imply that Latin would be very living, as it was used in the Catholic Church. On the other hand I speak Esperanto every day, and for me it lives. For the time being English is much more dead to me, is you see my drift.

Kjell R

2013/1/26 Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Some time ago, I read a paper on “Fiat Lingua” by Gary Shannon about collaborative conlangs. He concluded that, except under special circumstance, these would not be likely. One of the circumstances he mentioned is that a conlang might “live” if it were used within the context of a religious community.

I thought to myself, “I’m a member of a religious community [the Baha’i Faith], why not create a conlang for them?” Since many of the writings of the Baha’i Faith are in Arabic (very difficult, formal Arabic), I thought I could create something that would make the texts more accessible to others. (Actually, I had been mulling this over before I read Gary’s paper, but that gave me the impetus to get to work.)

I’m not starry-eyed about this. I doubt that this conlang will ever gain any traction. The work of conlangers is almost always doomed to be underappreciated (as we all know too well).

Essentially what I did was to use auxlang principles to create a language based on a single source language: Arabic. I simplified and regularized the grammar, and adopted a Romanized alphabet. I call it “Sim-Arabic” (because I’m not very imaginative when it comes to naming my conlangs).

If you’re interested, I’d appreciate it if you would take a look and return comments. (To avoid the delay caused by the email digest, please CC my address in your reply.) It is up on my web page at:
(and thank you to all who gave advice on writing a primer).