Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Aug 2014, at 17:33, Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Leo responds: > I don't like to disagree with Ray, I seldom find anything he says about conlanging other than very wise. > > However, Ray said (of the idea that Modern Ivrit is a conlang) >> But IMO this use of "conlang" is controversial, not helpful >> and is surely not what Dustinger had in mind. > > I agree it is "controversial," and not "what Dustinger had in mind." But we must at times enter controversial areas in our fiction. Even Harry Potter outraged some who felt it favored witches. All magic is surely controversial. > > Moreover, I do think looking at such things as Sanskrit, Ivrit, or Cornish can be "helpful" in some ways. > > I wonder if there have been any constructed worlds in which "dead" languages were revived. > > Regards to all, LEO > Good question! Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Daniel Rollin-Jones > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 3:43 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Constructed Jewish Languages > > Agreed on all points, Ray. > > There's also a dispute as to whether Ivrit is really a Semitic language like Ancient Hebrew, or some sort of relexified Yiddish. Personally, given the verbs I'd go for the former! > > It will be interesting to see whether this new, unified revived Cornish will gain traction in the face of the onslaught from English; its my personal opinion that the AFAIK, so-far unique example of the revival of Hebrew was in no small part due to it happening in the sweet spot between the decline of French as an international language and the meteoric rise of English. Indeed, at one point whilst I was aware that Israel as a country had been "revived" I was under the impression that the native language of modern Israelis was English! A classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. > > Jeff > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On 30 Aug 2014, at 11:20, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> On 29/08/2014 19:27, Leo Moser wrote: >>> Some say Modern Ivrit is a conlang. >>> >>> This seems a sensitive issue. >>> >>> http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3953/why-is-ivrit-not- >>> considered-an-artificial-language >> >> I guess any revived language can equally be said to be a 'conlang' in >> this sense. Compare, for examples, the various versions of revived >> Cornish; indeed, the internecine wrangling between the different >> versions was so reminiscent of the sort of thing that went on in >> Auxlang in the days I >> followed that list :) >> >> I believe now an agreed common form of Cornish is emerging. >> but this getting away from the subject line. >> >> But IMO this use of "conlang" is controversial, not helpful and is >> surely not what Dustinger had in mind. >> =========================================================- >> >>> On 29/08/2014 16:34, Adam Walker wrote: >>> There's also Syrunian. (though I may have misspelled that. >> >> Yes, it is Syrunian >> http://www.frathwiki.com/Syrunian >> >>>> I want to attribute it to Michael Kronberg, but may be wring in that >>>> as well. >> >> The FrathWiki page ascribes it to Iuhan Culmæria. It is Vulgar Latin >> "greatly influenced by Aramaic." Although I find no mention of its >> being a Jewish language (subject of this thread), the fact that >> "Hebrew Judaic terminology was absorbed into the language" and that >> its normal mode of writing is the Jewish square script in which >> Hebrew, Yiddish & Ladino are written bot point to its being so. >> >> -- >> Ray >> ================================== >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com >> ================================== >> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene 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".