Print

Print


Leo remarks:
I agree with Paul's comments.

I feel that the overall phonotactics of an appropriate IAL should not be as complex or unusual globally as that of English, Portuguese, French, or any form of Chinese. But IMO it could be as complex as Latin, Indonesian, or Uzbek. It need not be a form of Hawaiian. 

Regards,                     LEO

-----Original Message-----
From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phonemes in Worldlang

On 2016-04-26, Victor Chan wrote:
> After reading some articles on interlinguistics and creole languages, I conclude that the proposed phonemes from the article, Designing an international auxiliary language (Jorg Rhiemeier), can be used as a basis for worldlang. The article mention some of the proposed phonemes are difficult to distinguished for some speakers but the issue can be resolved by restricting the phonemes to specific phones.
> [rest elided for brevity]

Thank you for this post. I may have read Jörg Rhiemeier's article "Designing an international auxiliary language" in the past, but I just now reread it in full. Interesting. In many ways, it reminds me of Richard [Rick] K. Harrison's article "Proposed Guidelines for the Design of an Optimal International Auxiliary Language" (last edition, so far as I know, 2001), which may no longer be available online except in archives. (I have a copy, but there is always the matter of copyright or other author's rights.) There is also Rick Morneau's "Lexical Semantics" 
(2002 and possibly later).

However, my issue, which I addressed in my essay "Thoughts on IAL Success" (recently updated at http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/thoughts.html ), is that theoretical optimality is BY NO MEANS WHATEVER a guarantor of success for a proposed (constructed) international auxiliary language. In fact, theoretical phonemic / phonosyntactic / morphological / vocabulary characteristics may actually be entirely *secondary* as to why this or that conIAL does or does not have relative success. Theoretical "optimality," although not be passed entirely out of consideration, is secondary.

Look at English, the most quasi-globally widespread international auxiliary language in the history or the planet (just not a constructed language). Even as an educated native speaker of English, I heartily and fully acknowledge that English is most definitely "sub-optimal" by the criteria of such writers as Rhiemeier, Harrison, and Morneau. No question. Even as a native speaker, I totally acknowledge (from having tried to help other adults to learn it) that English is difficult for adult learners.

Nevertheless, "optimality" is not at all there is to the matter. Again, I will let my "Thoughts" essay speak for itself, as the factor of "Good Enough" may supervene over other factors.

(I have also in the past referred to E. Sylvia Pankhurst's short book, recently reprinted, "Delphos, The Future of International Language." Her argument is for a language which nearly comes out to be Peano's original Interlingua, later known as Latino sine Flexione. The point is that she does not just wave her hands, so to speak. She *argues* for her position, which is more than some auxlangers do. The book may be available online in some archives, as well as a physical reprint from http://www.ForgottenBooks.com .)

Finally, there is also the old question of who will try to learn a (con)IAL. Just adults? It is a truism that young children in an immersion environment can (approximately) learn any language equally well. If there is enough will and teaching opportunity, just about any language will do as an international auxiliary language if it is taught to young children and has enough vocabulary and syntax to deal with modern international life. -- Paul Bartlett
...........
Leo remarks:  I agree with Paul's comments.
I feel that the overall phonotactics of an appropriate IAL should not be as complex or unusual globally as that of English, Portuguese, French, or any form of Chinese. But IMO it could be as complex as Latin, Indonesian, or Uzbek. It need not be a form of Hawaiian.   Regards,                     LEO