Print

Print


As the century ends, it's interesting to note that many
of the Natlangs that we talk about on AUXLANG did not exist
as such in the public (or even linguistic) consciousness a
hundred years back. Usually more is involved than a new
name, per se. Conscious "language construction" has been
a considerable factor in many cases. I will make a bit of
a list:
 
  Bislama
  Bosnian(if such does now exist)
  Haitian Creole
  Hindi(in its official Bharat "non-Hundustani" form)
  Indonesian -
  Macedonian ? (was there an official form in 1899?)
  Norwegian(in its more current forms)
  Standard Chinese - from "Peking dialect"
  Swahili(as standardized)
  TokPisin
  Vietmanese - Tokinese, Annamese, etc.
  Yivrit - Modern Hebrew
  Xhosa (and many of the languages of Africa)
 
  Other written languages have gone through major
reforms (which often involve changing vocabulary
and standardizing as well). Some examples:
 
  Azerbaijani and the Central Asian languages
       (various alphabet changes)
  Korean (discontinued Sinitic characters)
  Maltese
  Mongol ("Outer-" to cyrillic)
  Navajo
  Oromo ("Galla" -- now written)
  Russian (spelling reform)
  Somali (now written)
  Turkish (alphabet change, restructuring)
 
  This all shows that "language construction" is not
just something we do as a 'secret vice.'
 
  I'm sure that I'm forgetting a lot of good
examples.
 
  I would guess that the word "Vietnamese," like "Indonesian"
does not occur in the works of Otto Jespersen, for example.
 
  The term "Malay" appears in the "Asian Interlingua" material
from Mario Pei, for example. He didn't mean only the language
of "Malaya" as it was then called, but that of the former
"Dutch East Indies" as well.
 
Comments ?
 
  Best regards,                          LEO MOSER
 
Leo J. Moser
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com