Auxiliary languages.

I think people that specifically try to make IALs try too hard, and the langs don't come out quite as useful as the creator intended. Plus, there are one heck of a lot of Pan-European auxlangs, and I haven't heard of a single one based off anything other than European langs. Personally, I've been considering what would happen if Raitoliste was used as an auxlang. I think it wouldn't do too bad a job - very simple grammar and it doesn't need a dictionary. It would probably take a month at most to learn.

I think people that specifically try to make IALs try too hard Really? I always thought they were trying to make them easy to learn and usable? and the langs don't come out quite as useful as the creator intended. Well, useful and usable aren't the same thing, I mean, I speak ok Arabic and to me it's fairly usable, but living in the middle of southern PA it's not very useful. Plus, there are one heck of a lot of Pan-European auxlangs, and I haven't heard of a single one based off anything other than European langs. Then you obviously didn't look at that IAL list, because it has quite a few that include Chinese, Arabic, even 'ancient' langs. Personally, I've been considering what would happen if Raitoliste was used as an auxlang. I think it wouldn't do too bad a job - very simple grammar and it doesn't need a dictionary. It would probably take a month at most to learn. Um, don't take this the wrong way, but no...auxlangs are meant to have a simple orthography, morphology and phonology, something close to a common denominator...Raitoliste doesn't have what I would call a common denominator feel to it.

Re: Auxiliary languages.
IALs I'm curious what opinions our members have about Auxiliary languages. I know that they are often criticized on the ZBB, but I'd like to know what everyone here thinks. I have enjoyed both Esperanto and "Interlingua" (aka ILA). But I don't really know either of them. You can actually start to understand a well-designed auxiliary language earlier in the process of learning it than you can most natlangs, at least those unlike your L1. Not all auxlangs are that well-designed, but I think ILA, and maybe also Esperanto, are. Other than that, though, it's been my experience that it's not really easier to learn an auxlang than a natlang. It takes just as long to be able to speak and write in it; and it takes just as long to be able to understand everything in it as opposed to just some (admittedly important) things. For me, the most ambitious purposes of many auxlangs would be better served if everybody else just learned my L1. :P OTOH I have enjoyed being able to understand a few things in some auxlangs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW I've had an easier time with those English-based "controlled languages" on the list.

Really? I always thought they were trying to make them easy to learn and usable? Oops, they try too hard to make them, not try to make the langs hard. Well, useful and usable aren't the same thing, I mean, I speak ok Arabic and to me it's fairly usable, but living in the middle of southern PA it's not very useful. True. Useful/usable as in fulfilling their purpose as a lang everyone speaks. Then you obviously didn't look at that IAL list, because it has quite a few that include Chinese, Arabic, even 'ancient' langs. Maybe I just clicked on the wrong ones, but most there (under 'spoken' at least) seem to be European-based or mainly European-based. (NOT ALL.) Um, don't take this the wrong way, but no...auxlangs are meant to have a simple orthography, morphology and phonology, something close to a common denominator...Raitoliste doesn't have what I would call a common denominator feel to it. The orthography and morphology are far more simple than something such as Esperanto, though the phonology isn't quite auxlang-ish. I'm not sure I would consider a common denominator essential to an auxlang. By definition an auxlang is just a language created for everyone to speak, not a language created out of a combination of other languages. Sometimes a common denominator is not good, since it leans too much in a particular direction. No common denominator makes it equally easy or difficult for everyone. (Esperanto's obvious Slavic influences confuse me.)

Oops, they try too hard to make them, not try to make the langs hard. Try too hard? What level of effort would be acceptable? Useful/usable as in fulfilling their purpose as a lang everyone speaks. Well, that's not exactly the goal, the goal is often for the auxlang to be an additional lang for people to use when necessary. European-based or mainly European-based And this is a bad thing why? The orthography and morphology are far more simple than something such as Esperanto I disagree, Esperanto has the five "pure" vowels of Spanish, Swahili, and Modern Greek, 'a' 'e' 'i' 'o' 'u', while Raitoliste has "High: i.y w.u Mid: e.ø<9> o Low: a", a much less familiar set of vowels to the most widely spoken langs, if a Swahili speaker saw your 'w' s/he would pronounce it as a /w/, and not a /M/. Morphologically, Raitoliste is far more restrictive than Esperanto and therefore not as open to new vocabulary and not as easy to learn. I'm not sure I would consider a common denominator essential to an auxlang. Well, yeah, why else would you make one? If it has common sounds, common word formations, common script, it is more likely to be accepted. By definition an auxlang is just a language created for everyone to speak, not a language created out of a combination of other languages. Um, no, by definition an auxiliary language is a language meant for communication between people from different nations who do not share a common native language. An auxiliary language is primarily a second language. And yes, if you look at Esperanto, LFN, Ido and many others, they are combinations of vocab set to a specific phonology with grammatical aspects from many different sources. No common denominator makes it equally easy or difficult for everyone. What? Yes it does...if we tried to make an auxlang that didn't have /a/, it wouldn't last a month.

I didn't say it would be a great auxlang, just that I was wondering about it. Guess it's not such a great idea!

I didn't say it would be a great auxlang, just that I was wondering about it. Well, now that we've resolved the issue of your conlang, we can discuss auxlangs and their role in the linguistic community.

Just to question to throw out there, but does anybody actually use auxlangs? I mean, there are plenty of Eperantists, but I never heard about it until I started researching conlangs.

Just to question to throw out there, but does anybody actually use auxlangs? I mean, there are plenty of Eperantists, but I never heard about it until I started researching conlangs. My father was a doctor. He used to get professional journals that printed a summary of each article in Interlingua (Ila). It was titled "Sumario en Interlingua". I don't know how many people these days "use" auxlangs, as in, converse in them. But clearly even some businesses and academic groups write in them, at least, some of them write summaries in one or another. And I've heard from people in "the conlanging community" who've gone to a party, met someone from outside the "conlanging" part of the community, and had a conversation in Lojban without much trouble. Bear in mind that some natlangs are rumored or reputed to have begun as auxlangs. Ameslan (ASL) is one of them. So is Urdu. Perhaps both of those claims -- maybe even all such claims -- are false; I don't know. But if they're true, they indicate that at one time at least people used an auxlang rather extensively. Even if you accept that ASL started as an auxlang, many would say it has evolved so much since then that native speakers hardly every use any of the original "auxlang" parts when talking to one another; they use them only when talking to L2 speakers of ASL, or hearing speakers of English who can barely get by in ASL. A long way of saying "I don't know the answer to your question, but I think the answer is 'Yes, people do use auxlangs'".

View Full Version: Auxiliary languages.