Exactly, it was never my intention to replace English as in make every English speaker convert to a new langauge. It's the one thing that I really needed to say in the question that I didn't. Maybe that's a reason that I shouldn't be making a language:P
What I want is an intermediary. A language that can be rapidly learned and is highly expressive such that people with very different maternal languages can communicate with precision.
If it were done correctly (For a given definition of correctly. For me I'd say, if it works it's done correctly, but that's not really a useful definition) does anyone think that there is a need for a such a thing? Me I would argue that given the difficulty of learning English with a non-Latin-based background in languages, it could be useful.
The trick would be to make something that is actually easier for everyone and is at the same time still easy to learn and is in some regard complete with regards to expression
Wow am I transparent! By training, yes, but not for a long time.
I'm glad that someone else could concede the same idea. It is likely that brevity would again become an issue once it starts to be spoken quite a lot. Shortcuts would be taken especially by English speakers since we love to make things shorter to say
The title wasn't long enough. I really want to say...to replace English as the lingua franca. I definitely should have tried harder to make that fit. But regardless I think a lot of your arguments still hold. I would be interested in your take on that question as well if you feel like responding.
I'm well aware that the idea is naive and next to impossible, but it doesn't stop me from wondering. I'm not a linguist or a philosopher of language, and yes I am a programmer and a mathematician by training. So I do look the structure of language in a more rigid way. Do you see there being a way to define a language to resist or to bend to change in a more sustainable way given the force of human desire to change and play with their modes of communication?
For someone growing up in Japan for example the difference between a normal length sound and a double length sound is pretty easy to distinguish, but something like that might be a bit harder to teach someone coming from English for example where pauses are anyone's own responsibility.
My thought on accents was that you'd have to use vowels and consonants that are as distinct as possible for everyone. No difference between l and r for example because of most of Asia, but maybe the Spanish rolled r. The French a e i o u/ou might also work for vowels but you'd have to make a choice between u or ou because English speaker have trouble with that difference for a while too.
I like the link, thanks! I agree wholeheartedly that a language like that would have to take close to the lowest common denominator of the sounds of all main languages
It's certainly difficult to not be biased. The best that I can think of is taking the lowest common denominator of each main language in the world. So remove tones and the difference between r and l for example. You'd be left with only a fraction of the sounds and tones possible and they'd be more general. And so you'd have to extend the length of the words. In order to express the same idea you'd have to say more, but being as quick as possible to say something isn't really the goal nor is it totally necessary. Some brevity would be nice of course.
Beautifully put. I love the plentiful etymological history of English and the torture we've imposed on just about every word. I don't think English will ever go away, but perhaps there's an easier way for some people who just want to communicate something exact.
It's true that compatibility would be a big issue. The only options I see are to either use the English term or make a translation. If you use the English term is a concession that the language isn't adequate. If you make a translation, you have to make sure that the language is at least as comprehensive as the original language. But maybe it's a good opportunity to try to make a language more powerful in it's ability to express things like that.
The problem with Esperanto is that it isn't easy to learn. It's easier than French and English, but for anyone who grew up in Asia for example it's actually quite difficult because of it's European bias. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, it was never my intention to replace English as in make every English speaker convert to a new langauge. It's the one thing that I really needed to say in the question that I didn't. Maybe that's a reason that I shouldn't be making a language :P
What I want is an intermediary. A language that can be rapidly learned and is highly expressive such that people with very different maternal languages can communicate with precision.
If it were done correctly (For a given definition of correctly. For me I'd say, if it works it's done correctly, but that's not really a useful definition) does anyone think that there is a need for a such a thing? Me I would argue that given the difficulty of learning English with a non-Latin-based background in languages, it could be useful.
The trick would be to make something that is actually easier for everyone and is at the same time still easy to learn and is in some regard complete with regards to expression
Wow am I transparent! By training, yes, but not for a long time.
I'm glad that someone else could concede the same idea. It is likely that brevity would again become an issue once it starts to be spoken quite a lot. Shortcuts would be taken especially by English speakers since we love to make things shorter to say
Alright, I'll be ready with the whips for when the babies start to try to change it!
That's very true. Thanks for the input
The title wasn't long enough. I really want to say ...to replace English as the lingua franca. I definitely should have tried harder to make that fit. But regardless I think a lot of your arguments still hold. I would be interested in your take on that question as well if you feel like responding.
I'm well aware that the idea is naive and next to impossible, but it doesn't stop me from wondering. I'm not a linguist or a philosopher of language, and yes I am a programmer and a mathematician by training. So I do look the structure of language in a more rigid way. Do you see there being a way to define a language to resist or to bend to change in a more sustainable way given the force of human desire to change and play with their modes of communication?
The title wasn't long enough. I really want to say ...to replace English as the lingua franca
I probably should have tried harder to make that fit
Oh that's really cool. Thank you!
For someone growing up in Japan for example the difference between a normal length sound and a double length sound is pretty easy to distinguish, but something like that might be a bit harder to teach someone coming from English for example where pauses are anyone's own responsibility.
My thought on accents was that you'd have to use vowels and consonants that are as distinct as possible for everyone. No difference between l and r for example because of most of Asia, but maybe the Spanish rolled r. The French a e i o u/ou might also work for vowels but you'd have to make a choice between u or ou because English speaker have trouble with that difference for a while too.
Nice, thanks!
What do you mean by unified?
I like the link, thanks! I agree wholeheartedly that a language like that would have to take close to the lowest common denominator of the sounds of all main languages
It's certainly difficult to not be biased. The best that I can think of is taking the lowest common denominator of each main language in the world. So remove tones and the difference between r and l for example. You'd be left with only a fraction of the sounds and tones possible and they'd be more general. And so you'd have to extend the length of the words. In order to express the same idea you'd have to say more, but being as quick as possible to say something isn't really the goal nor is it totally necessary. Some brevity would be nice of course.
I like it, I'll have a look. Thanks!
I definitely prefer it. Shorter and easier. No need to mention what might be in someones pants when you're trying to talk about something serious.
I really like that idea. Thanks for your input!
Beautifully put. I love the plentiful etymological history of English and the torture we've imposed on just about every word. I don't think English will ever go away, but perhaps there's an easier way for some people who just want to communicate something exact.
It's true that compatibility would be a big issue. The only options I see are to either use the English term or make a translation. If you use the English term is a concession that the language isn't adequate. If you make a translation, you have to make sure that the language is at least as comprehensive as the original language. But maybe it's a good opportunity to try to make a language more powerful in it's ability to express things like that.
Agreed!
The problem with Esperanto is that it isn't easy to learn. It's easier than French and English, but for anyone who grew up in Asia for example it's actually quite difficult because of it's European bias. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...