Talk:International auxiliary language/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

phonetics[edit]

may be some of the editors may not like keeping this topic on top, but i felt it relevant to do so. i just want to point out that in all these so called IALs, an important ingredient, which could have been present, is missing. and it is phonetics.

as per my view this is an important, if not most important, factor for an auxilliary invented international language. for phonetics we can look at sanskrit, an ancient language of suncontinent, no longer in practical use for 2500 years, or even hindi. which are perfectly phonetic, and must be pronounced the way they are written, irrespective of accents and diction.

and i am emphasising this fact because, may be tomorrow, we will have to command computers by voice. for which we can use an IAL, but then it must have proper phonetics.

i am looking for any criticism or support on this topic. thanx

nids 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"International auxiliary language" or "Universal language"?[edit]

The phrase which forms the name of this article appears contrived. The usual phrase for such a constructed or artificial language was "Universal language." Many inventors of these languages did intend these to replace existing languages.

--Anonymous

Well, the term "international auxiliary language" has certainly been used since I first learned Esperanto. A Google Groups search shows an occurrance as early as 1986 and another, in reference to Esperanto, in 1989. So, it may be "contrived", but it was contrived long before Wikipedia was started. (^_^)

I doubt anyone today (not to mention two decades ago), whether inventing their own languages or embracing existing conlangs, is still idealistic enough to believe a "universal language" will replace existing languages. That is the reason that terms like IAL & artlang have been coined.

--Malirath 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona[edit]

"It is not designed as an international auxiliary language but is instead inspired by Taoist philosophy, among other things."

I'm going to remove it from the list unless someone has a better reason for it to be there.

-- Andrew

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Toki Pona has a complete vocabulary of 218 words, including a very basic numeral system (no, one, two, many). It doesn't take too much imagination to realize how difficult it would be to express more complex thoughts with its limited wordstock. 85.226.122.237 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the language had 118 words, but the word for hand/arm could be used to mean "five". Apparently, if one wanted to use exact numbers, one could combine the numerical words in longer phrases like for 34 "five five five five five five two two", but the language is deliberately constructed to make such things difficult. 85.226.122.237 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as an IAL by its author, but it has actually functioned as an IAL more often than many other conlangs that seem more suitable as IALs (e.g. Ceqli). The tokipona mailing list contains traffic almost entirely (except for spam) in Toki Pona, and the list members are of various native languages (French, English, German, Czech, etc). This fact might rate a mention. --Jim Henry 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is OK to mention Toki Pona not because it is suitable as the IAL but because it represents new idea/technology that seem to be well suited for IALs -- I mean oligosynthetic and oligoisolating languages.--Towelhead 05:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"sentential languages"?[edit]

I'm not familiar with this term from linguistics. Most of the Google hits seem to be in symbolic logic. Also, characterizing "English or Spanish" as primarily "written languages" rather than mainly spoken and secondarily written is misleading. Perhaps "spoken/written languages" would be more suitable than "sentential"? --Jim Henry 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sentential/diagrammatic distinction is widely used. I think a fan of diagrammatic languages introduced it to the article. While diagrammatic languages deserve some coverage here, I don't think any has proved significant enough to justify reworking the taxonomy. For the short term, "conventional" languages might work as a synonym, unless someone goes all philosophical about the nuances of "conventional".--Chris 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request[edit]

Please discuss your differences here. Ideogram 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid editing the disputed material until you reach agreement here. Ideogram 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto propaganda[edit]

1.The article claims that Esperanto is fundamentally different than Occidental, Interlingua and Lingua Franca Nova. In fact, all these languages are similar Euroclones.

2.The article claims that these languages are divided into two groups called "schematic planned language" and "naturalistic planned language." These terms are not used outside the Esperanto community, so they probably should not be used in a general Wikipedia article. A much more meaningful taxonomy is made by dividing these languages into a posteriori and a priori languages.

3.The fastest growing group of these languages (sometimes called philosophical languages) is not mentioned in the article. These languages (Sona, aUI, Ygyde, Kali-sise, Tunu and Socialese) have either easy to pronounce phonology, or limited morpheme set (oligosynthetic languages), or both. They are designed to be easier to learn for non-Europeans than the Euroclones.

The Esperanto propaganda was posted on Wkipedia by Jan van Steenbergen --Towelhead 05:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted part of your edit because it was blatant nonsense. And frankly, I don't understand why you are turning this into a personal attack. My name is indeed Jan van Steenbergen, and I completely don't see why you mention my e-mail address, for example, but not my user name here. I guess you have your reasons! In any case, I don't even speak Esperanto, nor do I have any particular sentiment for it. Why on Earth would I be posting "Esperanto propaganda"?
You are completely confusing the schematic vs. naturalistic distinction with the a priori vs. a posteriori distinction, but those are two completely different - albeit related - things. A priori/a posteriori refers to the source of the vocabulary and grammar: in the case of an a priori language, it was made up entirely by the author, in the case of an posteriori language, it was based on pre-existing material (i.e. natlangs). Schematicism/naturalism on the other hand refers to how the language works, how words are derived from other words, how nouns can be distinguished from adjectives, etc.
Addressing your three points:
  1. Esperanto ís fundamentally different from LFN, Interlingua and Occidental. Sure, they all draw their vocabulary from the same source, and therefore they look pretty much alike. But the mechanisms of Esperanto are completely different from those of the other languages.
  2. It is true that the schematic/naturlistic distinction has its roots in the Esperanto movement. So what? Any idea has to originate somewhere! It is definitely nót true that its usage is restricted to Esperantists. Two examples that come to mind immediately: Langmaker.com and Slovianski. And then, I don't see the logic behind your reasoning: why should applying an idea that originates from the Esperanto movement immediately be called "Esperanto propaganda"?
  3. So thís is what all this is about, eh? I suppose it's Andrew Nowicki I'm having the honour with. I don't know for sure of course, but even though you are editing strictly anonymously, I recognise your style. In any case, this is by no means the "fastest growing group" of IALs. Euroclones are still being created on a daily base, a priori languages remain rare. Sona is an a priori language, but definitely nót schematic, and has fallen completely out of use. I don't know much about aUI. Ygyde, Kali-sise, Tunu and Socialese are all minor languages that wouldn't even warrant articles on their own. For the record, I think you should stop adding links to those languages in every possible article.
—IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert war. Ideogram 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you email with the request to resolve our dispute, but you have ignored it. I did not erase all existing text, but you erased all of my corrections. Apparently you prefer war to negotiation.

In my opinion differences between Esperanto and other Euroclones are too minor to be mentioned in a general article. The average person has no idea what is the difference between "schematic" and "naturalistic" languages, so if these esoteric terms are mentioned, they should be explained either in this general article or in a separate article.

You cannot speak with a taxi driver in Esperanto because the total number of fluent Esperanto speakers is on the order of a few hundred. Other artificial auxlangs have even fewer fluent speakers. All artificial auxlangs are linguistic experiments and should be treated as such. The only substantial difference between them is their design. A biological taxonomist does not ignore rare species, and he does not exaggerate differences between closely related species. A smart linguistic taxonomist does the same. This general Wikipedia article should mention the fact that not all auxlangs are Euroclones.

Probably the main reason for the steady decline of Esperanto's popularity is difficult pronunciation of some Esperanto words. I mentioned phonology in just one word, but you erased this word.--Towelhead 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I hadn't seen your e-mail; it was sent to an address I only check every once in a while. There are a few things I want to get straight:
  • First of all, I didn't write the text in question. From 2001 onwards, there were articles under the name Schematic planned language and Naturalistic planned language; there was an AfD against them here, and the conclusion was merge and redirect. Which is all I did.
  • Yet, what was written there is true, whether you like it or not. And frankly, could you explain to me why you think this is "Esperanto propaganda"? I certainly don't share your view that the context suggest that schematic languages (including Esperanto) are "superior" and naturalistic languages are "inferior"!
  • I'll give you this one: the distinction between a priori languages and a posteriori languages is a hell of a lot more relevant than this one. There is, however, one problem: this distinction goes not only for IALs, but also for fictional languages, engeneered languages, etc.
  • Your solution is even worse. Because you think the schematic/naturalistic distinction is irrelevant, you change the description into something that is essentially describing the difference between a priori/a posteriori. You might as well say: "The United States of America is a more powerful country than Poland" and then write that "Lech Kaczyński is the president of the United States of America". I reverted your edit for the simple reason that it is not true!
  • The alternative you offer is very POV. "All artificial auxlangs are linguistic experiments and should be treated as such." Fine. I might even agree with you. But there are a lot of people who won't. In any case, this kind of argumentation is completely irrelevant in our context. Same goes for the word Euroclone, which is a derogatory term and shouldn't be used this way.
  • And by the way, I agree with you that IALs are not euroclones by definition, but you can hardly deny the fact that 99% of them are.
  • For the rest, you are confusing things even more by adding philosophical languages and oligosynthetic languages to the mix. Should I remind you that even those two babies can theoretically be a posteriori, and that at least the latter can also be naturalistic instead of schematic?
  • I'll try to work up some kind of compromise. But don't count on external links to Ygyde! As you may or may not be aware, there is a policy against external links within the running text of an article. If you really think there should be links to your homepage here in WP, then have somebody write an article about it. If it passes AfD, I'm all for referring to it in some articles like this one. In the meantime, remember this this is nót the place for auxlang advocacy!
—IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to IJzeren Jan: take a look at my note below about auxlang taxonomy posted in Langmaker. I believe that this is reasonable compromise. --Towelhead 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do remember the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. It is not acceptable to insert material in an article which is merely your opinion; you must be able to cite sources in the literature that show other respected authorities share your view. Citing your own website in support does not count. Ideogram 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Towelhead wrote: "....the main reason for the steady decline of Esperanto's popularity...."

Can you cite any evidence for such a "steady decline"?

"....the total number of fluent Esperanto speakers is on the order of a few hundred...."

The popularly quoted figure of 2 million speakers is arguably exaggerated (see the discussion in the Esperanto main article and its talk archives) but "on the order of a few hundred" is at least equally ridiculous as an understatement. I don't think you can make a serious case for there being fewer than 10,000 fluent speakers, and the case for 50K or more is reasonable.

"....All artificial auxlangs are linguistic experiments and should be treated as such. The only substantial difference between them is their design."

It makes sense for the article to discuss differences between IALs both in terms of their design differences, and in terms of their actual usage. In other words, the article should point out that some auxlangs have a real if small speaker community (Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, and a handful of others), some have a tiny enthusiast group consisting of the creator and a few supporters, and the vast majority have no speakers except possibly their creator. --Jim Henry 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ideogram about verifiability. Whenever someone makes outlandish claims about Esperanto (or any other auxlang), he should back up his claim with an article published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The decline of Esperanto membership is so drastic that Esperantists are ashamed to publish statistics except Esperanto Association of Britain: http://www.esperanto-gb.org/eab/eab_update/update27.pdf http://esperanto-gb.org/eab/eab_update/update28.pdf--Towelhead 05:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble opening the EAB links. But, yes, some national Esperanto-promoting organizations have had a recent decline in membership. ELNA, for instance, had a gradual decline in membership over several years [1] followed by a recent upswing. It doesn't necessarily follow that the nubmer of fluent speakers or regular users of Esperanto is also declining in those countries, much less in the world as as whole (some countries have definitely had an increase). "One doesn't have to pay dues to speak a language," and that's even more true now than it was some years ago. Arguably the membership of some national organizations is declining because they don't add enough value -- the marginal value of subscribing to the organization's newsletter and getting a discount on book purchases may not be worth $30 or $50/year or whatever to someone who is already getting tens or hundreds of hours of Esperanto contacts for the cost of their Internet connection. ...Still less does the rate of decline in organizational membership prove there are only "on the order of a few hundred" fluent speakers; can you critique Sikosek's estimates (generally considered pessimistic or conservative) and show they are really wildly optimistic? --Jim Henry 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

Towelhead writes: I agree with Ideogram about verifiability. Whenever someone makes outlandish claims about Esperanto (or any other auxlang), he should back up his claim with an article published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Peer-reviewed academic is the gold standard for verifiability, but it's not realistic for a field like auxiliary languages. As editors of auxlang-related articles, we should enforce the highest standards we can, but have to recognise that these will lower than standards for a physics article, say.--Chris 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally accepts Newspapers, Magazines, Books, and credible websites. Not acceptable are blogs and IRC chat channels. --Ideogram 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Naturalistic and Schematic articles[edit]

I've read over the discussion on merging these two articles, and, frankly, the proponents were poorly informed. The two terms are well established in Interlinguistics, which is an obscure but genuine academic field. If we ever get around to expanding this article (a worthwhile project, given the number of IAL articles in WP), those two articles might be worth re-establishing as spinoffs from this one. --Chris 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found almost perfect auxlang taxonomy on Langmaker: http://www.langmaker.com/db/Esperanto:_Language,_Literature,_and_Community I would like to copy this taxonomy to Wikipedia after adding oligosynthetic and taxonomic languages. In my opinion there are two kinds of philosophical languages: taxonomic (like Ro) and oligosynthetic (like aUI, Ygyde, and Sona).--Towelhead 05:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two kinds of philosophical language, as the appropriate subsections of Engineered language make clear. Some philosophical languages are neither taxonomic nor oligosynthetic, though perhaps most of them fit one of those categories (at least if you define "oligos" broadly enough to cover languages like Ithkuil and Lojban with >1000 roots, and aren't too particular about the "synthetic" part). But yes, Pierre Janton's typology as quoted in the Langmaker article is something we could use here. --Jim Henry 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we are close to a consensus. Someone should propose the wording.--Towelhead 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about copy over the Langmaker text and revise it as you think it should be revised, and I'll propose further edits? --Jim Henry 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted the first draft. ?? mark follows the most questionable terms. --Towelhead 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just revised it further; hopefully we have some consensus now and can remove the {{accuracy}} tag? --Jim Henry 11:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is good enough to remove the accuracy tag.
In "A priori languages" category I would replace the expression "(not derived from ethnic languages)" with "(not borrowed from ethnic languages)" because the word "derived" maybe confused with the word derivation which has different meaning. The same word is used in "Partly Schematic Languages" category and in "Languages with naturalistic derivation" category, but its use there does not seem ambiguous. I think that it would be good idea to turn all derivation words to links.
The term "philosophical language" was used in the middle ages to describe highly structured, a priori languages. Its modern meaning is not clear. --Towelhead 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is mediation still required here or can I close the case? --Ideogram 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the conflict has been resolved. --Towelhead 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the conflict is. However it seems that it might be useful to document the historical development of the notion of IAL. There does seem to be a bias towards taxonomic and oligosynthetic languages and against diagramatic, circuit, network, pictogram and schematic languages in much of the literature. This poses the questions, what is a "language", what is a "philosopohical language", what is an "auxiliary language", and what can qualify as such? Can an arrangement of pictures be a "language"? Is art an international auxiliary? What about the language of music? What about the language of electronics? All seem to be "languages" that are used internationally as "auxiliaries" to native languages. Perhaps it would be beneficial to clarify where such langauegs sit in the taxonomic / oligosynthetic distinction? Sholto Maud 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent editing[edit]

I have tried to "revitalize" this article as best as I can, including some references (always difficult with the restrictions on using internet sources - odd for an internet encyclopedia, no?). Please note that edits under "68..." are mine as well (I simply forget to log in!). I hope you find my edits satisfactory. Cgboeree (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag because I am confident that the issues have been addressed. Cgboeree (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I've just realized how bad the history section is. I've made some local tweaks for better wording, but it needs to be totally rewritten. The opening section with the two quotes just doesn't go anywhere or say anything substantial, as it is. The table could stay, but the most important parts of it (re: Solresol, Volapuk, Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua) need to be expanded into substantial, sourced and cited narrative text, and new material on the recent explosion of non-Euroclone "worldlangs" on the Internet needs to be written (e.g. Vorlin, Ceqli, Ilomi, etc.; this recent stuff probably can't be sourced to as venerable sources as the earlier stuff, mainly to postings on the AUXLANG mailing list, which should also be mentioned in this history). I'm planning to re-read Eco's Search for the Perfect Language at some point, and could revisit this then; meanwhile I hope someone who owns some other relevant books, or whose library has them, will do something to this disgraceful mess. --Jim Henry (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I've expanded the criticism section. However, I'm not sure some of what I added there shouldn't go in the Classication section instead. Thoughts? --Jim Henry (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"One criticism already prevalent in the late 19th century, and still sometimes heard today, is that an international language might hasten the extinction of minority languages." -Not sure I agree with this. Citation needed.

Do you mean that you don't agree with the criticism or you don't agree that it dates back to the 19th century and that people still make this criticism today? I have cites for both facts, already in the article; see below.
One response has been that, even if this happens, the benefits would outweigh the costs;[17][19]

-these citations are not in english, so I dont know how to verify them

another, that proponents of auxlangs, particularly in the Esperanto movement, are generally also proponents of measures to conserve and promote minority languages and cultures.

-doesnt make much sense in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.107.183 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be an impoverished encyclopedia if the only facts considered verifiable were the ones published in English.

As for the response "proponents of auxlangs, particularly in the Esperanto movement, are generally also proponents of measures to conserve and promote minority languages and cultures" -- I somewhat agree that it isn't a perfectly cogent response to the objection; Vinko Ošlak, whose long article I cited there, argues against it, saying that even if most Esperanto speakers are nice people and don't intend any harm, that doesn't prove that Esperanto wouldn't have the same harmful effects as English, French, Spanish etc. in suppressing minority languages if it were spoken as widely or even more so. But it is a response to that objection that some Esperanto speakers make, and Wikipedia shouldn't go so meta, in my opinion, as to criticise in its own voice the responses to the criticism. It should only cite the criticisms and the responses that are made to the criticisms. I'll try to dig up my copy of Ošlak's article and see what sources he cites for the people who fear an auxlang would hasten extinction of minority languages and those who argue against it; but in any case I think his article alone is citation enough for both the criticism and the response, though more cites would be nice to have. Zamenhof (1903) also discusses the same criticism, which is evidence for its dating from the 19th century. --Jim Henry (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmarks of a good auxlang[edit]

I added the following info. User DenisMoskowitz deleted it.

  1. Are the words easy to pronounce? Are there any consonant clusters?
  2. Is it easy to understand fast speech? Are the boundaries between the words obvious even if you do not know the words?
  3. Is it easy to make compound words? How long are these compound words?
  4. If you do not know a word and do not know its morphemes, can you tell if it is an adjective, a noun, or a verb? Can you tell if it is a compound word?
  5. Are there any mnemonic links between the morphemes that make it easier to memorize the morphemes? Are there any rules that minimize the burden of memorizing the morphemes?
  6. Is it possible to make arbitrarily long and arbitrarily complex sentences that have clear, unambiguous meaning?
  7. Is the auxlang culturally neutral, or does it sound like a relic of colonialism?
  8. Is it terse?

____________

This Wikipedia article pertains almost exclusively to constructed auxlangs. Learning a new language is a great effort, so it is only natural to try to find out which constructed auxlang is the best before learning it. The Wikipedia article, in its old form, gives no clue how to find the best constructed auxlangs. It gives the impression that the auxlangs are chosen the same way as religions. If you do not like my yardsticks, change them, or make your own, but do not delete the entire chapter.Quinacrine 20:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This addition consists entirely of opinions about what makes a "good" auxlang. Good for what purpose? According to who? I'm sure that many auxlangers would disagree about many of these points, which is why we don't put opinions and original research into wikipedia articles. If you have a citable statement to add, such as "According to the Foobar University Auxlang Study Group's 1978 experiments (link), lack of consonant clusters ease learning of auxiliary languages" then please add it. Wikipedia's function is not to tell people how to find the "best" constructed auxlangs, and it's not the place to put anyone's personal yardsticks, yours or mine. DenisMoskowitz 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be bad to have a section on "Design criteria", but it needs to be written neutrally and sources to particular writings by particular people who argue for specific design criteria. I think we could easily find cites from LL Zamenhof, Otto Jesperson, Edward Sapir, Alexander Gode, Rick Harrison, and some others; would those sources be sufficient to make such a section broadly-based and neutral enough? --Jim Henry (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Latin as an international language[edit]

Wasn't Latin used as a sort of international language at one point? It is not a constructed language, so it would be an oddball in this article, but I believe that at one point, when scholars published works that they believed would be of international significance, they would often publish them in Latin. Take for example "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" by Isaac newton. He was an English scholar, but he published the book in Latin (Don't know Latin, and never read the book, but I'm pretty sure it was in Latin!) I also believe that at one point Latin was a very common (or even standard) part of western education. I think that it is reasonable to assume that part of the reason for this was to facilitate international communication. Sure, it was a language for scholars mostly, but it was international, and auxiliary, so it may have a place in this article beyond just being the basis for many other languages. --SCooley138 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're looking for can be found under lingua franca, which is to say natural languages that are used cross-culturally for trade or scholarship. --199.185.132.4 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is what I was looking for. However, it makes me wonder about the title of the article. Perhaps it should be 'Constructed international auxiliary language' as lingua franca and and International auxiliary language are functionally equivalent. The main difference being that one is natural, and the other is not. This is especially true of the modern use of Latin, as it is a dead language, and no one speaks it as a mother tongue. SCooley138 (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjuvilo[edit]

The language "Adjuvilo" was created in the year 1910 and not like in the article stated 1908 by Claudius Colas. The book of Colas on Adjuvilo was published 1910. It was designed as "reformed and simplified Ido". The theory that it was invented to confuse Idists has no sufficient proof. Valodnieks (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objective criteria to admit an auxlang at the list of the most notable in history[edit]

I suggest the following levels of importance:

  1. Top level: those having an own Wikipedia (Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, Interlingue, Novial, Interlingua, Lojban).
  2. Those having an official language code by ISO [2]
  3. Those having at least their own article at Wikipedia.
  4. Insuficient level: those having not an own Wikipedia, not a language code by ISO, not an own article at Wikipedia. These, in my opinion, should be out of the list.

Any further criteria will be welcome. --Xabadiar (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the different between the last two levels if anyone can create an auxlang or edit Wikipedia? I think that my particular keyboard setup is the best, but writing an article (on wikipedia or elsewhere) does not make it noteworthy enough. Real objective measurements include statistics on the well-knownness/compleness/active use of a particular auxlang. 220.253.57.75 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Having their own Wikipedia" and "having an article at Wikipedia" are kind of self-referencing, which is against policies. I'm not so very sure about the ISO code either - it's a pretty weird collection over there: some were added just because someone mentioned them on a mailing list, others were added because someone took the effort to apply for one officially. I'm afraid there are only two things that really can make a difference: that's a) number of users (both now and in the past), and b) coverage in books, the media, scientific press etc. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that a "most notable" project ought to be at least ten years old — long enough for the buzz of novelty to fade. —Tamfang (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another criterion (easy to meet): is it on Mark Rosenfelder's list? —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed languages. Presence on the Web[edit]

Google searches. 12/30/2012

Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks

YuraniA (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun:

Google searches. 11/13/2013

Language - {ISO code} - # results

  • Na'vi - 365,000,000
  • Esperanto - {EO} - 86,100,000
  • Ido language - {IO} - 17,000,000
  • Toki Pona - 13,900,000
  • Klingon - {TLH} - 11,900,000
  • Volapük - {VO} - 5,600,000
  • Quenya - {QYA} - 3,690,000
  • Sindarin - {SJN} - 3,560,000
  • Interlingue Wahl - {IE} - 839,000
  • Brithenig - {BZT} - 615,000
  • Lingua Franca Nova - {LFN} - 555,000
  • Slovio - 418,000
  • Lojban - {JBO} - 395,000
  • Unish - 256,000
  • Novial language - {NOV} - 240,000
  • Láadan - {LDN} - 158,000
  • Glosa language - 132,000
  • Kotava language - {AVK} - 83,400
  • Interlingua IALA - {IA} - 50,600
  • Interglossa - {IGS} - 49,600
  • Mondlango - 31,700
  • Uropi - 26,800
  • Slovianski - 24,400
  • Lingwa de Planeta - 24,300
  • Europanto - 22,200
  • Sambahsa - 10,900

Cgboeree (talk)

One more time: Google searches. 26/04/2014

Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks

  • Esperanto - {EO} - 41 500 000
  • Ido - {IO} - 35 000 000 (Ido language - 11 400 000)
  • Klingon - {TLH} - 4 680 000
  • Toki Pona - {not ISO} - 2 830 000
  • Volapük - {VO} - 2 250 000
  • Interlingua - {IA} - 2 210 000
  • Kotava - {AVK} - 1 250 000
  • Quenya - {QYA} - 1 180 000
  • Sindarin - {SJN} - 1 130 000
  • Interlingue - {IE} - 892 000
  • Slovio - {not ISO} - 627 000
  • Novial - {NOV} - 527 000
  • Lingua Franca Nova - {LFN} - 473 000
  • Lojban - {JBO} - 405 000
  • Brithenig - {BZT} - 393 000
  • Lingwa de Planeta - {not ISO} - 204 000
  • Na'vi - {not ISO} - 1 900 000 (Na'vi language - 166 000)
  • Láadan - {LDN} - 101 000
  • Interglossa - {IGS} - 46 800
  • Mondlango - {not ISO} - 32 400
  • Europanto - {EUR, no more ISO} - 20 900
  • Uropi - {not ISO} - 27 500
  • Sambahsa - {not ISO} - 9 780

Sunnynai

Diff. between auxlangs, lingua francas, and pidgins[edit]

I read the first paragraph of this article and thought it could also be the explanation of a lingua franca or a pidgin. Maybe that means I wasn't patient enough to keep reading the subsequent paragraphs, or maybe that means these concepts can overlap in a Venn diagram, but I do expect some more precision in the first paragraph. I imagine tacking on something like "it is usually constructed" could help with this problem while keeping the paragraph succinct. 98.201.105.80 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mondlango[edit]

Why Mondlango's page has been deleted on WP (English, it is present on other languages)? This language is not less notable than many others which have their WP page. This is unfair and this is an obstruction to knowledge. I wish someone expert with WP (which I'm not) can restore it. Cazaux (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ease/difficulty of learning of natural auxlangs and cultural associations of them needs a source[edit]

Hi, everyone,

I've been watching this article for a while, and have reviewed sources on the topic of international auxiliary languages recently while working on other articles. I think the article statement "Since all natural languages display a number of irregularities in grammar which makes them more difficult to learn, and they are also associated with the national and cultural dominance of the nation that speaks it as its mother tongue" badly needs a source both on the point of what makes languages difficult to learn (I have no reason to believe that is grammatical irregularity, mostly) and on the point of natural languages being associated with particular countries (as many natural languages plainly are spoken in multiple countries and have no particular cultural association). These statements currently stand in the article with no reliable sources cited at all to support them. I think if we all dig into reliable sources together it will be possible to expand the discussion in this section of the article (and other sections too) and possible to collaboratively craft a more nuanced discussion of trade-offs involved in using one language rather than another as an international auxiliary language. I look forward to your suggestions of sources. I have gathered some sources already, but you can help by suggesting others. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International auxiliary language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I've deleted the following from the first paragraph of § Esperanto:

also, Esperanto is neutral as it does not favour the speakers and the economy of certain nations

Although Esperanto was designed with the intention to be neutral with respect to the source languages, in fact its root vocabulary is largely drawn from Romance languages (French and Italian), with some significant contributions from German and English, bits of Slavic, and some grammatical morphemes invented (notably the correlatives) or non-transparently back-formed from those sources. "Neutrality" is, or was, a common claim among Esperantists, but it has certainly been validly disputed. I may or may not be able to find some references for this difference in POVs. --Thnidu (talk), >50 years an Esperantist 00:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where is this from?[edit]

It sounds good and is very interesting, but where does "international auxiliary language" come from? Is it a term used in linguistics, with good sources? Context is necessary or it sounds like someone's "theory". References, please, of the most basic kind. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardson mcphillips: Well, it's a pretty transparent phrase. The only non-explicit aspect of its meaning is that it's used only to refer to artificial languages intended for international auxiliary use, as opposed to national languages that get used that way, like English today.
A couple of early uses:


1. 1908
That international auxiliary language is best which in every point offers the greatest facility to the greatest number - Otto Jespersen, quoted on the home page of website International Auxiliary Languages


2. 1910
From § International Auxiliary Language § Scholarly studies:
In the early 1900s auxlangs were already becoming a subject of academic study. Louis Couturat et al.[1] described the controversy in the preface to their book International Language and Science:
The question of a so-called world-language, or better expressed, an international auxiliary language, was during the now past Volapük period, and is still in the present Esperanto movement, so much in the hands of Utopians, fanatics and enthusiasts, that it is difficult to form an unbiased opinion concerning it, although a good idea lies at its basis. (1910, p. v).


3. 1924
The International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA) was founded in 1924 to "promote widespread study, discussion and publicity of all questions involved in the establishment of an auxiliary language, together with research and experiment that may hasten such establishment in an intelligent manner and on stable foundations." --
From International Auxiliary Language Association, Outline of Program, 1924, p. 9; quoted in International Auxiliary Language Association.

References

  1. ^ L. Couturat, O. Jespersen, R. Lorenz, W.Ostwalkd and L.Pfaundler. International Language and Science: Considerations on the Introduction of an International Language into Science. 1910.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC) thanks. Yes, the concept is clear. I think a reference at the first spot possible to an international organization would indicate that, as I suggested, this is not original research, but an actual existing thing. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardson mcphillips: I found the Jespersen quote, from 1908, and am adding it in order to the list above. --Thnidu (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardson mcphillips: When you speak of showing that "this is not original research", are you referring to the term and title or to the content of the article? WP:OR usually refers to content, and I think the refs given are quite adequate for that. I don't think most articles, even technical ones with unfamiliar terms as titles, are required to prove the validity of their terminology. --Thnidu (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point - no one would have to justify a title "English grammar" for an article about English grammar. But the EFN helps (although I only see it when I look at the history, not when I hover over it)Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardson mcphillips: (By the way,please {{ ping}} me when replying.) I'll try to work it into the intro text. --Thnidu (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International auxiliary language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What's the Point?[edit]

I came here to understand the point. Specifically, to understand why anyone should learn an IAL. To be honest, I still don't understand. Maybe this is a failure on my part to agree with the need for IAL's; maybe it is a failure of the article to clearly explain the reason behind them; maybe it is a failure of the IAL's in general. I speak Spanish and Portuguese. If I was going to "pick-up" another language, German or French would be more helpful. It seems that by far, the most common auxiliary language (perhaps it is approaching internationalism) is English. It seems to be the most widely accepted and preferred auxiliary language in South America, Europe, Africa and to a lesser extent the Middle East (I haven't been to the far east). This discussion section isn't intended to be a criticism. I'm just highlighting my unanswered questions. --Lacarids (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English hasn't been the most common auxiliary language forever – it only really acquired that status after 1945. Before that, French was an arguably stronger contender, rivalled by English and German, with none clearly predominating. That situation had been in place since Latin ceased to function in the role of most common auxiliary language – at least in Europe, at least for scholars – sometime in the 19th century at the latest. Guess what: that's exactly when the first IALs were developed (there was even an auxlang craze in the 19th century, though philosophical languages formed precursors of the idea), to basically replace Latin. And still everyone is not happy with English; its morphology may be considerably more simple than Latin, but it has other drawbacks, such as its weird vowel system and spelling, but especially the fact that – while Latin had virtually no native speakers in the modern era – English has lots of native speakers, who are at an extreme natural advantage, and the situation also resulting in cultural biases, leading to the dominance of English to be perceived as yet another form of colonialism by many, such as in Latin America. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lacarids: I see you've edited this year, so it's worth pinging you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_auxiliary_language/Archive_2&oldid=1136821176"