tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 11:01:31 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey

Quoting "...Paul" <>:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > The point of a language is not that it live. It is not that it evolve
> > naturally. The point of a language is that it do what the language
> > community wants it to do. Usually these are the same thing. With
> > artificial languages, they are not.

> The community?  Or the majority?  I think you're sitting happily in a
> conservative majority, blinded to the constant line of people who come in
> here with a minority opinion.  [...]

> > The Esperanto community is committed to Esperanto remaining backward
> > compatible with the 1887 prescription. And so it always will.

> Ooo, but you see, back in 1887, Esperanto was intending to become a real
> language.

I disagree with this statement...

> The European community has long been looking for a way to unite
> the countries, because there are so many completely different languages
> being used in an area that maintains constant trade.  The EU has made
> strides to consolidate on a currency, Esperanto was a century-old attempt
> at consolidating on a language that could be used as a common point in a
> multi-lingual environment.

This is what made it important that it be an artificial language (no
nationalism forming prejudices against it), and as such that it not
mutate (it's usefulness will be preserved).  In this sense, it was designed
very much to NOT become a "real language".

> Now perhaps you can argue that Klingon never had and never will have any
> such lofty goals, but then I would contend that in fact, Klingon is thus
> only intended to be a toy language.

Don't confuse "goals" with "usefulness".  If Dr. Zamenhof had proposed
Klingon in 1887, and Okrand had invented Esperanto for the Star Trek
franchise, would you still think Klingon needed expanding?

This mail sent through IMP:

Back to archive top level