Artificial Languages: Is There An Ideal Balance?

An Ideal International Language?

There are several elements that would likely be required for any artificial language to be accepted into official status as an international language. There are also several reasons why it would be difficult. The following arguments both for and against the concept are drawn from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal (I’ve got an old copy I found at a used book store, it is really an amazing resource on world languages in general and on the Queen’s English in particular. I recommend it to anyone.)

Generally, an ideal artificial language (AL) would be:

Easy to learn The grammar should be regular and simple; the meanings of words and compound words must be based on well-defined principles; the spelling should be phonetic; and there should be no difficult sounds.

Able to be translated Translations into and out of other natural languages would be made easier by the use of universal features of languages and root words that have a history of international use. There would need to be a flexible structure that allows for the expression of idiom from each speakers own language.

Wide-ranging in function Besides the ordinary daily uses of language in speech and writing, the AL would need to work for specialized language uses in: technology, business, politics, religion, medicine and more. And it would need to be used in international media from satellite transmissions to video games.

Standardized Ideally, there should be no regional variations or dialects. The idea is maintain control over intelligibility in the long-term. Some sort of governing group would decide on any changes.

Neutral It must be balanced both in terms of linguistic sources and geo-political baggage, making it more acceptable to all countries.

Rational and Logical I know that sounds like something Mr. Spock might say, but some supporters of AL feel, for example, that world-wide acceptance of a common language would be an important step toward a unity of mankind and world peace. Many also feel that the improved clarity of an AL would more logically link words and ideas, a language that would encourage people to think more philosophically about the nature of reality.

While the world-wide acceptance of an AL would seem to be a positive step. Critics point to a variety of social, political and linguistic problems. Some are discussed below:

Motivation The problem is getting people to learn a new language when no one else knows it either. Zamenhof, aka. Doktoro Esperanto, attempted to address the problem by asking people to sign a form included in his book. They were asked to “…promise to learn the international language proposed by Dr. Esperanto, if it appears that 10 million people have publicly given the same promise”. He was going to publish a book with all of their names and addresses, so that part hasn’t really worked out….

National Identity Many linguistic differences can be explained by the use of language to represent national, regional or social identities. Nationalism may magnify the perceived importance of those linguistic differences. By design, ALs do not allow for these differences.

Linguistic bias In the venacular, developing a simple and common language is “easier said, than done”. The majority of ALs are based on western Indo-European languages in terms of vocabulary, grammar, syntax and alphabet. Some are criticized for relying too heavily on a Latin model, or Germanic or elements of the Slavic languages. Obviously this could present a problem for speakers of Asian, or Arabic languages. A reminder is given “to not underestimate the diversity of the world’s languages”.

Semantic differences Differences in meaning can exist between languages. Often words cannot be translated to mean exactly the same thing.  So it means that even if speakers translate their native language into an AL, they still may not understand each other any better.

Antagonism Groups that promote universal language tend to be very focused, well, let’s face it: They are often considered kooks, or worse. ‘Esperanto, in particular, has been frequently persecuted–notably in Germany and the former Soviet Union in the 1930s, when the organization was suppressed and many of its members arrested or shot.’ It was often characterized as the “language of spies”.

Okay, now for the interesting part, examples of English translated into five different ALs. These examples again come from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.

First, the English version.  “For, of the things that mankind possesses in common, nothing is so truly universal and international as science.”

Esperanto “Char el la komunaj posedajhoj de la homaro, neniu estas tiel vere ghenerala kaj internacia kiel la scienco.”

Ido “Nam del kozi, quin la homaro posedas komune, nula es tam vere universala ed internaciona kam la cienco.”

Novial “Den ek li coses kel li homaro posese comunim, nuli is tam verim general e international kam li scientie.”

Occidental “Nam de omni comun possedages del homanite niun is tam vermen general e international quam scientie.”

Latino Sine Flexione “Nam, de commune possessiones de genere humano, nihil es tam generale et internationale quam scientia.”

Wow, I can see some patterns there, but I think it is hard to say from a sample this size. This next part is in an AL called Interlingua, believe me it has no connection wih the well-known but little respected franchise patito school of English of the same name (Want to know how bad this place is? Please take a look at the post the ‘Top-Ten Signs of a Patito’. At least four of the signs come directly from this ‘school’).

This sample is larger but seems much easier to understand.

And a test in Interlingua Try translating this, the answer is below.

“Tote le membros del communicate de linguas occidental son in un certe senso dialectos individual que devia plus o minus de un patrono commun. De iste facto son derivite tote le principos methodic supportante le compilation del Dictionario Interlingua–Anglese. Le termine interlingua es solomente un synonymo plus technic de lingua de patrono. Illo representa un lingua que es international proque su elementos existe de facto o potentialmente in un gruppo de linguas national”.

In English “All of the members of the western community of languages are in a sense individual dialects which deviate more or less from a common pattern. From this fact are derived all the working principles underlyng the compliation of the Interlingua–English Dictionary. The term interlingua is merely a more technical synonym of pattern language. It stands for a language that is international because its elements exist actually or potentially in a group of national languages”.

If I were to be asked, I would say that the last example, Interlingua, would seem to support the idea of a blending of English and Spanish (and Portuguese) that could be used effectively to communicate across the whole of the western-hemisphere in a common language.  Not exactly the “unity of mankind and world peace” often promoted by the supporters of ALs, but I guess we have to start somewhere.