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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Please discuss your differences here. Ideogram 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please try to avoid editing the disputed material until you reach agreement here. Ideogram 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please don't revert war. Ideogram 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
User:Towelhead wrote: "....the main reason for the steady decline of Esperanto's popularity...."
"....the total number of fluent Esperanto speakers is on the order of a few hundred...."
"....All artificial auxlangs are linguistic experiments and should be treated as such. The only substantial difference between them is their design."
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is mediation still required here or can I close the case? -- Ideogram 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have removed the tag because I am confident that the issues have been addressed. Cgboeree ( talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
-these citations are not in english, so I dont know how to verify them
-doesnt make much sense in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.107.183 ( talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
I added the following info. User DenisMoskowitz deleted it.
____________
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)
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)
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)
I suggest the following levels of importance:
Any further criteria will be welcome. -- Xabadiar ( talk) 09:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Google searches. 12/30/2012
Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks
YuraniA ( talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Just for fun:
Google searches. 11/13/2013
Language - {ISO code} - # results
One more time: Google searches. 26/04/2014
Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the following from the first paragraph of § Esperanto:
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)
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)
References
-- 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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Please discuss your differences here. Ideogram 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please try to avoid editing the disputed material until you reach agreement here. Ideogram 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please don't revert war. Ideogram 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
User:Towelhead wrote: "....the main reason for the steady decline of Esperanto's popularity...."
"....the total number of fluent Esperanto speakers is on the order of a few hundred...."
"....All artificial auxlangs are linguistic experiments and should be treated as such. The only substantial difference between them is their design."
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is mediation still required here or can I close the case? -- Ideogram 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have removed the tag because I am confident that the issues have been addressed. Cgboeree ( talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
-these citations are not in english, so I dont know how to verify them
-doesnt make much sense in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.107.183 ( talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
I added the following info. User DenisMoskowitz deleted it.
____________
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)
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)
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)
I suggest the following levels of importance:
Any further criteria will be welcome. -- Xabadiar ( talk) 09:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Google searches. 12/30/2012
Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks
YuraniA ( talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Just for fun:
Google searches. 11/13/2013
Language - {ISO code} - # results
One more time: Google searches. 26/04/2014
Language - {ISO code} - # results - remarks
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the following from the first paragraph of § Esperanto:
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)
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)
References
-- 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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
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)