Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!mit-athena!jc
From: jc@mit-athena.ARPA (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Esperanto->English translator and grammar posted to net.sources
Message-ID: <70@mit-athena.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 14:10:23 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.70
Posted: Wed Dec 12 14:10:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 02:43:14 EST
References: <298@spp2.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 40


Just a note about the claims for uniqueness of Esperanto.  Far from it!
For instance, there is a large chunk of Africa where the dominant language
is Swahili, which originated as an artificial language.  I grew up in the
Pacific Northwest, where there are still people to be found that speak
Chinook, another artificial language that was spoken throughout what is
now Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia until the area was taken 
over by English speakers.

The obvious objection is "But these were just 'trade languages', based on 
some local aboriginal languages".  So is Esperanto.  Its avowed purpose, 
to allow easy communication among people who speak a lot of different 
languages, is the reasons these other languages were developed.  Esperanto
is just as local, being only easy to those who are fluent in the major
languages of Europe.  This is very similar to the bases of Swahili and
Chinook in the locally dominant languages.

Of course, in this century, Europeans and their descendants (including
myself) are rather culturally dominant in much of the world.  It is easy
to understand why Esperantists might not have noticed that their languages
wasn't the first of its type.  On the other hand, nobody should be allowed
to make such a claim unchallenged.

Any linguistics degree program worthy of the name will introduce its
students to several classes of unusual languages.  There are pidgins;
not "real" languages but very interesting to linguists, historians, and
psychologists.  There are creoles; equally interesting to the same groups,
and to others because they are practical, useful languages.  (English
originated as an Anglo-Saxon/French creole.)  There are artificial
languages, mostly trade languages.  There are revived or reconstructed
languages. (Modern Hebrew and Icelandic are two very different examples.)
There are dead languages kept alive for reasons (usually religious).
There are jargons, with which we are all familiar; some (such as modern
mathematics) practically become new languages in their own right.

Real artificial languages are in fact quite rare.  Does anyone out there
have any good descriptions of some others beside the three listed above?

				John Chambers