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