There are three different types of decisions, if you are designing an auxiliary language. (1) Collecting words from as many languages as possible, (2) forming words minimally dependent on any existing languages, (3) choosing only the most common words from existing languages.

(1) makes your language harder than any other existing language, because you need to memorize more words, and you need to learn even more complex grammar from every existing language. It can be neutral, but it just becomes harder, satisfying nobody on Earth except the creator. By the way, do you know how many languages there are on Earth?

(2) There are many minimalistic languages, independent from existing languages, and some of them are good ones. How many words do you think we need to create a minimal language? Certainly not 10,000 nor 1,000. That's too much for minimalistic languages. How about 100? We have already such a language with 125 words -- Toki Pona. But the utmost minimal language has just 2 words. Scientists know that it's very efficient to have a binary language. These are simpler than others. Please take time to see some of these simpler, completely independent from natural languages. You may find these types of languages are just for computers or some other robotic races, not for us.

(3) So we have to choose words in some balanced sense. How to choose the most common, optimal part of all possible scenarios? I don't think you would choose words from Arabic languages, if you have a balanced sense about the whole globe. You wouldn't choose any language groups from Africa, Oceania or native America. Obviously because more people become unhappy.

If you consider the whole world, you have only two viable options in fact -- choosing common words from (a) Indo-european language group or words from (b) Chinese language group (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese in consideration). As a Korean who studied all these neighboring languages, I can certainly say, that (a) is a better choice, because (b) is dependent on Chinese letters (Ideograms) which share the meaning but not the sound. The sound among these languages is quite different and it completely prevents mutual understanding. You don't want to bring pencil with you to draw letters to 'speak', do you? My ancestors did that, hundred years ago, when they travel Asian world.

Trust me. Esperanto is a very balanced choice, resulting from a really really serious study, and that's why Esperanto is equally loved by Asian, Arabian, and African people.

Posted by nomota multilingual

댓글을 달아 주세요

Esperanto en Azio (Komisiono de UEA pri Azia Esperanto-Movado)

N-ro 88 Bulteno de KAEM Julio 2015


Posted by nomota multilingual

댓글을 달아 주세요

Project Proposal: Can we clean up the entire internet of 'wrong Rust' codes at once?

A few days ago, Rust-lang announced the first 1.0 stability promise, after years of radically fast changes. So I think a lot of people will pay attention to it, because Rust language promises a whole new level of programming experience.

I'm one of those who were attracted by that promises and fancy features.

Alas, however even though Rust-lang has reached it's 1.0 stability, the accumulated garbage written in older style of syntax still remain in the entire internet, and leads new comers into trouble. They just don't compile.

People including me learns programming by 'searching', not by official manual. So the existing, old-style of codes scattered in the Internet keeps beginners scared away because they just don't compile.

There must be a certain and urgent remedy for this, if Rust community wants to grow fast enough. 

Here's my campaign idea: 
"Clean Rust Off" campaign. -- contact all blog writers and stackexchange writers and send an request to update their codes compatible with Rust-1.0.

I think we need to do it intensely in short period of time, say 2~3 months, because so many newcomers are banned out by old wrong blog posts.

Posted by nomota multilingual

댓글을 달아 주세요