Some Immediate Questions and Answers

 

(a) Isn't English already the IAL?

(b) Isn't Esperanto a perfectly adequate IAL?

(c) Aren't there more than enough IAL projects already?

(d) What kind of IAL might the ILC select?

(e) Why should the ILC choose a solution on the LangX model?

(f) How could the ILC steer a developing IAL?

 

(a) Isn't English already the IAL for all practical purposes?

Not really, though some of its proponents in the media might convey that impression. English does have semi-official status in a few specialised fields, including air and maritime telecommunications, but even there its use is far from universal. Having said that, it's undoubtedly true that English is the leading auxiliary language in the world today, and will continue as such for a long time to come - whatever is decided concerning the IAL. As for English itself being officially selected, we think it most unlikely - for historical political reasons, and because of an irregular spelling system which has proved highly resistant to reform.

Moreover, as has often been pointed out, the pre-eminence of the English language relates more to the current status of English-speaking civilisation than to its inherent qualities. If the dominance of the English-speaking countries - which has arguably lasted from 1815 to the present - were to be superseded, the English language might consequently be expected to go the way of Ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic and French. The demise of the British Empire, the relative economic decline of America, the reversion of several ex-colonies to native languages, the establishment of rival languages in former English-speaking heartlands, and the continued political and cultural opposition to the English language from various quarters in several countries - all these are indications that the dethronement of English might already be proceeding.

 

(b) OK, an existing national language might not be the answer, but is there any doubt about the alternative? Esperanto remains way ahead of other constructed languages, and is a perfectly adequate IAL which only needs support. Esperanto's official adoption and consequent implementation through educational systems worldwide would be hastened if sites such as this promoted it.

Esperanto is an excellent piece of work which will continue to inform and inspire the IAL movement in many ways. However, Esperanto has failed to gain the popular world-wide support necessary to become de facto IAL.

An International Language Commission (ILC) might extract the best elements from all languages and gradually combine them in a single evolving IAL. Dr Ludwig Zamenhof had a similar motivation in creating Esperanto 120 years ago, so in effect the ILC would be revising Esperanto.

 

(c) Aren't there more than enough IAL projects already? Do we really need another?

Rather than increasing the number of IAL projects by one, the intention is to reduce them to one, by means of a hierarchy, in which the best elements of all languages will find their place.

The exact composition of this hierarchic global language cannot be known at this stage, so the name LangX suggests a void to be gradually filled in, under the guidance of the ILC.

 

(d) Would it be possible to guess what kind of IAL an International Language Commission (ILC) might select?

Leaving aside the question of LangX for now, a solid consensus of opinion believes that the following linguistic attributes would be desirable in an initial IAL:

(1) alphabetic script - logographic scripts take many times longer to learn

(2) orthographic script - one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds with no duplicated or silent letters

(3) regular grammar, with the simplest possible rules, and no exceptions

(4) no linguistic genders

(5) an international vocabulary - with the eventual goal of words from as many languages as possible

(6) no synonyms - only one word or name for each thing

 

(e) Why should the ILC choose a solution on the LangX model?

The LangX model not only contains the six attributes listed above but also conforms to features validated by the only unconditionally-successful route to a new constructed common language: the historic sequence I have termed the jargon -> pidgin -> vernacular -> progression (JPVP). The only difference between the LangX model and the JPVP is that of scale, the former pertaining to the world in the immediate future, whereas JPVP sequences have occurred historically in discrete areas. There is no inherent reason why what has worked historically on a localised scale should not work in the near future on the global scale.

 

(f) How could the ILC create a language which is also evolving "naturally" in the body of users at the same time?

It would be necessary to balance these potentially opposing tendencies. The ILC should be neither too active or prescriptive nor too passive or descriptive. The former might cause it to attempt to guide the language too rapidly, or in a direction the body of users were not prepared to take; the latter would allow for irregularity, such as had been sanctioned by mass usage. Harmonising these centralising and decentralising forces might not be easy, but a properly constituted committee, engaged in a continuous process of consultation with all interested parties, and taking a strictly (though not exclusively) scientific approach to all linguistic questions, should allow both centre and periphery to evolve together.

 

antonyalexander@langx.org

 

 

Homepage

Criticisms

Next

LangX

Phonology

Links