|
#11
| |||
| |||
| That doesn't do anything to affect the power of it. Artifical languages lack the number and power to gain any serious backing- they have always been fringe things. Where's the artificial language lobby. Wikipedia estimates the numbers as betweeon 100,000 and two million, which is scarcely an impressive result in well over a hundred years. Quote:
Where is this rich literature? Here's Gutenberg's list: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/lang...o.html.utf8.gz That's probably wishful thinking. The Chinese are gearing up for a huge internmational event in the Beijing Olympics. Have they decided to plug Mondlango for the event? Are we being informed that a smattering of Mondlango will help us get around the city? Last edited by Tdol; 23-Feb-2007 at 10:27. |
|
#12
| |||
| |||
| The theory behind articifal languages is nice, but they run up against several thousand years of human culture and history and have no serious backers. There is tendency among those promoting them to regard 'wouldn't it be nice?' as a serious policy. The greatest irony of all is that there are dozens of universal artificial languages doing the rounds. |
|
#13
| |||
| |||
| Your Mondlango idea is indeed very naive: 1. Langauge follows democratic principles. It cannot be imposed by dictators. Can you then order people to speak the way you want them? 2. Language is organic - living- (dynamic) subject to change and evolution. Even if you impose an artificial language it will soon evolve and change ie become as varied as English or other languages. Soon new dialects, varieties and phonetic systems emerge. In the end you will find yourself experience the same linguistic situation you are experiencing now. Babylon will never stop changing. Even if English replaces other languages it will soon give birth to more than what Latin gave birth to. Mothers hopefully stay capable of childbearing as long as they are in childbearing age. 3. Language is what makes us human. In addition it is an emotional issue. It is your culture and identity. But I do believe identity based on language leads to conflicts and human suffering. Still language is the medium which makes culture and thought possible. Do you think your artificial language can lead to a new way of thinking? The fact that Esperanto failed proves the absurdity of such ideas even if they are based on living languages. 4. Natural languages defy any thing which is precise. They allow ambiguity and make literature, metaphor and pragmatics possible. They are always superior in their power. There is no match. Last edited by Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim; 23-Feb-2007 at 16:14. |
|
#14
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#15
| |||
| |||
| hi well english nowadays is a lingua franca so every one should learn it and in general i dont think it is intricate language .for me it's easy to learn people should read a lot |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| mondlango |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |