Talk:International auxiliary language/Archive 1

message: International language redirects here, however I think "international language" and "international auxiliary language" have different nuances. International language would be like (at one point in history, according to some people's perspectives) English, French, or Latin. As support for the claim that today's international language is English, most countries' schools that call themselves "international schools" teach in English. Also, any of the six official languages of UN may be considered international, to a degree. On the other hand, international auxiliary language has been used mostly by people interested in conlangs, a.k.a. artificial languages. —Tokek 04:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International language 

message: Voting has started on the conlang notability/verifiablity criteria at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on conlang policy has started 

message: I've trimmed the list a bit, trying to give the benefit of the doubt to marginal cases.--Chris 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fasile should be kept on. It's the only one of those languages I've heard of, and I know there has been some considerable discussion on it by Esperantists. Andrew 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Andrew--Chris 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response. I agree with moving the list. I don't agree with keeping uncompleted projects as a rule; I'm not sure about OMPs. Perhaps they should have their own category, Minor Projects. A German interlinguistics specialist (yes, it's his real job), Detlev Blanke, worked out a scale for evaluating the impact of IALs. I should document it. It's rather biased toward Esperanto, but at least it would give us a tool for separating major and minor projects.--Chris 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to see that scale. Anyway, glad you approve. I have some comments regarding the deletions you made on the new page, but I'll address them there. In the meantime: we have a brand new Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages. In case you're interested, feel free to add your name to the list of participants and give any input you like! —IJzeren Jan  In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming the list 

message: * Atlango. OMP. 
* Fasile. Claims 500 users (improbably)
* Mondlango. Functioning egroup.
* Romanica. OMP, some interest by Interlinguists
* Romanico. Apparently OMP, despite probably fictional history on Babel website.
* Romanid. Some historical interest, but maybe not enough to retain it.
* Romanova. OMP.
* Slovio. Some interest, developed by prof. linguist.
::Fasile should be kept on. It's the only one of those languages I've heard of, and I know there has been some considerable discussion on it by Esperantists. Andrew 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Andrew--Chris 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spared, for now 

message: I would even go a little further: remove this list entirely. The problem is that we already have too many lists around. Both this page and the list of constructed languages contain a list of IALs. Likewise, we have no less than three different lists of fictional languages, not even to mention the ones listed on the list of constructed languages. And the latter does not even mention the existence of engineered languages. It's a mess, really. So what I will do, is to merge all these lists into one (a renewed list of constructed languages), and replacing all the lists on pages like this one with a link to the corresponding section. I hope you'll understand that and agree with me.
As for your deletions: I agree that Ceqli, Living Latin and Lojban shouldn't be on a list of IALs, because they belong primarily to other language families. But I do not agree that OMPs should be ruled out by definition, nor should uncompleted projects. Such a language will probably suck as an IAL, but it may very well be notable for different reasons. Besides, one of the conclusions of many previous AfDs was that even if a language does not warrant an article on its own that does not mean that it may not be included in a list of languages. 
So don't feel offended if some of the languages you deleted will reemerge on the list I've prepared, and feel free to edit at will. Do however keep in mind what I wrote above. And of course, if you find articles about IALs that you believe are not notable enough for inclusion, do not hesitate to nominate them for deletion. —IJzeren Jan  In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I agree with moving the list. I don't agree with keeping uncompleted projects as a rule; I'm not sure about OMPs. Perhaps they should have their own category, Minor Projects. A German interlinguistics specialist (yes, it's his real job), Detlev Blanke, worked out a scale for evaluating the impact of IALs. I should document it. It's rather biased toward Esperanto, but at least it would give us a tool for separating major and minor projects.--Chris 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to see that scale. Anyway, glad you approve. I have some comments regarding the deletions you made on the new page, but I'll address them there. In the meantime: we have a brand new Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages. In case you're interested, feel free to add your name to the list of participants and give any input you like! —IJzeren Jan  In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My response 

message: ===Proposal for Creating constant IDs for Wikipedia===
I think that Wikipedia could contribute this progress by creating Wiki of concepts and topics, so that people could register their concepts.
First while getting to know various ways of data syndycation (microformats, RSS, etc.), I thought of this:
Imagine that every article in Wikipedia has a unique ID that people could easily see, so they could index their content in the blogs and elsewhere semantically, depending on the topics that their content is related with.
<wikipedia ids="123124, 12441, 1583"> HTML </wikipedia>
This could give an advantage to see all the semantically related content on the web, rather than searching through the variety of ways to direct the same thing, 
which makes searching difficult, as we have to try out various synonims for the same thing. You could easily find what people are writing on the web on a specific topic in Wikipedia
Considering that knowing the subject is half-way to communicating any thought, browsers could automatically show the subjects, so people could much faster understand what the text is about, in their language, if possible.
However, there are so many subjects in the world, and Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, wouldn't allow so easily register your new subjects, related with specific persons that don't have a userpage, etc., that there would be a requirement of a new specialized database - a wiki for topics. (I think concepts and some of the most most important world's topics could be covered by the Wikipedia).
After we had these numbers for the concepts (Wikipedia) and topics (Wiki???), and these are started being used, they could be learned, and people would learn them just because they will have to use them for the markup.
After that we could further search for the ways to create the language, but the thing is, that there might need no grammar, just flow of concepts could be enough to tell quite a lot of thoughts.
When everyone starts thinking in concepts rather than in sentences, they would say something like:
[time]-[condition] [people]-[beginning]-[frequent] [concept]-[type]-[thought]-[style] [infrequent]-[sentence]-[style]-[thought] [consequence] [people]-[talk] [instant]-[posession] [this]-[sort]-[thing]: ...
--
[my]-[thought] [future] [we] [posession] [few]-[grammar]. [reason]: [grammar] [no] [need]. [reason]: [any]-[thought] [ability]-[expression] [concept]-[usage]-[only]-[method].
--
Yea, I know, to think in concepts is something unusual to our brains, as brain is not used to quickly abstract and find the proper concepts to express something. We are used to english or else what.
However, what is the closest to this conceptual method, is perhaps Chinese language, which has perhaps the simplest grammar in the world, and thoughts are kind of made up this way, by agglutinating characters that have concepts.
I have not learned Chinese (only Japanese), but I made such an impression from very little of experience.
Sentence like "How is your mom's and dad's work?(going)"
[you] [mom] [dad] [work] [how]?
I mean, they don't have any conjugation or inflections, and still convey the meaning. You get used to it, and it sounds natural.
If we had those IDs for concepts (or at least of Wikipedia provided constant IDs for concepts inside of it), these things could start happening from indexing the content on the web I think..
(consider this as a personal note for future consideration)
Inyuki 15:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas on principles of creating the IAL 

message: I think that Wikipedia could contribute this progress by creating Wiki of concepts and topics, so that people could register their concepts.
First while getting to know various ways of data syndycation (microformats, RSS, etc.), I thought of this:
Imagine that every article in Wikipedia has a unique ID that people could easily see, so they could index their content in the blogs and elsewhere semantically, depending on the topics that their content is related with.
<wikipedia ids="123124, 12441, 1583"> HTML </wikipedia>
This could give an advantage to see all the semantically related content on the web, rather than searching through the variety of ways to direct the same thing, 
which makes searching difficult, as we have to try out various synonims for the same thing. You could easily find what people are writing on the web on a specific topic in Wikipedia
Considering that knowing the subject is half-way to communicating any thought, browsers could automatically show the subjects, so people could much faster understand what the text is about, in their language, if possible.
However, there are so many subjects in the world, and Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, wouldn't allow so easily register your new subjects, related with specific persons that don't have a userpage, etc., that there would be a requirement of a new specialized database - a wiki for topics. (I think concepts and some of the most most important world's topics could be covered by the Wikipedia).
After we had these numbers for the concepts (Wikipedia) and topics (Wiki???), and these are started being used, they could be learned, and people would learn them just because they will have to use them for the markup.
After that we could further search for the ways to create the language, but the thing is, that there might need no grammar, just flow of concepts could be enough to tell quite a lot of thoughts.
When everyone starts thinking in concepts rather than in sentences, they would say something like:
[time]-[condition] [people]-[beginning]-[frequent] [concept]-[type]-[thought]-[style] [infrequent]-[sentence]-[style]-[thought] [consequence] [people]-[talk] [instant]-[posession] [this]-[sort]-[thing]: ...
--
[my]-[thought] [future] [we] [posession] [few]-[grammar]. [reason]: [grammar] [no] [need]. [reason]: [any]-[thought] [ability]-[expression] [concept]-[usage]-[only]-[method].
--
Yea, I know, to think in concepts is something unusual to our brains, as brain is not used to quickly abstract and find the proper concepts to express something. We are used to english or else what.
However, what is the closest to this conceptual method, is perhaps Chinese language, which has perhaps the simplest grammar in the world, and thoughts are kind of made up this way, by agglutinating characters that have concepts.
I have not learned Chinese (only Japanese), but I made such an impression from very little of experience.
Sentence like "How is your mom's and dad's work?(going)"
[you] [mom] [dad] [work] [how]?
I mean, they don't have any conjugation or inflections, and still convey the meaning. You get used to it, and it sounds natural.
If we had those IDs for concepts (or at least of Wikipedia provided constant IDs for concepts inside of it), these things could start happening from indexing the content on the web I think..
(consider this as a personal note for future consideration)
Inyuki 15:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Creating constant IDs for Wikipedia