[conlang_learners] IE vs non IE

[James Montgomery]

I am definitely guilty of saying IE when I really restrict my meaning to  Romlangs. I'll be better about that distinction in the future. I just read a post (and accidentally deleted it) concerning this that I wanted to comment on as well.

I certainly don't have a problem with Romlangs. I took two years of French and studied some Spanish on my own. The grammer of Latin (self-study) bested me for the moment. I have some Esperanto course materials and books. 

Romlangs are just too similar to what I've already done. I'm not saying they're too easy or not worth it in any manner. Quite the opposite when the fine details and distinctions are truly followed to near-native fluency.

Part of it is that Romlangs sound alike, which is good for learning pronunciation quickly, but takes away a little of the appeal for me. The -aj and -oj of Esperanto was what turned me off to that. Sound of the language is an important consideration of mine, which is another reason for not studying something like Klingon. http://www.videosift.com/video/Classic-Daily-Show-Steve-Carell-Goes-Klingon Sorry, couldn't help myself there...

All of the IE talk is making me wish that PIE wasn't the umberhulk that it is. 

James

--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Olivier Simon <cafaristeir at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Olivier Simon <cafaristeir at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [conlang_learners] IE vs non IE
> To: conlang_learners at conlang.org
> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 8:50 AM
> Oops ! Excuse me, but there was a
> technical problem that sent abruptly my unfinished message
> to the list ! 
>  
> I wanted to stress the importance of IE languages in
> the world: spoken by more than half the world population.
> Semitic, in terms of grammar, is the most related language
> family; that means that all the languages of international
> communication, including Arabic, share nearly the same basic
> features. Some IE primeval roots have remained common to the
> languages of Europe and of India and Persia. 
>  
> Maybe, we should ask ourselves the question of knowing
> which kind of auxlang we want before going forward. Do we
> tend rather in the direction of natural looking languages,
> for international communication, or something aprioristic,
> which is a like a game for the brain ?
>  
> Olivier
> http://sambahsa.pbworks.com/
>  
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Olivier Simon
> <cafaristeir at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Olivier Simon <cafaristeir at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [conlang_learners] IE vs non IE
> To: conlang_learners at conlang.org
> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 5:39 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sellamat Jim !
>  
> I'd like to recall that IE does not limit itself
> to Romance and Germanic. Thus Esperanto's vocabulary is,
> of course, mostly IE since it rests mainly on Romance with
> some germanic elements, but does not represent the whole of
> IE languages spoken nowadays. Its grammar is agglutinative,
> while IE is synthetic. Maybe you meant "something not
> exclusively Western European". 
> IE languages 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Jim Henry
> <jimhenry1973 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Jim Henry <jimhenry1973 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [conlang_learners] IE vs non IE
> To: conlang_learners at conlang.org
> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 5:27 AM
> 
> 
> 2009/6/14 Dayle Hill <dwhmusic32 at yahoo.co.uk>:
> > Sorry, this is a re-send of the same email..had a
> technical hitch 1st time!
> 
> Actually, I got your earlier message on the same subject
> just fine.
> If you got a bounce or error or warning message of some
> kind after
> sending it, could you please forward it to me offlist?
> 
> > HI all. I have just joined in so forgive me for being
> a little ignorant. I
> > just wondered why there seems to be a general
> consensus 'against' IE
> > conlangs, or at least conlangs with IE features? Are
> we looking to learn
> > something that has a grammar 'unlike' any
> natural language, or a conlang
> > that has a completely unique lexicon?
> 
> I can't speak for everyone on the list, but I think
> some of us are
> (other factors being equal) more inclined to
>  learn a language that's
> interestingly different from the language(s) we already
> know.  Most if
> not all of us have an Indo-European language as our native
> language,
> and many of us have previously studied one or more other IE
> natural
> languages, or IE-based conlangs, in the past; so this time
> out we're
> looking for something farther
> afield.   It's not that we (most of us
> at least) have a prejudice against the IE family or
> specific IE
> languages or against the idea of creating IE-based
> conlangs; it's just
> that such languages are too familiar to be appealing in the
> context of
> this kind of project.
> 
> For instance, all the natlangs I am anywhere near fluency
> in are IE
> languages, and I've thorougly learnt one conlang with
> an IE-based
> lexicon and approximately IE-like grammar (Esperanto) and
> studied
> several IE-based alternate history conlangs to the level
> necessary to
> translate out of or into them for
>  conlang relays.  In spending the
> amount of time and energy on a conlang that this project
> would
> involve, I'd like to work with something non-IE.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> _______________________________________________
> conlang_learners mailing list
> conlang_learners at conlang.org
> http://lists.conlang.org/listinfo.cgi/conlang_learners-conlang.org
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> conlang_learners mailing list
> conlang_learners at conlang.org
> http://lists.conlang.org/listinfo.cgi/conlang_learners-conlang.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> conlang_learners mailing list
> conlang_learners at conlang.org
> http://lists.conlang.org/listinfo.cgi/conlang_learners-conlang.org
>