If a new international language was being constructed, what would you want in it?

I know, but I can't even think about it without thinking of Katie Couric, which makes me want to punch everyone in the face.

What's the connection between Katie Couric and newspeak?
 
The problem is that an imposed and constructed lingua franca for technical and non-everyday use isn't self-evidently a good idea.
This.
I am asking what features would you like to have in it.
Keep in mind that this language would be more of a tool, something of a professional 'jargon' for diplomats, businessmen, scientists, philosophers, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. It is not supposed to sound very nice, feel "natural" and "smooth" (as these qualities are usually associated with irregularities), or to become a new language for poets and writers. It should be a practical instrument of communication, nothing more and nothing less.
It seems to me the correct question would be "what useless and anachronistic features of other languages could be left out"?
You know: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." :mischief:
 
Esperanto?

Red_Elk and Shylock get it. :goodjob:

Esperanto is already a simple, international language. It has simple pronunciation, regular verbs, non-gender nouns, easy grammar, etc.

The only problem with it I have is its use of a circumflex accent to turn "c" into "ch" and "s" into "sh." When the word is capitalized, the accent mark disappears. :mad:
 
If we were to construct a language, I would want....
1. an end to genders
2. abolition of articles (the, a, an)
3. Getting rid of case systems
4. ending verb conjugation irregularities
5. vastly simplified word economy
6. ditching reflexive verbs
7. stop having random rules regarding capitalization
8. stress or accent in words follows a set pattern
9. latin alphabet
10. also, ditch the phonetic sounds ch (as in scottish loch), umlauts like Ö, and quash the rules regarding the ambigious "y"

There, get that in a constructed language and I would be happy =)
 
If a new international language was being constructed I would protest against it for slowly destroying oral culture in the advancement of simpler and more convenient way to tell each other to F off. I propose we destroy all traces of Esperanto and revert back to the ole languages.
 
Esperanto FTW!
 
What Winner is proposing doesn't need to be poetic, so I think newspeak would od the job.

CFC is really in trouble if one of the few people who actually got the point is my sworn ideological enemy :lol: Too bad that newspeak has all these negative Orwellian connotations.

Why criticize inclusive and exclusive pronouns as not easy? If "easy" is your number one goal, why not eliminate plurality as a whole? Obviously your, as everyone else's definition of "easy" is usually just going to mean "as close to my native language as possible."

Well, everyone's biased. What I mean by "easy" is "the least complicated". For example, the way we use inflections in Czech is about 100x more difficult than the English way - objectively speaking.

I'd like this hypothetical language to be as uncomplicated as possible. As Yeekim said:

You know: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." :mischief:

I fully endorse this approach :goodjob:

If a new international language was being constructed I would protest against it for slowly destroying oral culture in the advancement of simpler and more convenient way to tell each other to F off. I propose we destroy all traces of Esperanto and revert back to the ole languages.

Oh please, this language would NEVER replace natural languages. It wouldn't be very nice or smooth, it would definitely not be well suited to ordinary inter-personal communication (just make the effort and try to count how many idioms and fixed collocations you use in a short conversation with a friend - and then try to imagine how the conversation would look like without them).

At present, English has the role of 'global' (uh-huh) lingua franca. But think about it - in order to communicate on a level which doesn't embarrass you, you need to learn tons of ballast, useless irregularities and obscure rules that have accumulated in English during its natural evolution. This takes time and effort, and as you know, time is money.

Plus, having English as the LF perpetuates the undeserved privileged position of native English speakers, which is unfair to speakers of other languages who are thus naturally disadvantaged. For all those arrogant Anglo-Saxons out there ( :mischief: ), try imagining that English suddenly stopped being the preeminent language and some other took its place, let's say Spanish, French, Russian or Mandarin. Really try to think about it and carefully examine all the possible consequences.

So, to wrap it up:

Easier, neutral and effective constructed language would DEFINITELY be useful. I am not saying it will take hold, but I think it should. It would be beneficial to everybody.
 
CFC is really in trouble if one of the few people who actually got the point is my sworn ideological enemy :lol: Too bad that newspeak has all these negative Orwellian connotations.
How mighty a point you state. That CFC is in trouble for disagreeing with you. :rolleyes:


Oh please, this language would NEVER replace natural languages. It wouldn't be very nice or smooth, it would definitely not be well suited to ordinary inter-personal communication (just make the effort and try to count how many idioms and fixed collocations you use in a short conversation with a friend - and then try to imagine how the conversation would look like without them).

Easier, neutral and effective constructed language would DEFINITELY be useful. I am not saying it will take hold, but I think it should. It would be beneficial to everybody.


By advocating such a language as Lingua Franca, it is effectively supporting the overtaking of natural languages and replacing them with a constructed language for every medium. Sooner or later, it will become everyone's first language while the second language just slowly die off like Milanese to Italian or Norman to French or various Chinese Dialects to Beijing Mandarin

Plus, why even create a language to learn if it is soulless? Yeah, it is convenient blah blah blah. I would not want to speak a language with no real 'culture' in it. It is like painting art without creativity, it is like playing music without melody. It takes the whole "art" of languages and dumps it. Languages should not be created for language's sake.
 
There is Simple English, at least I saw it as language in wikipedia.
 
NO CASE SYSTEM!
No declination of nouns.
Rather a word order that is strictly, subject verb object. Tom ran home. Rather then case system, which would allow possibility of; Ran Tom home. Or Home ran Tom.
I think a very strict word order must be used in this language instead of cases, which the greeks invented and is outdated. (though used by most languages except english).

Punctuation, get rid of this semi colon. Nothing this complex. Just comma's and periods and colons and brackets.

No use of 's to show possession. Since strict word order is observed use of, House of Tom, Computer, Car of Anna.
Better then allowing the possibility of Anna's car, or Tom's house or other confusing rules to indicate possession.

I swear Winner, you can be such a Kurva sometimes.

Who taught you this word? How are we going to simplify international impolite words?.
Spoiler :
whore=kurva
 
Languages are dying faster than species.

English ftw.

.
 
Top Bottom