I am seriously thinking that if I wished to correspond with a Chinese poet, a very practical solution might be for both of us to learn Indonesian. Doing so would be far quicker than me learning Mandarin or him learning English. But would Interlingua, Afrikaans, some kind of constructed language based on simplified Estonian, or even (in a pinch) Esperanto be better? That is the question. And what about if we wished to compose poems in the language of choice such that we each could understand them without translation? I have to say, at this early stage, I'm not seeing any real evidence that Indonesian would be more difficult.
Here are some of the advantages of Indonesian:
- no definite article (no word for "the")*
- no indefinite article (no word for "a" or "an")
- almost entirely phonetic spelling (very easy indeed)
- almost no use of diacritical marks (internet and mobile-phone friendly)
- like Esperanto, uses affixes to produce a large vocabulary from few roots
- unlike Esperanto, forbids ad-hoc word creation (hence, less ambiguous)
- unlike Esperanto, has highly international stock of word roots
- vocabulary from Malay, Dutch, Portuguese, Persian, Sanskrit, Chinese, English (most people will find at least some words they can recognise)
- spoken by more than 200 million people and thus already proven to be enormously successful as an auxiliary language: bear in mind that more than 700 living languages are spoken in Indonesia, a country comprising over 17,500 islands!
*The lack of articles is good as these mostly just cause confusion anyway when used internationally (their use in European languages is highly idiomatic and unpredictable and differs between European languages).
So, Interlingua has its work cut out, to prove that it is at least as easy and as effective as Indonesian, for Asian students. Can it do so? Time will tell.
Let's take a quick look at greetings, to get started.
My name is Robert.
Nama saya Robert.
nama = name
saya = I
Notice how we did not need to use the verb "to be". Pretty easy, huh?
In reality nobody would introduce themselves like this in colloquial speech. Instead they would simply say:
I'm Robert.
Saya Robert.
Literally, "I Robert". Now a little more detail:
I come from Australia.
Saya berasal dari Australia.
dari = from
berasal = originating
Hmmm, easy to remember how to spell Australia in Indonesian, isn't it? Of course it is pronounced slightly differently. But Indonesian has almost entirely regular, phonetic spelling, so pronunciation is generally very easy.
In reality nobody would talk like this either, unless they were being very formal. Instead they would simply say:
I'm from Australia.
Saya dari Australia.
Okay, so the full expression is:
I'm Robert. I'm from Australia.
Saya Robert. Saya dari Australia.
Notice how concise the Indonesian is. Notice how the grammar is simpler but the meaning is conveyed equally well. It's a lean, clean language machine.
Actually, verbs are not inflected in Indonesian for person, number, or tense! You can't get much simpler than that. Simple tenses are indicated by time adverbs or tense particles. However, it's not all plain sailing: there are some tricky verb affixes to learn and to use Indonesian seriously, for literature, one needs to study its extensive grammar and idioms. On the whole, however, the grammar seems very simple compared to the majority of natural languages.
I am fascinated by this intriguing language. It is right up there with Interlingua and Afrikaans, along with the idea of creating a simplified constructed language based on Estonian, as a potential candidate for international literary use.
Onward...
Apparently the only problem with Indonesian is not with the language itself, just that as a language mostly used as an L2 it tends to vary from region to region where people will be used to using words and phrases from their own language while using it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the language itself as a potential IAL, which is quite excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe only non-phonetic part of the language if I remember correctly is that there's a kind of schwa sound sometimes when you write e, like berapa which sounds more like b'rapa (or buhrapa) than berapa (behrapa), or dengan and so on. Word formation (nouns to verbs or vice versa for example) is also not quite as clear as in an IAL (except maybe Interlingua which is somewhat irregular), and it uses counters for objects and has varying degrees of politeness.
None of which are particularly difficult though. They more or less just add flavour to a language that could otherwise be quite boring for someone used to something less logical.
@Mithridates: Yes, you are correct about the unpredictable schwa [ə] sound for E. That is the main reason I had to write "almost entirely phonetic" rather than "entirely phonetic". The schwa is indeed a bit of a problem. There are also a few other gotchas; for example K is not pronounced if it is the last letter of a word, but I think the schwa is the most significant problem.
ReplyDeleteActually, my impression so far is that most instances of the letter E represent the schwa; it seems to be the best guess. However even getting it wrong probably does not prevent comprehension.
Of course, if one wished to create a conlang variant of Indonesian, one could either simply mark the non-schwa E with an acute accent, as my textbook does (e.g. meréka = they), or one could decree standardized pronunciation (e.g. never schwa). However, so far I don't see any compelling reason to resort to doing so. Indonesian seems sufficiently easy to qualify as a good IAL, as is.
On the other hand, an extremely naturalistic conlang based on Indonesian, and comprehensible to Indonesians, but slightly simpler and more regular than actual Indonesian could be a big seller! Tourists really would use it. In that case one might, for example, use the acute accent (é) in the orthography and omit count words. Apparently Indonesians can understand tourist even when they omit count words. And so on. But is it really worth bothering to make a conlang? Probably not.
I think the variable regional vocabulary is maybe something that cannot be avoided. Perhaps it is especially a problem with Indonesian, given the incredible linguistic diversity of Indonesia, but: (a) for literature and correspondence this is less of a problem as people are used to standard official Indonesian in such cases; (b) to a lesser extent any widely distributed language has this problem (e.g. some common Australian-English nouns are incomprehensible to Americans and vice-versa). Presumably if Indonesian were to take off as a worldwide IAL a common core vocabulary would be adopted sufficient for effective communication.
On this point, Interlingua is giving me similar headaches. I'm glad to have switched to the collateral orthography (it's much simpler and easier to read and write; even though, VERY ANNOYINGLY, dictionaries for it are not available). And I'm glad to have insisted on marking irregular stress with an acute accent (allowing easy pronunciation). But regional variations in verb-use are driving me nuts. There is also of course considerable variation in vocabulary used (but that's just life, I guess).
I am agonizing over whether to stick with "esseva/es/essera/esserea" or go to "era/es = ser/sera/serea" and even "so/son/somos". Not to mention "van/vamos" and "sia", all of which are to be found as bracketed entries in the 1951 IED, and surprisingly are quite commonly seen in prose literature.
Declining for person is a slippery slope; I can see there is a case to be made for doing so for the verb "to be"... but it is illogical in my opinion to allow such declension in the present tense when there is no equivalent in other tenses, so therefore one should not decline "to be" for person at all.
In contrast, perhaps "era/es = ser/sera/serea" really is better than "esseva/es/essera/esserea" since the latter is very verbose and seems long-winded in literature. I suppose I might be persuaded to use "era" / "es" / "será" for the three simple tenses and "seréa" for the conditional.
Any thoughts? Advice?
Sigh...
How it render Schwa [@] is a brick wall that I run into constantly when trying to devise a spelling system that is regular and unambiguous yet doesn't have any extended or diacritical characters. It's expecially a PITA for Germanic languages, which all seem to need schwas.
ReplyDeleteIt's a problem that I get in Frenkisch spelling all the time.
Eg in a word like "planet", is the last "e" a schwa sound, so the word is ["plAn@t]? Or is a long e sound, so the word is [pla"ne:t]
My Frenkisch dictionary tries to maintain compatibility with US English Spelling and rest of world English spelling. for ex
FARVE
n. = paint, color / colour, dye, tint
COLOR, euk COLOUR
n. = koleur, kolorit, farve, tinkt
...
COLOUR, see COLOR
A "good" Interlingua dictionary would have entries that allowed some compatibility with both the original and the collateral spelling eg
ORTHOGRAPHÍA, ook ORTOGRAFIA sub. = spelling, orthografie, schrijfwijze
...
ORTOGRAFIA, zie ORTHOGRAPHIA
Declining for person can have it's uses for brevity.
Eg if I say "am hungry", it is absolutely undoubtedly obvious who I am talking about and that it's in the present tense. If you have enough declensions, dropping pronouns can become a standard practice -- like in "pro-drop" languages such as Italian.
@David Parke: Thanks David. Fascinating to read the comments of a lexicographer on this topic. Indeed I would be overjoyed to see an Interlingua dictionary with such entries. I'm toying with the idea of doing an automated transformation of a dictionary of traditional orthography into one using the collateral orthography. Your example has given me a better idea: simply automatically add cross-references to the existing dictionary. Nice.
ReplyDeleteYes, declining for person certainly has advantages for brevity. I do like that advantage. But I think, assuming one does not wish to decline all Interlingua verbs for person (which would probably create a different language, e.g. "Latino Moderne" by David Stark), if one were to consider declining only the verb "to be" for person, then one must either do so for all tenses or for none. Otherwise doing so seems too inconsistent, I guess.