World-Hybrid Auxlang/Artlang - input please

[avdenio]

I'm Luke - I've been composing a language meant for international communication called Avdenio. It draws vocabulary from 15 of the most populous world languages, and has a symmetrical phonology representing (what I think is) the mean of global sound systems. It builds on a system of gender-neutral roots that can be appended with other word-parts to make new vocabulary. Through the use of articles that can be had either as prepositions or suffixes, all parts of speech can be as analytic or agglutinative as the speaker likes. These can even be omitted leaving much to context, though specificity of meaning is always available through added compounds and articles. So far I have about 1200 lexicon entries and have translated some phrases and other text. I've even made an Avdenio aphabet based on the major writing systems.

I could really use some feedback from those who are well versed in conlanging, and even some help working on this massive undertaking. I started a basic website for Avdenio so you can get in depth information there. In the mean time, here are some phrases and phonological details. Comments are welcome!

More Info: http://www.avdenio.weebly.com

Basic Phrases

Hello: Rivéstė. / Néiho.
Hey / Hi: Hoe.
Peace (to you): Sálmė (go te).
Good morning: Havpáj. / Paj hávi.
Good day: Haválo. / Álo hávi.
Good evening: Havmaelám. / Maelám hávi.
Good night: Havvám. / Vam hávi.
Goodbye: Havékia. / Ádeo.
Bye: Boe.
I'll see you later: Ver vea démoa. / Ve hao démoa te.
See you later: Haodémoa.
Until the next meeting: Vis reodémo.
Later: Vis.
How are you?: Te ra hésti?
Are you doing well?: Mae te ra hávi? / Mae te hávra? / Mae te ra hávėsti?
All well?: Hàvéle?
I'm fine, and you?: Ve ra hávi, mae te? / Ve hávra, mae te? Ve ra hávėsti, mae te?
Fine thanks, you?: Hav daniávae, te?
What's happening?: He ra bínda? / He véizra
What's up?: He bínda? / He véiza? / He ra?
What's new?: He ra jáedi? / He jáedra?
Welcome: Huénio.
Thanks: Daniáv.
Thank you: Daniáv go te.
Thank you very much!: Mèdaniáv go te!
My pleasure: Aléir ven.
Please: Bídae.
Please excuse/pardon me: Daniávae iónsoia ve.
Pardon: Iónso.
Nice to meet you: Hàvfamiála te / Hàvfamiál.
What is your name?: Ésmė ten a he? / Te a veo he? / Te ésmėta he? / Te ésma he?
What are you called?: Te a héveo?
My name is ~: Ésmė ven a ~. / Ve ésma veo ~.
Where are you from?: Te a hédan? / Te kámda dan héan?
I am from ~: Ve a ~dan. / Ve kámda dan ~.
Yes / No / Maybe: Hae / Nae / Kánae
Do you speak English?: Mae te kása Ingélio?
Is there someone here who speaks Avdenio/English?: Mae ra óeu sjéan se kása Avdénio/Ingélio?
I don't speak Avdenio (well): Ve nae kása (hávėsti) Avdénio.
Could you please speak more slowly?: Bídae te mae kásea sti miéldor? (pol.) / Bídae kásia miéldor? (fam.)
How do you say ~ in Avdenio? Óeu hésti kása ~ feo Avdénio?
I don't understand: Ve nae vístėra.
I don't know: Ve nae jídora.
How much does it cost?: Héval a klaev jen? / He kláeva je
Where is the washroom?: Uòjgáedė sa héan?
Where is the toilet?: Tóer sa héan?

Problems and Emergencies

Can you help me?: Mae te kánea séuta ve? (pol.) / Te kànséuta ve? (fam.)
I'm lost: Ve ra lózi.
I've lost my bag/purse/wallet: Ve lózda kaván/bérsė/bárto ven.
It's an emergency!: Ra diarór!
Help! / Police! / Fire!: Séutia! / Jaréigias! / Fého!
Leave me alone!: Láesia sálmė (ven)!
Look out!: Sàmsáovia! / Sáov!
Careful!: Sjasínia! / Sjasín!
Stop, thief!: Djéria, tjóuras!
Don't touch me!: Nae tásjtia ve!
I'm sick/injured: Ve ra pénoi/gáemoi.
I need a doctor: Ve nésa arkiámas.
I need to go to a hospital: Ve nésa éka nan arkiámrie.

Phonology

In the common mode the language uses 23 roman characters and three additional digraphs (single sounds written with two characters): p b f v m t d s z j r l n k g h a e i u o ė tj dj sj (the last four can also be rendered y q x c respectively.) In the euphonic mode, each one of these letters represents a single unambiguous sound, with the digraphs representing fricative or affricate sound combinations. In more relaxed speech many letters and combinations can blend, but to be understood, speaking exactly as one reads is all that is required. The following is an explanation of standard pronunciation by letter, tailored towards English speaking students of Avdenio.
Avdenio letters and digraphs are clarified with English speaking pronunciation in parenthesis. Transliterations using the International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA will appear in brackets, the left most value being the recommended pronunciation in common mode.

Consonants

p, b, f, v, m, t, d, z, n, k, h > As in the received pronunciation of 21st Century English, though preferably crisp and un-aspirated as per their value in the IPA.
s > Always as in pass, never as in misery.
g > [g] Always hard as in gain, never as in gene.
j > (zh) [ʒ, ʑ, ʐ, zʲ] Soft and voiced, as in French jour or English treasure, but never as in Jack or jet.
sj > (sh) [ʃ, ɕ, ʂ, sʲ] As English 'sh' in short. Also acceptably written /c/.
dj > (j) [ʤ, ʥ, ɖʐ, dʲ] Always as English 'j' in judge. Also acceptably written /x/.
tj > (ch) [ʧ, ʨ, ʈʂ, tʲ] As English 'ch' in change. Also acceptably written /q/.
l > [l, ɫ] Pronounced with the tip of the tongue against the roof of the mouth; the pharyngeal 'dark l' is acceptable.
r > [ɾ, r, ɽ, ɹ, ɻ, ʀ, ʁ, ɚ] Flicked or trilled in the common mode, as in Spanish and Italian, though acceptably pronounced as the approximate 'dark r' in North American English or the guttural trill of French, German, or Hebrew. When appearing before other consonants or word-finally, /r/ is also acceptable as the rhoticized vowel of Danish or British English.

Vowels

a > (ah / uh) [a, ɑ, æ, ə] As Spanish casa or English farm. Non-standard variants such as the vowels of bank or pawn are available, as well as the unstressed ‘schwa’ of sauna.
e > (eh / ay) [ɛ, e] As English met or vein, never as in meme or seem.
i > (ee) [i, ɪ, ɪ̯, j] As Italian vino or English tier, never as in sign or dime. When appearing before or after another vowel, it is optionally pronounced as a semivowel, as in English billiard or the ‘y’ in yacht. Unstressed variants such as the vowel in sit are permitted but nonstandard.
u > (oo) [u, ɯ, y, ʊ, ʊ̯, w] As German Buch or English soup, never as shut or use. When appearing before or after another vowel, it is optionally pronounced as a semivowel, as in English equal or the ‘w’ in was. The iotacized realization of French tu or the reduced vowel of English should is accepted but nonstandard.
o > (oh / oa) [ɔ, o] As English roam or cove, never as do, dot or done.
ė > (eh, uh, ih) [ɛ, ɜ, ə, ɪ, ʏ, ɨ, ʉ] Any unstressed ‘schwa’ sound or central mid-close vowel, as in English led, dug or edit. This is the euphonic or 'linking' vowel that is used to connect word parts. It is commonly written and pronounced /e/, since its position usually differentiates it from the cardinal vowel /e/. Otherwise /y/, /ë/, /ĕ/, /ə/ are acceptable if the dotted /ė/ is unavailable but the distinction from /e/ is desired. The uses of this vowel are addressed in detail in a later section.

Diphthongs

In its purest form, written Avdenio has a strict character-to-sound correspondence. That means that all Avdenio words can be spoken exactly as they are written, letter for letter. In many cases two or more vowels can appear in a row. Speakers are advised to pronounce each vowel individually, such as are the diphthongs found in Italian and Japanese. Common vowel combinations are explained below:

ai > (ah-ee / eye) [aɪ̯, ɑɪ̯, æɪ̯, əɪ̯, ai] As in rhyme, vine or Shanghai; never as rain or renaissance.
ae > (ah-eh / eye) [aɛ̯, ae̯, aɪ̯, ae] As the joint vowels in rawest, though acceptably pronounced the same as /ai/ above; never as in Gaelic or aesthetic.
au > (ah-oo / ow) [aʊ̯, ɑʊ̯, æʊ̯, əʊ̯, au] Most like Spanish auto and English owl, out or Audi; never as author or sauce.
ao > (ah-oh / ow) [aɔ̯, ao̯, aʊ̯, ao] As in Mandarin 好 hăo or the combined vowels of English law-ordinance, though acceptably the same as /au/.
ei > (eh-ee / ay) [eɪ̯, ɛɪ̯, ei] As in gain, lane or day; never as German ein or English receive.
eu > (eh-oo / ehw) [ɛʊ̯, eʊ̯, eu] Similar to the vowels in the phrase may-use, or as the Spanish city Ceuta; never as in Eugene or re-use.
eo > (eh-oh / ay-oh) [ɛɔ̯, ɛo̯, ɛʊ̯, eo] Most like Italian teologica or the joint vowels of English day-o¬ld; acceptably realized the same as /eu/.
ea > (eh-ah / ay-ah) [ɛa̯, ea̯ eǝ̯, ea] As in both vowels of the phrases day-off or optionally stay-up; never as react or really.
oi > (oh-ee / oy) [oɪ̯, ɔɪ̯, oi] As in boy, coil or optionally coincidence.
oe > (oh-eh / oy) [ɔɛ̯, oɛ̯, oe] Most like coexist or low-end, with optional articulation as the prior dipthong /oe/; never pronounced as in canoe or Oedipus.
ou > (oh-uu / ohw) [oʊ̯, ɔʊ̯, ou] As in bow or though; never as in route, could or through.
oa > (oh-ah / ow-ah) [ɔa̯, oa̯ oǝ̯, oa] As in English coauthor, go-away or Spanish yo-abro; never as in boat or broad.
ui > (oo-ee / wee) [ʊ̯i, ʊ̯ɪ, ui] As in Spanish cuidado and English suite, queen or to-eat; never as in quite or suit. A non-standard lax pronunciation, as in quit, is possible.
ue > (oo-eh / weh) [ʊ̯ɛ, ʊ̯e, ue] As in quest, suede or Suez; never as query or hue.
uo > (oo-oh / woh) [ʊ̯ɔ, ʊ̯o, uo] As in quote, won’t, or the vowels of new-order.
ua > (oo-ah / wah) [ʊ̯a, ʊ̯ə, ua] As in quarry, watt, or dual; never as equate or square.
ie > (ee-eh / yeh) [ɪ̯ɛ, ɪ̯e, ie] As in Spanish siempre and English Yale, yesterday, or re-ai¬m; never as tier, fried or diet.
io > (ee-oh / yoh) [ɪ̯ɔ, ɪ̯o, iɔ, io] As in Japanese Tokyo and English creole or yoke; never as lion or biology.
iu > (ee-oo / yoo) [ɪ̯u, ɪ̯ʊ, iu] As in reunion, use, or yew.
ia > (ee-ah / yah) [ɪ̯a, ɪ̯ə, ia] As in Spanish día and English Austria, yard or realign; never as dial.

Stress

The grammatical system of Avdenio depends on a system of root words, as does syllabic stress. Excepting articles, all words are built on word roots containing one or two syllables, and at least two letters. Aside from proper nouns - names and places - no native roots have more than two core syllables, with the exception of an initial or final /ė/ for ease of pronunciation. All roots end in the consonants /p, t, k, b, d, g, f, s, v, z, j, h, m, n, l, r/, digraphs /tj, dj, sj/ or vowels /e, o, u/. In any word or word combination, the stress always falls on the nucleic root noun; more specifically, it falls on the syllable before the last consonant of that root. While not necessary for everyday writing in Avdenio, this tutorial makes use of the acute accent (i.e. the signs á, é, í, ú, ó) to clarify primary stress and the grave accent (à, è, ì, ù, ò) to show secondary stress caused by word compounds. At the same time the accents indicate where the roots of a given word form are. Below are a few examples of words and their stress:
• kás (kahs) “speech” > There are two consonants and one syllable, and so the stress is on the single vowel preceding the final /s/.
• jé (zheh) ”it, he, her” > This is an example of a one-syllable root, a pronoun with no final consonant. Stress can only fall on the final /e/.
• arvéis (ahr-veys) “work” > The final consonant of the root is /s/, and it is preceded by the stressed vowels /ei/. This is true of the root when standing alone, or with any suffix (Example: arvéisa ”to work”, arvéisrun ”great work”, arvéisfeos ”work tool”)
• ákoi (ah-koy) “wrong” > This root ends in two vowels, and the last consonant is /k/ and thus the stress is on the preceding /a/.
• iuhán (yoo-hahn) “travel” > Like the third example, this root has two syllables. The last consonant is /n/ and the stress is put on the preceding single /a/.
• vérėn (veh-rehn) “our” > This word also ends in the consonant /n/, but this is a suffix and not part of the root word ve ”me, I”. The stress is on a syllable of the root, not necessarily the last consonant of the entire word. Many words have suffixes and even prefixes, so the stress assists in clarifying the root core of a word, thus disambiguating the meaning.
• Tjónguir (choan-gweer) “the people of China” > There are two parts: the proper root /tjong/ “China” and the articles /u+ir/ meaning a collective or group of living things. If the first word stood alone, it would be stressed as Tjóngė before the last consonant cluster /ng/, and it is likewise stressed even when given a collective suffix.
• mèosásjtė (meh-ohs-ash-teh) “highest regard, greatest notice, standing out” > This is actually a compound word made of more than one root. The parts comprising it are /meos/ ”most, greatest” and /asjt(ė)/ ”notice”. In compounds of roots, the last root in the sequence in the head, and all those prefixed to it are modifiers. Thus it is before the final consonant of the final root that stress is always heard. In ambiguous situations, the secondary stress of the modifying root can be indicated with a grave accent - à, è, ì, ù, ò – exemplified in kànpéndai ”flexible”. The hardest stress in on the head adjective, péndai ”bending”, but a softer stress before the last consonant of the first root, kan ”ability”.
It should be remembered that stress is only a peripheral aspect of Avdenio. If clearly pronounced, words don’t necessarily need to exhibit stress to be understood, much as in Japanese. Other non-standard accent systems available to Avdenio speakers include placing a pitch accent over the first, penultimate, or last vowel of each entire word, regardless of the location of the root. This provision is offered to assist use with speakers of languages that do not use stress in the occidental fashion.

[eldin raigmore]

If you look at the various discussions about International Auxiliary Languages that have been held on various conlanging fora (CBB, ZBB, CONLANG-L, and others), you'll see that we mostly decided a World IAL is likely to be impossible or disappointing or way too difficult.

You'd have much better luck making IALs continent-by-continent and/or ocean-by-ocean.

There are, conventionally seven continents -- Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica -- and five oceans -- Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern.
(For each ocean consider all the islands contained in the ocean and all the coasts bordering the ocean.)
(Antarctica is uninhabited and the Southern Ocean is quite sparsely inhabited, so you might as well join them together -- or even ignore them both, I suppose.)

I suppose you could also try for linguistic superfamilies and create an IAL for each of them.
The questions then would be, what are the superfamilies, which families belong to each superfamily, and how many superfamilies are there?
There are estimated to be around 4000 to 7000 living languages (depending on how they're counted), of which about 2000 (so it is claimed) have had "adequate" reference grammars published about them; and they are divided into just over 600 language families (if we don't count each isolate as a separate family in and of itself).
But there are only about 90 languages with over 10 million native speakers each; and around 80% of the world population speaks at least one of them.
Twenty-three (23) languages have over fifty million native speakers each; and more than three thousand million people speak at least one of those.

So I really suspect that with between 8 and 90 IALs you could succeed in making at least one good one for everybody.

The best IALs are probably these widely-spoken natlangs.
You could just take all the various dialects of some language with, say, more than seventy million speakers (L1 or L2), and work out a compromise dialect that none of the speakers would find too alien, and that would be easier to acquire as an L2 for non-speakers (the way Swahili is easier to learn than its own closest relatives).
Putting all of those together you could have between 9 and 18 IALs such that any two randomly chosen people would have at least a 50%-50% chance of being able to communicate with each other.

---

None of that is intended to discourage you, or to downgrade the accomplishments of your 4 years of work.
It's just to explain why several of us are going to have difficulty coming up with any "input" we'll think is useful to you.
We'll all still think your World IAL is an accomplishment; but we'll probably regard it as an a posteriori artlang (or engelang) instead of as an auxlang.
(You are perfectly within your rights to keep thinking of it as an auxlang, of course.)

---

I hope this was not discouraging. I hope instead it keeps you from being discouraged by getting less "input" than you'd hoped for -- if, indeed, that happens; maybe I'll be surprised and you'll get a lot of input.

[Squall]

Sorry. Usually we do not criticize conlangs, because there are no criteria to use and it is like criticizing natlangs. On the other hand, we can judge auxlangs and analyse if they are good for their purposes. If your auxlang overcomes its problems, it will be suitable to work as an auxlang.

When creating an auxlang, you have to ensure that it will be as much easy to learn as possible for the targeted people. If your target is the 15 most populous native languages, you have to check that your language is easy for speakers of those 15 languages.


You have too much diphthongs and many of those 15 languages will not like it. Your language distinguishes /aɛ̯/ and /a.ɛ/ and this is a difficult distinction.

Avoid coincidence of allophones; if both 'ai' and 'ae' can be pronounced /aɪ̯/, then they should not be distinct diphthongs.
If you distinguish 'e' and 'ei', do not recommend the pronunciation as English "ay". Furthermore, English "ay" is understood by most foreigners as /eɪ̯~ej/ rather than /e/.

Although your phonemes are easy, you have too many phonemes. The number of consonants that Esperanto has is usually criticized. Japanese has serious problems with /l/. Spanish has problems with voiced fricatives. French has problems with /h/. Austronesian languages have problems with fricatives other than /s/.
Aspiration is also an issue. Germanic P and B is fine for Chinese speakers, but Romance P and B are not.

Speakers of each language must learn few phonemes, but this number should be minimum to not make the auxlang difficult for many people.

[eldin raigmore]

What Squall said.

---

We can "criticize" a conlang only in relation to its designer's (or designers') goals.
That's one reason people who post here about new conlangs they're designing, usually post their "design goals" (once they're sure what they are).

Edit: (I have edited out the rest of this post because I now realize it was premature and mostly irrelevant; I should have read the avdenio.weebly document more carefully and thoroughly before posting.)

[avdenio]

I appreciate you reading the Avdenio document at all - I'm just trying to get some eyes on this project. When I ask you to give me input or to 'criticize', I am talking as much about the qualitative as the quantitative. I know only so much can be analytically measured and deemed 'better' in language, so I am also curious about peoples tastes and opinions. How does this language sound to you?

Regarding diphthongs, clusters, coda consonants etc: I knew from the outset that these would be a point of friction. Most people who consider artificial auxlangs a possibility at all think they should have as simple a syllable structure as possible - always CV or CVN (like Toki Pona). There are two reasons why I have chosen to add moderate clusters and diphthongs (no more than two consecutive consonants/vowels in a root):
1. Avdenio is meant to be a common language, but it's also meant to facilitate learning of natural languages. If a speaker of one language (e.g. Mandarin with no clusters and few final consonants) tried to learn another language with unfamiliar features (e.g. Russian with dense clusters and final consonants), they would be better prepared if they had an intermediate language with similar features in lesser degree. Avdenio's moderate clusters would help a Mandarin speaker acclimate to the challenges ahead in Russian. If an auxlang has minimal phonemes and strict CV syllable structure, yes it will be easy for everyone to pronounce, but if there are ever any native Avdenio speakers (hey, it happened with Esperanto) then they would find almost all other natural languages the more difficult to pronounce because of all the new sounds they would have to learn. CV structure tends to lead to long-winded words too, and I like that consonant clusters allow for more brevity in root syllables.
2. A huge part of this is to create an aesthetic, pleasant language. Its an art project. It may be a matter of taste, but I find certain diphthongs and clusters beautiful, and I don't think an artificial language will be widely spoken unless it sounds good and has outward character. To me Esperanto and Lojban lack this element (not to mention Volapük). I know aesthetics can't be measured and your view on it may differ from mine. It is a big goal of Avdenio though, so it's worth mentioning.

[Xing]

I skimmed through the grammar. Some random thoughts:

Many auxlangers make claims about the simplicity, easiness to learn, or other feature of their languages that's suppose to make them easier to learn. However, they don't always provide empirical evidence to back up their claims. For this reason, I can't help but thinking that many auxlang projects have an aura of armchair linguistics around them.

On what basis do you believe that your language would be more suitable for an international auxlang than other proposed auxlangs? That your language is more "neutral"? Or more "aesthetically pleasing"? Even if you would value such thing when you choose what language to learn, are you sure that other people would value the same things?

As for "gender-neutrality", I don't see why it would be an inherently worthy goal - neither in an auxlang nor in any other language. Rather, I think some lexical entries would be used so frequently that it would be handy to have gendered root words – such as "father", "mother", "son", "daughter" – along with gender-neutral words like "parent" and "child".

[Salmoneus]

Yes, I think that's the key point: what about this language is meant to make it an appropriate auxlang? Beyond the fact that you personally think it sounds nice (i.e. conforms to your own cultural expectations)?

That's not a sarcastic question, it's an honest one. Why is your language like this and not like something else?

[And to pick up on a point: learning this would not help people learn third languages - that's not how language learning works. There can sometimes be a benefit from learning VERY closely related languages together... but there can also be a disadvantage (it's harder to keep them separate in one's head). Since this language isn't, say, like mandarin at all, why would it help people learn mandarin?]

[Lao Kou]

I appreciate you reading the Avdenio document at all - I'm just trying to get some eyes on this project. When I ask you to give me input or to 'criticize'...

The English word people are noodling around is "critique", not "criticize". Alas, I'm afraid I can't access your document.

1. Avdenio is meant to be a common language, but it's also meant to facilitate learning of natural languages. If a speaker of one language (e.g. Mandarin with no clusters and few final consonants) tried to learn another language with unfamiliar features (e.g. Russian with dense clusters and final consonants), they would be better prepared if they had an intermediate language with similar features in lesser degree. Avdenio's moderate clusters would help a Mandarin speaker acclimate to the challenges ahead in Russian.

Chinese study English from primary school; not enough "acclimatization"?

I'd love an IAL, really I would. But I find this approach distasteful in that it's still your same ol' colonial Grandpa's IAL. We're still talking in terms of getting Asians "up to speed" with how real languages operate. Tones? Oh my, way to difficult to master, so bag it. Consonant clusters? Well, you can help non-Euro folks ease their way into it. And those poor Japanese without [l] (can we please stop bringing up that canard?). Anyone discussing a Swedish-like system to "acclimate/facilitate" Western speakers to the joys of tonal system? Haven't heard that pitch. Dumb it down or streamline it for Asians, or offer a system that helps "them". This doesn't strike you at all as a paternalistic approach?

Nothing really leapt out at me as "ease of learning", but we get the same ol' ("Néiho.") (Cantonese at that) tried-and-true-throw-the-Asians-a-bone-to-show-we-care approach.

2. A huge part of this is to create an aesthetic, pleasant language. Its an art project. It may be a matter of taste, but I find certain diphthongs and clusters beautiful,

Using this criterion, I sincerely like this lang, and would like to see more.

To me Esperanto and Lojban lack this element (not to mention Volapük). I know aesthetics can't be measured and your view on it may differ from mine.

Which makes this the same ol' bully-for-you discussion about auxlangs. Why this and not Esperanto? Why this and not English? Take the "auxlang" tag off of this, I'm lovin' it.

[elemtilas]

To me Esperanto and Lojban lack this element (not to mention Volapük). I know aesthetics can't be measured and your view on it may differ from mine.

Which makes this the same ol' bully-for-you discussion about auxlangs. Why this and not Esperanto? Why this and not English? Take the "auxlang" tag off of this, I'm lovin' it.

-- Wish I had a (+10000) button! Especially the bit about throwing those Asians a bone!

Me I've never really understood the point behind constructed IALs and their politics. Clearly, there is a need for bridge languages, because not everyone shares a native language. But what's always struck me about the IAL movement is the century old notion that 'imperial / national' languages somehow inherently fail and that only a 'neutral / non-national (/ and most importantly constructed by the project promoter!)' language is the only logical and rational choice. But I guess it's as true now as it ever has been: the ideological auxlanger, even alone, knows better than hundreds of millions of people who speak enough English to build that bridge and join a larger community of idea exchange.

That said, I rather like what I've seen of Avdenio's sound aesthetic! Burn off the dross of auxlangery and you've got yourself a really sweet sounding artlang!

[Squall]

I disagree with the opinion of rejecting international auxlangs.

• Only a constructed language can be ethnically neutral.
• All natural languages are complex, have lots of irregular forms and have a large vocabulary. Only a constructed language can be engineered to be simple, to be easy to learn and to have a small lexicon with accurate meanings and without redundancy.
• The pronunciation of a natural language is difficult to learn and understand. Native speakers speak fast and have variations in their pronunciation. Commonly, it is easier for a foreigner to understand the pronunciation of a fluent non-native speaker than the native pronunciation. If everyone spoke a constructed language, everyone would be foreigner and speak slowly and clearly.
• Native speakers have an unfair advantage and become the reference of students. Most people do not care about the culture of a country, they learn the language only because it is important.
• Native speakers speak in the way they want, which has local terms that are unusual for foreigners. There are many dialects as well. Therefore, a universal natural language changes according to the changes that the language undergoes in their countries. It does not have a stable standard.

A good auxlang requires lots of knowledge on linguistics and a lot of research. Zamenhof was not a linguist, although Esperanto has lots of flaws, it is still better than a natural language. Given a natural language, one can list more flaws than Esperanto. However, everyone claims that "flaws" in natlangs are not flaws because they are natural.

Fortunately, English is the third easiest language for speakers of my native language. I am glad that I am not Asian.

[Xing]

[*] All natural languages are complex, have lots of irregular forms and have a large vocabulary. Only a constructed language can be engineered to be simple, to be easy to learn and to have a small lexicon with accurate meanings and without redundancy.

Would it be a good thing for a language to "lack redundancy"?

[*] Native speakers have an unfair advantage and become the reference of students. Most people do not care about the culture of a country, they learn the language only because it is important.

People change language. If an auxlang would succeed, various groups of people would probably adopt it as their native language - giving them an "unfair" advantage.

However, everyone claims that "flaws" in natlangs are not flaws because they are natural.

It depends on what one means by "natural". I'd argue that they are not flaws (or at least, not as flawed as is sometimes claimed by auxlangers) not simply because they are "natural", but because they have been filtered through the constant use by thousands or millions of people throughout the ages, rather than simply been declared "good" or "bad" from someone's armchair.

Of course, written language, formal registers or specialised language work more like cultural artefacts in the they are deliberately acquired in another sense than the everyday spoken language. As such they may be more or less suitable for their purpose – just like social institutions or cultural mores in general.

[Squall]

In the context of auxlang, 'bad' is any features that make the language more difficult to learn. An example of 'bad' feature is irregular inflections.
Redundant words are bad because students have to learn more words and the language does not need them.

People change language. If an auxlang would succeed, various groups of people would probably adopt it as their native language - giving them an "unfair" advantage.

Latin was used for more than 1000 years as a local universal language and it had no native speakers after 900 AD.

There are native speakers of Esperanto. Native speakers of an auxlang would be dispersed around the world and would not be numerous. They would be bilingual as well because their region has a natural language.

The standard of an auxlang could be based only on reference books and students would learn the standard language.

Everyone, including native speakers, could do an exam of proficiency. If they change the language, they will fail the exam.

Edit: Now I wonder, are there native English speakers in the following conditions? They live in a country that was not colonized by the UK; they have never been to another country; and all people of their family are not native English speakers?

[Keenir]

Now I wonder, are there native English speakers that live in a country that was not colonized by the UK, have never been to another country, and all people of their family are not native English speakers?

Yes.

Among others...the Republic of Turkey.

(not sure what you mean by "have never been to another country" - as in they and their country don't do business with Anglophones, or...?)

[Squall]

(not sure what you mean by "have never been to another country" - as in they and their country don't do business with Anglophones, or...?)

I mean children that learned English from their parents and their parents are not native speakers.
EDIT 2: Now I have noticed that it is weird that a family speaks English in home in a non-Anglophone country and does not travel. Sorry.

[Znex]

In the context of auxlang, 'bad' is any features that make the language more difficult to learn. An example of 'bad' feature is irregular inflections.
Redundant words are bad because students have to learn more words and the language does not need them.

Arguably though, redundant features in a language actually make elements easier to retain and easier to use, if not easier to learn.

[Darvince]

I think they're talking about actual words, like the 2349023 words in English for each sexual object or other thing we find 'taboo' to discuss completely outright. I do agree that those (the words) make the language harder to learn and use.

[Squall]

Arguably though, redundant features in a language actually make elements easier to retain and easier to use, if not easier to learn.

I mean synonyms, e.g. start/begin/commence.

[Znex]

Even so, synonyms and the like are nuanced ways of saying the same thing in different contexts and so add to the spoken expression. I just feel like simplifying it all limits or at least detracts from how we express things.

[cntrational]

Only a constructed language can be ethnically neutral.

Yes. But why does it matter.

Is there really some huge benefit to this? The only people who care and are actually from foreign cultures tend to be the nationalist types, who bemoan such foreign concepts as "women having rights". You really want to appeal to them?

The only real promoters I meet of auxlangs are generally from developed countries. It's much rarer to meet people from actual developing countries who resent foreign languages and want auxlangs instead.

So, who exactly benefits with this "cultural neutrality" idea? What's the big deal of having cultures mix? If your problem is that native speakers would have a higher advantage, what the hell happens to native speakers of the auxlang? Will the world auxlang police murder them to ensure equality?

[Lambuzhao]

And, on another tack, contact languages/pidgins such as Russenorsk, used doublets from both basolects for a number of concepts. Maybe not 'synonyms' in the proper sense, but still abounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russenorsk#Vocabulary

With creolization and time, such doublets might strand out into different (collective) nuances, such as the
Anglo-French (food) -v- Anglo-Saxon (living creature) doublets in English

beef :: cow/bull
venison :: deer/stag/doe
veal :: calf
mutton :: sheep/ram/ewe
squab/pigeon :: dove

---

Where one gets the idea/basolects for an IAL could be from one of so many pie-slices:

What are the top 3/5/10most commonly spoken languages in the world by number of native speakers (L1)
What are the top 3/5/10 most commonly studied languages in the world by number of students (L2)
What are the top 3/5/10 most influential languages in the world by usefulness (?)
What are the top 3 languages that appear in all three of the above lists?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 036AA3RhlA
http://akarlin.com/2011/05/top-10-most- ... languages/

You could take some clues from actual pidgins like Kyakhta Russian Chinese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyakhta_R ... ese_Pidgin

Macanese Patois
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macanese_Patois

Papiamentu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiamento

and any and every other creole or pidgin that strikes your fancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
Esp. check Resources section

---

IMHO an IAL would be organically created by the speakers themselves, greatly influenced by technology, cultural ties, money, and prestige.

One cannot predict how, in the 2020s, the Baltic scientists will discover how to mimic the structure of amber artificially to perfect cryogenic stasis technology, and li'l ole Latvian becomes an immense tiger of a prestige language.

Or, that in the 2030s, Indonesian scientists perfect brainwave analog to digital transfer, and create cerebral uplink technology and Somnographic Recorders (I-Dream), making them leaders of a major technology the world will covet.

Or in the 2050s an Alliance of India, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Algeria, Australia and Canada may become the
League of Justice and police the world with honesty and zeal.

In the 2060s, the Messiah comes as a Ladino-speaking citizen of Israel, and/or comes back as a Spanglish-speaking Chicana from Arizona (Uncle Sam, Let my people GO IN!). Either way, we get new gospels con mucho sabor.

Or the Republic of Mari El becomes the financial epicenter for the diabolical offspring of bitcoin: zettazipcoin (?), yottaflipcoin(?).

Any factors like these would create new prestige languages/ prestige language Sprachbunds of sort of forseeable players, to complete dark horse home stretch linguochamps.

Personally, I can't wait.

But knowing something of the world, it'll prolly be Russia-China-Engledom-Arabiya auxlinguistic megazord time, before too long