LangMaker Top 100

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 1:03 am

Ghost wrote:

How many people have put their lang up on http://www.langmaker.com. I have, it should be on the list soon.

Please go to http://www.jaueqaomys.tk

Qrac [/url]

I put mine up in January, but my language is totally different now, so I better go change it.

Xeon · Post by **Xeon** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:50 am

The Langmaker countdown means nothing. Esperanto is #1 on it.

*scores a four-peat*

Shm Jay · Post by **Shm Jay** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:35 am

Xeon wrote:The Langmaker countdown means nothing. Esperanto is #1 on it.

That tells *me* that the countdown is reliable.

Xeon · Post by **Xeon** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:24 pm

Shm Jay wrote:
Xeon wrote:The Langmaker countdown means nothing. Esperanto is #1 on it.
That tells *me* that the countdown is reliable.

I like Esperanto, but it's basically just a bunch of languages butchered and thrown into one.

*scores another four-peat*

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:55 pm

Esperato sounds too Romance to be an international language. Amusing how the only attempts at such things I've heard of are done by Europeans, and they all sound like Romance languages. Zamenhof wasn't nearly creative enough for my taste.

Izambri · Post by **Izambri** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:47 pm

valinta wrote:Esperato sounds too Romance to be an international language. Amusing how the only attempts at such things I've heard of are done by Europeans, and they all sound like Romance languages. Zamenhof wasn't nearly creative enough for my taste.

I speak a Romace language and Esperanto doesn't seems to me very 'Romance'; it reminds me of a kind of Eastern Europe/Balkan language, don't ask me why... (this is absolutely subjective, of course).

I agree with you: Zamenhof wasn't nearly creative enough.... I think one of the main problems of Esperanto is that it doesn't have a mythology... if Esperanto had a mythology (invented, of course), it would had more acceptance, maybe.... Look at Quenya and Sindarin; they are great langs and they have great mythologies behind. I prefer Quenya as an auxlang instead of Esperanto...
Well, maybe the main problem of Esperanto is that sounds ugly for a lot of people and it's too 'recognizable'... too indoeuropean.

Xeon · Post by **Xeon** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:15 pm

Izopiru wrote:I speak a Romace language and Esperanto doesn't seems to me very 'Romance'; it reminds me of a kind of Eastern Europe/Balkan language, don't ask me why...

Well, the creator was a native speaker of Polish.

Izopiru wrote:Well, maybe the main problem of Esperanto is that sounds ugly for a lot of people and it's too 'recognizable'... too indoeuropean.

That was Zamenhof's intention.

Izambri · Post by **Izambri** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:47 pm

Xeon wrote:
Izopiru wrote:Well, maybe the main problem of Esperanto is that sounds ugly for a lot of people and it's too 'recognizable'... too indoeuropean.
That was Zamenhof's intention.

Why? I think is better to base a worlwide auxlang on more than one linguistic family.

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:25 am

Izopiru wrote:
Xeon wrote:
Izopiru wrote:Well, maybe the main problem of Esperanto is that sounds ugly for a lot of people and it's too 'recognizable'... too indoeuropean.
That was Zamenhof's intention.
Why? I think is better to base a worlwide auxlang on more than one linguistic family.

If he wanted it to be as Indo-European as it is, he shouldn't have tried to pass it off as an "international language."

Does anybody know of an "international" auxlang that isn't primarily IE-based? I'm curious.

Xeon · Post by **Xeon** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:29 am

valinta wrote:Does anybody know of an "international" auxlang that isn't primarily IE-based? I'm curious.

Lojban

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 am

Xeon wrote:
valinta wrote:Does anybody know of an "international" auxlang that isn't primarily IE-based? I'm curious.
Lojban

Oh yeah. *reminds self to look at it sometime*

Obligatory reminder: Post 666! *song "You're going to hell" from the South Park Movie plays in the background*

Drakes · Post by **Drakes** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:32 am

Heh, I was looking through Langmaker's conlang list a couple days ago, and it seemed every other lang on the list was an auxlang based on Esperanto...
It's been done so many times. What's the fun in reinventing that particular wheel?

Raphael · Post by **Raphael** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:46 pm

valinta wrote:If he wanted it to be as Indo-European as it is, he shouldn't have tried to pass it off as an "international language."

He had covered most of Europe as well as most of the countries founded by people of European descent in other parts of the world- back then, in the opinion of most of the people in these countries, that was enough to qualify as "international".

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:05 pm

Raphael wrote:
valinta wrote:If he wanted it to be as Indo-European as it is, he shouldn't have tried to pass it off as an "international language."
He had covered most of Europe as well as most of the countries founded by people of European descent in other parts of the world- back then, in the opinion of most of the people in these countries, that was enough to qualify as "international".

True, but there's people today who still want it to be the international language. That would be kind of like giving European imperialists the last laugh (if they haven't already had it with English), eh?

Miekko · Post by **Miekko** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:30 am

valinta wrote:
Izopiru wrote:
Xeon wrote:
Izopiru wrote:Well, maybe the main problem of Esperanto is that sounds ugly for a lot of people and it's too 'recognizable'... too indoeuropean.
That was Zamenhof's intention.
Why? I think is better to base a worlwide auxlang on more than one linguistic family.
If he wanted it to be as Indo-European as it is, he shouldn't have tried to pass it off as an "international language."

Does anybody know of an "international" auxlang that isn't primarily IE-based? I'm curious.

Well, it's following is probably somewhere <2, but there was this guy on the conlang list (which stopped being an auxlang list when the auxlang list was created so the non-auxlanger conlangers could be left in peace, tho' I guess for questions on grammar etc. the conlang list is a resource for the more intellectual amateur auxlangers) who made a fennougric (as far as grammar) auxlang with, iirc, the vocabulary not derived from any language at all, but rather generated from scratch. It was called Uusisuom.

Of course, FU is as close you can come to IE without being IE, or perhaps not.

valinta · Post by **valinta** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:54 pm

Miekko wrote:It was called Uusisuom.

Of course, FU is as close you can come to IE without being IE, or perhaps not.

New Finnish?

If Finno-Ugric isn't the closest to IE, what is? (I'm not making any assertions or asking anyone in particular)

Drydic · Post by **Drydic** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:03 am

valinta wrote:
Miekko wrote:It was called Uusisuom.

Of course, FU is as close you can come to IE without being IE, or perhaps not.
New Finnish?

If Finno-Ugric isn't the closest to IE, what is? (I'm not making any assertions or asking anyone in particular)

Depends on your definition of Indo-European. If you include Anatolian in IE, then it's probably FU/Uralic (I once read where it was South Caucasian, but I've never seen any evidence for or against that). If you separate Anatolian out, then it's obviously Anatolian.

Of course these are just of the families that are represented today. There were likely many closer to IE, but they got swallowed up by the Indo-Iranian hordes.

cctoide · Post by **cctoide** » Sat May 14, 2005 5:54 pm

Kind of offtopic now, but it seems like the actual number of the beast is 616...

No topic for ID 616 though.

Cro Magnon · Post by **Cro Magnon** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:02 pm

Xeon wrote:
valinta wrote:Does anybody know of an "international" auxlang that isn't primarily IE-based? I'm curious.
Lojban

Or Klingon. It's not just international, it's interplanetary! And it probably looks less alien than Lojban.

Aszev · Post by **Aszev** » Sun May 15, 2005 1:54 am

My guess would be that Zamenhof made Esperanto IE because when he lived, the Europeans ruled the world and almost noone at thet time wound ever dream of that the colonial rule would fall...

Legros · Post by **Legros** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:24 am

skrivihop wrote:My guess would be that Zamenhof made Esperanto IE because when he lived, the Europeans ruled the world and almost noone at thet time wound ever dream of that the colonial rule would fall...

Those were the good old days

*waxes nostalgic*

Turtlehead · Post by **Turtlehead** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:10 am

WHAT ABOUT INTERLINGUA? THAT LANGUAGE WOULD WORK

Curlyjimsam · Post by **Curlyjimsam** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:46 am

Raphael wrote:
valinta wrote:If he wanted it to be as Indo-European as it is, he shouldn't have tried to pass it off as an "international language."
He had covered most of Europe as well as most of the countries founded by people of European descent in other parts of the world- back then, in the opinion of most of the people in these countries, that was enough to qualify as "international".

Indeed, if 'international' is taken to mean 'between nations' then something only needs to be spoken in two different countries to qualify as such.

I have a theory about auxlangs. One day, everyone will speak one. However, nobody will speak the same one.

Skrivihop wrote:My guess would be that Zamenhof made Esperanto IE because when he lived, the Europeans ruled the world and almost no one at thet time wound ever dream of that the colonial rule would fall...

Also, if Wikipedia is to be believed, although he spoke several languages, only one of them (Hebrew) was non-Indo-European. Could have had quite a bearing on how Esperanto turned out.

I find it interesting that although this thread is in the 'Almea' forum, none of the posts appearing in the 'Topic Review' actually have anything to do with Mark's conworld ...

Turtlehead · Post by **Turtlehead** » Sun May 13, 2007 5:03 pm

Turtlehead wrote:WHAT ABOUT INTERLINGUA? THAT LANGUAGE WOULD WORK

Lol. It's me back in the day.

*COUGH COUGH*

Its the 666 thread. Maybe the top 100 Langmakers are the sign of the beast.

xeta · Post by **xeta** » Sat May 19, 2007 8:47 am

Does anyone know if this list is still updated? Thank you.