From: bsavage /c`e/ nuri.net Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 14:29:23 PST Subject: AUXLANG: Detlev Blanke's Classification      I had  mentioned Detlev  Blanke's classification  of conlangs which he  calls "planned  languages" (a  term that  I prefer) but this classification was rejected by BRG as being self serving  to Esperanto!  This is complete and utter nonsense.  It is of course quite possible to  disagree but the  basis for that  disagreement must be scientific and not emotional as BRG's rejection seemed to be.  For example it would  be quite alright to disagree with  the number of stages in the  classification or the grouping of  these stages or the naming of the groups but such disagreement must  be based on sound argument and principles.      I am not a professional  linguist as is Blanke and  therefore my opinion may not have much weight but I deem his classification to be both interesting and useful.  Believing that it might be of interest to  members of  this forum  I present  an outline  of it below.  I take this  material from "Planned languages -  a survey of some of the main problems" by Detlev Blanke appearing on pages 63 to 87 of "Interlinguistics / Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages"  edited  by  Klaus   Schubert  from  the  "Trends   in Linguistics / Studies and  Monographs 42" published by  Mouton De Gruyer 1989.      Blanke claims that "the  history of planned languages  shows, nonlinguistic factors are more important than linguistic  factors in  determining  the  relative  success  of  a  specific  planned language system."   He  first develops  a set  of 19 parallel and sequential steps through which a planned language might pass.  He then defines three groups:  PROJECTS ... steps 1 - 4  SEMILANGUAGES ... steps 1 - 9  LANGUAGES ... steps 1 - 19  These possible steps of a planned language are:  (1) PUBLICATION of its structure  (2) a PRODUCTION OF TEXTS sometimes appearing in a small journal     accompanied by discussion of linguistic details and     information to be used as prpoganda  (3) a few interested persons from different countries learn the     system and use it mainly for INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENCE  (4) a certain ORGANIZATION OF THE ADEPTS and somewhat systematic     publicity  (5) the creation of LITERATURE  (6) the appearance of certain (small) JOURNALS  (7) a certain application to SPECIALIZED TEXTS  (8) TAUGHT to a certain extent  (9) applied internationally in SPEECH  (10) further SPECIALIZED PRACTICAL USAGE (specialized journals      and organizations)  (11) a developed network of national and international      ORGANIZATIONS  (12) a wide range of LITERATURE  (13) relatively wide INSTRUCTION (smetimes state supported)  (14) large periodically occuring INTERNATIONAL EVENTS  (15) regular RADIO-PROGRAMMES  (16) clear SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DISTINCTIONS in the already      formed language community and its linguistic reflection  (17) an independent YOUTH MOVEMENT  (18) a certain evolution of INDEPENDENT CULTURAL ELEMENTS linked      to the language community  (19) BILINGUALISM (involving an ethnic and a planned language) of      children in (most often international) families      Blanke  also  discusses  how  various  conlangs fit into this scheme.   For example  more than  900 projects  ended immediately after  step   (1).     By  contrast   to  varying   degrees  Ido, Interlingua-Gode,  Occidental-Interlingue,  and  Volapuek reached all steps up to  (9).  Only Esperanto  has passed through all  19 steps of  the socialization  process.   Speaking about  the three groups (i.e. project, semilanguage, and language) Blanke writes -      "All  three  groups  merit  the  interest  of  linguists.   A consequence of  this classification,  if followed  rigorously, is that  it  is  not  possible  to  speak  in  the plural of planned languages.   If this  is nevertheless  done, it  is necessary  to understand the plural as ellipsis (= planned languages  systems), which is used to contrast the language phenomenon discussed  with ethnic languages."    ------------------------------------------------------   | en songxo princinon mi vidis                       |    | kun vangoj malsekaj de ploro        Barry Savage   |    | sub arbo, sub verda ni sidis      bsavage /c`e/ nuri.net |   | tenante nin kore cxe koro                          |   ------------------------------------------------------  *****************************************************************  ah514 /c`e/ FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Manuel M Campagna) cites the comparative positions of Esperanto and other "successful" conlangs in this schema:   According to Detlev Blanke's "Internationale Sprachen / Eine Einfuehrung" (1985) the following steps were reached by the languages mentioned :  1. Publication ("Veroeffentlichung") was reached by numerous projects ("zahlreiche Projekte").  2. Operation ("Der Autor gibt eine kleine Zeitschrift i. d. System hereaus") was accomplished by Ro (Foster 1908), Medial (Weisbard 1923), and the subsequently named projects.  3. Membership ("Relativ starke Propagierung. Es gibt einige Anhaenger (erste int. Korrespondenz)") and :  4. Organization ("Gewisse organisatorische Formen der Propagierung (kleine Organisationen)") were reached by Idiom Neutral (Rosenberger 1898), Novial (Jespersen 1928), Neo (Alfandari 1961), and the subsequently named projects.  5. Belles-Lettres ("Belletristik : einige Uebersetzungen, etwas Originalliteratur") and :  6. Journalism [early] ("Einige Zeitschriften in der Plansprache") and :  7. Application ("Gewisse Anwendun fuer Fachliche Zwecke (Wiss. und Technik)") were reached by Latino Sine Flexione (Peano 1903), Basic-English (Ogden 1930), and the subsequently named projects.  8. Instruction ("Gewisser Unterricht (Kurse, nichtstaatlich) and :  9. Usage ("Gewisse int. muendliche Verwendung (int. Veranstaltungen)") reached by Volapuek (Schleyer 1879), Ido (Beaufront/Couturat 1907), Occidental/Interlingue (de/von Wahl 1922), Interlingua (Gode 1951) and the subsequently named project.  10. Technical Usage ("Staerkere prakt. Verwendung fuer Fachzeitschriften, Fachorganisationen") through :  ...  18. Native Usage ("Gewisse Anwendung als Familiensprache (Bilinguismus der Kinder)") were reached only by Esperanto (Zamenhof 1887).