Talk:Modern Indo-European

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Deletion Proposal

[edit] For

Non-notable conlang project, and it appears that the initiator of it himself has put up this article (and put links to it in inappropriate places), so it's also vanity. CRCulver 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this deserves an article. If its a revival proposal, and not an independent conlang, mention it in the main language article. However, it has some sort of grammar rules of its own, so I added a Category:Reconstructed languages for the moment - Category:Constructed languages doesnt seem correct, if its not invented. Now is not orphan anymore. Miquelrc 81.32.156.60 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against

  1. Conlang project. Doesn't seem to be a conlang, but a revival project of an already reconstructed, dead language, the Proto-Indo-European language from Indo-European studies.
  2. Not-notable project. After a simple Google search, the project doesn't seem to be new nor not-notable for the press, at least in Spain. Following WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOT, I would have recommended a mergeto tag if I were Crculver
  3. Links in inappropriate places. Those incorrect links were immediatly deleted by Crculver, the article needs now proper linking if maintained. I think the deletion initiator himself should look for the right place, as he appears to work with language issues.
  4. "Vanity". A Google search shows that the subject is not new and is discussed publicly in some populated forums, such as Yahoo and Europe United. The initial IP was from Telefonica (Spain), possibly dynamic. Even if the coincidences were more (following WP:VAIN) <<Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory. As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is.>>

I would personally recommend keeping a different article for this subject, not to merge it with other, more visited (and important) articles. Alternatively the information - if kept - could also be merged:

If Mr. Culver or any other still want to delete, please use Article for Deletion and discuss it further. In my opinion, linguist editors should preferably work in merging or otherwise changing this information, and keep in mind that (following Wikipedia:Deletion policy) <<XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.>>

Pablo 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique problem

One of the problems in assessing the notability of Modern Indo European is the difficulty that arises when you try to Google it. Google Brithenig, and you get 17,000 hits, which must qualify it as notable—not just the hobby of a handful of friends. Google Babm and you get 51,000 hits, even more notable. Google "Modern Indo-European", and you get 14,000 hits. This looks notable enough, until you realise that the majority turn up the phrase "modern Indo-European languages", in reference to existing natural languages.

That aside, the use of a reconstructed proto-language as a conlang is one that cannot help but engage the interest of the international conlang community. That someone has done this is worth noting, however small or great the current following of the language itself. I am not part of the conlang fraternity, but I will be very interested to see if other proto-languages are taken up in the same way—especially Proto-Austronesian, or even Proto-Polynesian; and Wikipedia is the first place I will look.

I say keep the article. Koro Neil (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merger

The information in Sindhueuropaiom and Europaio are almost identical. Give this, and given the relative obscurity of each of these proposed reconstructed languages, it seems they should be merged. Interlingua talk email 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course: merge! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Supporting argument: This place linx a PDF that criticizes the "Europaiom" and "Sindhueuropaiom" systems or the separations between them, and instead proposes "Modern Indo-European"! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I merged the two articles and renamed it Modern Indo-European (as was already mentioned the current preferred name for the revival project and it encompasses the two dialects).--Αεκος 12:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling System

It'd be really nice if someone could write down the consonants and their pronounciation. It would also be nice if someone could write behind each word (in the translation) the meaning of that word. Just found out that there's a comma behind the first word and that seems sort of interesting :P

By the way, I didn't find any critics about this project. In some fora (such as http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=23937 or http://dnghu.org/forum/) some people are calling this language to complex and difficult.

And has anyone found a sound file of this language? I read (on the dnghu webpage) that there should be a podcast before summer 07, but I can't find one. If there's one, it'd be cool if someone could link it. -- 91.5.239.219 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PIE Perfection

Indo-European Dictionary by Gerhard Köbler that contains Indo-European Grammar in Vorwort section is a much more perfect solution for learning PIE, because it avoids any compromises with daughter IE languages. These compromises are:

  • Using "q" as cover for "kṷ" and "qṷ"
  • Using "w" instead of "ṷ"
  • Using Latin-like and Greek-like word forms instead of their original PIE cognate forms

Because of these compromises, I advise using rather Köbler's Indo-European Dictionary than Dnghu's site as PIE learning standard.

Wikinger 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

True, it would be best if both are included.--Αεκος 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MIE has too other compromises such as borrowing Holy Hebrew Names to MIE text without giving Them Their relevant Indo-European cognate forms and without introducing Them there in Indo-European form, by using for example nostratic correspondences from http://www.nostratic.net . For example, MIE team uses spelling Jesus Christus and Marija instead of making cognate-compliant transition of Hebrew HWY-WT MSH and RYM into Indo-European Bhwi-swento-s Mesro-s and Rei-s, analogous to transitions demonstrated here: http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(83)helimski2000-3.pdf . Meaning on both sides remains of course roughly the same. In this way MIE team is totally unaware to TOTALLY MONOPOLISTIC STATUS of Indo-European language. Because of these many compromises, MIE team should be totally rejected, and replaced with better project, for example this one: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language 91.94.19.220 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Conlang"

This is not a conlang, it is a reconstructed language. --Αεκος 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reconstructed language is called Proto Indo-European. This Modern Indo-European is a conlang based on it but also adding a lot of constructed vocabulary and other things. Stefán 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That would technically make Hebrew a constructed language as well. I agree that this isn't a conlang - simply deriving new terms for modern use doesn't make a language a conlang. Mithridates 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Modern Hebrew and "Modern Indo-European" is that Modern Hebrew is based on an attested language; in that sense it's a revival like Modern Cornish is. "Modern Indo-European" is not based on an attested language, it's based on one interpretation of what "late" PIE might have sounded like. (And from what I saw at the sources, not even the most widely accepted reconstruction, since it excludes laryngeals.) —Angr 10:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can judge whether a language is a conlang or not based on exactly how close it is to the original language, since that's always a matter of opinion and it's hard to fix a definite dividing line on where a language is a reconstructed language and from where it becomes artificial. In my opinion it's more accurate to look at the intent of the creators - if there is definite evidence that they have decided to superimpose an artificial construct on something that clearly didn't function that way (for example by making all verbs regular in order to make the language easier to learn) then the language is clearly a constructed one, but on the other hand if the authors clearly believe that the version they are creating is as close to the original as possible, then their intent lies in reconstructing a language, not making a new one. In this case laryngeals are a bit of a distraction from the main point that this is a language reconstruction, not an entirely new one.
If for example 5000 years in the future a group of people decided to try to revive English based on a few documents from the 21st century and stayed as close to the original as they could, making a mistake such as pronouncing the letter g as the Dutch do wouldn't make the language a conlang, just a reconstructed language with an error. Mithridates 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, but they would still be reviving English based on actual attestations of English. "Modern Indo-European" is not based on anything actually attested. Proto-Indo-European, like all reconstructed proto-languages, is basically an algebraic construct; you can't "revive" it, because it was never alive. We do not know and can never know exactly how the Indo-Europeans of 5000 years ago spoke; reconstructed PIE is just an approximation, and all reputable Indo-Europeanists acknowledge this. The difference between the language that people actually spoke and reconstructed PIE is probably at least as great as the difference between Latin and reconstructed Proto-Romance. If someone tried to revive Latin as a spoken community language, that would be language revival. If someone tried to expand reconstructed Proto-Romance into a complete language and explicitly stated the desire that that language be used for international communication, that would be a conlang, specifically an auxlang. You wrote, "if there is definite evidence that they have decided to superimpose an artificial construct on something that clearly didn't function that way (for example by making all verbs regular in order to make the language easier to learn) then the language is clearly a constructed one", and that is precisely the case here. Not only have they intentionally simplified the phonological system by artificially removing the laryngeals, they have simplified the verb conjugation, and most obviously they have created vocabulary (mostly by taking Latinate words over wholesale) where none is reconstructable. The phrase "Modesnī Sindhueurōpáī Grbhmńtikā" and words like "adsóqiatiōn" or "Léikentiās" are not part of PIE, they are not part of a reconstructed language to be revived; they are part of a conlang. —Angr 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I completely agree with Angr here and am especially pleased that he dealt with the highly misleading infobox this page had before. Stefán 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This reconstruction of Proto Indo European called Indo-European Dictionary by Gerhard Köbler that contains Indo-European Grammar in Vorwort section supersedes Dnghu's Modern Indo European in accuracy and purity, and is more perfect than Dnghu's version. Wikinger 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Asking about the language on Auxlang I received the following response:
"Thanks to J.Chandler's webpage, I could get in touch with C.Quiles, the founder of the http://dnghu.org project two months ago. As the inventor of the auxlang sambahsa-mundialect (very highly modernised indo-european), you can imagine how big was my surprise. It was as if someone having invented modern english would have found somebody who had invented proto-germanic. The first purpose of the Modern Indo-European project (MIE) is to resurrect the Indo-European language as it may have been spoken some thousands of years ago and, the second one is to promote its EU-wide use (when it will have been finally reconstructed....). Reading the grammar of MIE, I pointed out a minor error (concerning the reflexive pronouns) and the friendly C.Quiles amended it accordingly. So I can tell that I have brought my little stone to this huge monument. This example shows that MIE is not a con(structed) lang(uage) but rather a recon(structed) lang(uage) because it has to respect strictly the attested patterns of old indo-european grammar."
This is exactly what I've been saying - having a disagreement on the accuracy of the reconstruction does _not_ make a language a conlang; what would make it a conlang is if the authors were to overrule obviously incorrect portions in favour of something they made up. Since they are willing to amend the language when sufficient proof has been shown that they are in error, it's a reconstructed language, not a constructed language, regardless of the scarcity of resources we have for Indo-European. Mithridates 14:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. A willingness to change a conlang to make it more like its a posteriori source doesn't stop it being a conlang. The fact that its creators stubbornly refuse to admit it's a conlang doesn't stop it being one either. Basically, the only reason this even has its own article is that it's a conlang. If it really were simply reconstructed PIE, this article would have to be deleted and redirected to Proto-Indo-European language. —Angr 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Gerhard Köbler's page deals with the reconstruction of PIE, not with MIE. I don't really understand why the page is even listed here. —Angr 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Gerhard Köbler's page is listed to show better alternative to MIE. Wikinger 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this link has no place here. We link to Proto-Indo-European language from the "see also" section, that's enough. I doubt we should have this article at all. It will suffice to mention it in a "list of auxlangs" somewhere. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thus please integrate this MIE language with list of auxlangs. Wikinger 09:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I also think this is not a conlang, but "a project to speak a dead (reconstructed) language" - I have read their project and the reports and news about it (linked from in their forum, although my Spanish is poor), and their objective doesn't seem to 'look for a new, improvised language'; even their grammar is purposedly designed to serve as a guide to speak the 'already reconstructed Proto-Indoeuropean', not to reconstruct 'their own Proto-Indoeuropean', so to say. I saw recently a discussion in the German Wikipedia about the "Europaio Conlang", and even the founder showed up and said he didn't want the project to be listed in our Wikipedia, because it was 'incorrectly described' and 'not relevant' enough - eventually, this and many articles on doubtful conlangs were deleted, like Germanic IAL, Glosa, etc. - articles obviously copied from the English Wikipedia. I think the project is known and valuable for a complete encyclopaedic compendium like this English one, and should appear accordingly, but if it is not a conlang, as I and others believe, but a project similar to the Hebrew revival, as has been said above and the article modified in this way instead of deleted (correctly, I think)... shouldn't it be more correctly added as just a section in the Proto-Indoeuropean article (like "Proto-Indoeuropean Revival attempts"?, or maybe "Late Proto-Indoeuropean revival"?), instead of an article on the rules, guides or recommendations of this or that group?. I don't think this group will be (or even is) alone trying to revive PIE, as some users above show they disagree and some approaches, and this Wikipedia article should talk about the revival project(s) as a whole (adding new information as it grows), not about a single association or group of individuals or their achievements. And, btw. shouldn't this article be more properly named as "Modern Indoeuropean language"? -- Max°Talk 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I know the creators would like to believe that their project is parallel to the revival of Hebrew, but they are simply mistaken. Hebrew did not have to be reconstructed to be revived. Although Hebrew was no one's everyday, native "please-pass-the-salt" language from about the 5th century BC until the late 19th or early 20th century AD, it had never stopped being used as a liturgical language -- and its literature was not static. Hebrew had an enormous, growing, corpus of literature written by people who, although not native speakers, had been reading and writing in Hebrew from young childhood. There was a complete language there that had developed naturally among its users. PIE, on the other hand, has never been either anyone's native spoken language or a written language. Its entire grammar -- phonology, morphology, and syntax -- has been carefully, deliberately created by scholars. In some sense even PIE is a conlang, although that term is generally not used for proto-languages because they have a very different purpose from canonical conlangs. The creators may claim "their grammar is purposely designed to serve as a guide to speak the 'already reconstructed Proto-Indoeuropean'", but what they are ignoring is the fact that there is no one single "already reconstructed Proto-Indo-European". There are dozens of different ones, depending on the linguist doing the reconstruction. MIE's creators have cobbled together one particular version of that constructed grammar, simplified it (by removing laryngeals if nothing else), and created new vocabulary for it for the purpose of having it become an international lingua franca, in other words an auxlang. They also state somewhere in the PDF linked to from this article that MIE isn't a conlang because it developed naturally among its speakers, or words to that effect. This is either profound ignorance or intentional deception on their part: PIE isn't a natural language, it's a mathematical abstraction. Serious historical linguists make no pretense that reconstructed languages are accurate reflections of how anyone actually spoke. Schleicher's fable is an amusing game, but no serious linguist believes that the fable is an accurate portrayal of how people spoke in 2000 BC, or indeed that it is even possible to ever know how people spoke in 2000 BC. MIE is definitely a conlang. The only difference between it and other conlangs like Esperanto is that the people proposing it are not its sole creators: the language has been constructed more by Bopp, Schleicher, Burgmann, Kuryłowicz, Watkins, Schindler, Rix, and dozens of others than by Quiles and Batalla, but it has been constructed. —Angr 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This point has already been addressed - a language isn't a conlang based on the accuracy of the existing information, but whether the creators willingly supplant established information/theory in favor of their own view of what a language should be. You seem to be under the impression that there is an imaginary cutoff line whereupon a language suddenly becomes a conlang - where is that? If a language is 2000 years old and a liturgical language then no, then what about 2200 years old and hasn't been a liturgical language for 500 years? What about a language that was a liturgical language 1000 years ago but hasn't been spoken for another 2000? A language could be 100% incorrect but as long as its based on established theory and doesn't attempt to supplant research in favor of its idea of what a language should be, it is reconstructed, not constructed. Mithridates 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The cutoff line between attested languages and reconstructed ones isn't imaginary. They're two completely different things. And a conlang is not defined as one whose "creators willingly supplant established information/theory in favor of their own view of what a language should be"; a conlang is defined, according to our article constructed language, as "a language whose phonology, grammar, and/or vocabulary have been devised by an individual or group, instead of having naturally evolved as part of a culture". MIE fits that definition perfectly. Hebrew doesn't come close to it. —Angr 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not a bad definition for a conlang but it's certainly not the whole of it. That definition has been around since 2001 and has never really been discussed (nor sourced): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructed_language&oldid=241436 The 'definition' was written to contrast conlangs with natlangs, not with reconstructed languages. There are languages that both evolve as part of a culture and then are changed by a group - see hangul, standardization of Korean during the Japanese occupation, Turkish language reforms after the Ottoman Empire, etc. In those cases you can find examples where the phonology, grammar and vocabulary have all been devised by an individual or group but are still natlangs, so the definition isn't all that precise in determining what is a conlang and what isn't. Mithridates 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
<<Conlang: "a language whose phonology, grammar, and/or vocabulary have been devised by an individual or group, instead of having naturally evolved as part of a culture". MIE fits that definition perfectly. Hebrew doesn't come close to it.>> That's your own opinion: as I said, the article here is (or should be) about speaking PIE as a modern language, not about creating one; and, by the way, Hebrew come close to that definition, if not read about Modern Hebrew history and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda's new dictionaries and the Hebrew Academy's new rules... -- Max°Talk 10:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot say Angr is wrong - I'm no linguist, so anyone can kick me off this discussion about PIE's existence with good arguments at any moment. The question is, though, that there are a thousand good (original) arguments out there in the Net that could help dismiss the PIE hypothesis (as well as a thousand different scientific hypothesis in biochemistry that could help dismiss the general hypothesis I have to study everyday...): Lots of linguists might think PIE didn't exist, or is impossible to reconstruct, etc., but encyclopedias (like this one) compile the knowledge as is, not as the WWW shows, or as individual authors think it should be. So, for example, Britannica talks about a peacefully spread of a hypothetical PIE language (following Renfrew's views, which I like the most, instead of Gimbutas' spread of "Indoeuropean warriors-conquerors"), and the Encarta does more or less the same (but worse...) - they select an own approach, but don't delete other general views. I think Angr is hiding the real point here under a "is MIE a conlang"?, instead of the real question "is PIE a real language at all"? (or "is PIE as real as Old Hebrew?", if you like) which should be addressed at the PIE article/s, if addressed in the Wikipedia at all (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:APATHY). To put an example, let's talk about Tolkien's associations, or Scientology sections, or whatever article you might think of: are they real/serious/trustable/etc.? Well, you might discuss whether LOTR, Star Wars, House or Neo-Nazism articles are stupidities/unreal/not trustworthy/etc., but they are indeed encyclopedic. I think there is more or less consensus over that - On the other hand, the sections which talk about Tolkien fans, Star Wars events or characters, House actors, or European Neo-Nazi parties, for example, shouldn't be deleted on the same basis you want to use to delete the articles they are based upon. (Now, that doesn't mean that I am contesting a possible WP:NOTINHERITED - the notability of the revival project should be proven independently from PIE - but for original research about PIE's existence, one should address the experts at the Proto-Indo-European language article and discuss with them). -- Max°Talk 10:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am a linguist, and I spent my first four years in graduate school concentrating on Indo-European linguistics. I am not questioning the reconstructability of PIE. Nor am I questioning the accuracy of Quiles & Batalla's reconstruction (except for the absence of laryngeals). What I am saying is that a reconstructed proto-language like PIE is a hypothetical construct designed to explain the relationship among various attested languages. A reconstructed proto-language like PIE is in no way comparable to an attested language like pre-20th century Hebrew, and for that reason, a project designed to make a reconstructed proto-language into an international auxiliary language is not a case of reviving an attested language (as the Hebrew revival was), but is rather a case of creating a new language, i.e. a conlang.
How about a compromise? Rather than having an article on the language "Modern Indo-European", we change the name of this article to Dnghu and rewrite it to be about the association and the project, rather than the language. We can describe them as an organization dedicated to the use of Proto-Indo-European as an international language, without taking a stand ourselves as to the nature of the language whose use they're promoting. —Angr 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. There's precious little of the language to look at now anyway and even on their site they recommend that people avoid trying to learn it now, so focus on the group itself as opposed to the language sounds like a much better way to go. Mithridates 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hhmpff - you see, Angr, you kicked me off with your studies in linguistics... I cannot say no to your proposal, but I cannot exactly agree either. Now, let me put an example of my idea about this article in terms of other information: the article now is like talking about (an invented) 'New Rol Playing' but, because there is only one group, we are discussing to talk about the group or individuals involved instead of the game itself, because some think it cannot be correctly classified as rol playing and thus don't fit in Roleplaying. I think this group and people didn't do anything but to promote an interesting project, which is the one talked about in the media (as far as I can understand Spanish...); for me it has become an information valuable for an encyclopedia, but only as a little information about the project itself (like a section "#Proto-Indo-European/language revival" in, say, Indo-European studies or sth. similar), and then, if these people/group are reckoned as being "enough encyclopedic", so to speak (because their society becomes a recognized regulator or whatever) then they deserve to be talked about. Now, it's a difficult question: whose is the notability here? If somebody (another example) takes some old Christian writings and tries to establish an "original Christian religion" which becomes enough notable, what should a serious Encyclopedia contain? Information about the people or group (say, "the Church of The First Day Apostles"?), or a little section in an already encyclopedic article like "Christian revisionism" or "New Testament#Early Manuscripts##Consequences"? Part of my confusion comes certainly from the fact that I was convinced about the comparable nature of Modern Hebrew and "Modern Indoeuropean", because of the information table contained in Dnghu's grammar (and yes, it's obviously not an independent source...), and also because I wasn't able to find enough linguistic information about the Revival of Hebrew language - nobody seems prepared to share information about how much from Ancient Hebrew is actually used in Modern Hebrew. I think I'll let you linguists from now on decide about how to manage and classify this 'encyclopedically borderline' information, so to say - I cannot express my opinion better, only put more stupid examples ;-) -- Max°Talk 7:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Words such as "Sindhueurōpaiā", "Modesnī Sindhueurōpáī Grbhmńtikā", "Tekst Transdéuktiōnos" "Adsóqiatiōn" or "Léikentiās", etc... are using too non-PIE morphemes, thus are not proper, and should be cognatized according to PIE vocabulary, as proper PIE compounds. 91.94.19.220 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unnotable

WP:ILIKEIT, but this is probably not for Wikipedia due to insufficient notability. I suggest we redirect this page to auxiliary language and list MIE there as a further example. dab (𒁳) 08:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are seeing here too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:APATHY, and probably soon WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, as happened in the German Wikipedia some time ago, instead of trying to improve the information contained therein. Now someone could say "hey, Spanish-only news and Internet blogs/forums, hence WP:LOCALFAME!", which may be answered by "you are using a WP:UNKNOWNHERE". Indeed it didn't appear in the BBC or Deutsche Welle, but it is not a case of a forum(s)-only conlang. As an example, some people may like the Pan-Europa Union article or not, some may like the Pro-Europeanism article or not, and some may like or dislike the articles about Tolkien this or Star Wars that, their position, their lack or excess of information, their position or even existence in a 'NPOV-guided' or 'serious' Wikipedia, etc.; but there is no point (I think) in discussing their 'notability' for this Encyclopaedia at this point, unless we enter in simple WP:ILIKEITs vs. WP:IDONTLIKEITs -- Max°Talk 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)