Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Naturalistic planned language, along with schematic planned language, was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to merge.

(move and redirect to international auxiliary language accomplished, —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Both of these are original research: there is no evidence that anyone outside Wikipedia has ever used these terms. Of particular interest are Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/

  • Merge and redirect to constructed language. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 1080 and 680 google hits for these articles, respectively, mostly wikipedia clones from the look of it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure how widely these two terms are used, but a similar distinction was drawn in Mario Pei's book One Language for the World, which I read many, many years ago. There is a third kind, a priori languages, whose words are arbitrary coinages, sometimes with some sort of classification scheme, that should be mentioned. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A priori languages and a posteriori languages are both described adequately at constructed language. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 20:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is not the same distinction though. Both Esperanto (a typical "schematic" IAL) and Interlingua (a typical "naturalistic" IAL) are a posteriori languages. [[User:Livajo|力伟|]] 19:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am one person who has used these terms outside of Wikipedia. I'm not a big fan of the terms ("naturalistic" for me would include any constructed language that mimics the way natural languages work, not just a particular group of existing languages) but they have indeed caught on in the conlanging community, at least in the portion of it interested in international auxiliary languages. [[User:Livajo|力伟|]] 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thought, the titles of these articles connotes a pro-Esperantist viewpoint (only Esperantists really ever call constructed languages "planned languages", from the Esperanto word planlingvo), and I think it would be best to keep the description of the debate between naturalistic/schematic conlangs in one place, so I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect to constructed language (EDIT: international auxiliary language rather; Gwalla has a point), and additionally to make redirects for the same terms with "constructed" in place of "planned" as well. [[User:Livajo|力伟|]] 01:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even Conlang-l doesn't have a single match for either of these terms. Where are they used? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 01:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course you won't find those specific terms in CONLANG-L. Firstly, the term "planned language" is Esperantist parlance. CONLANG-L is IAL-neutral. So strictly IAL-neutral, in fact, that hardly any discussion of IALs takes place on the list and comparison of multiple IALs (such as, for example, naturalistic vs. schematic IALs) is something you simply won't find there. Try [1] for examples of the term "naturalistic" being used to describe these languages, and Esperanto is frequently given as an example of a "schematic" conlang: [2]. Some more examples of these terms being used in the conlang community: [3], [4], [5]. The terms may not always be exactly the same, but the same fundamental distinction is recognized by pretty much everyone in the IAL debate. [[User:Livajo|力伟|]] 18:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is not the Esperanto Wikipedia. Even though Esperanto texts may mention something similar, no English speakers ever use these. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't make the topics unworthy. I'm neutral, I don't know enough about this, but the lack of a common English-language term for an encyclopedic topic does not make it non-encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I see more as a continuum than two points. Esperanto is more naturalistic than Volapük and less than Ido. Europanto is almost fully naturalistic. A prioris are fully schematic. -- Error 00:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.