Langages artificiel
par Robert Isenberg
taH pagh taHbe'. DaH mu'tlheghvam vIqelnIS.
quv'a', yabDaq San vaQ cha, pu' je SIQDI'?
pagh, Seng bIQ'a'Hey SuvmeH nuHmey SuqDI',
'ej, Suvmo', rInmoHDI'?
[To be or not to be, that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea or troubles,
And by opposing, end them?]
Être ou ne pas être ! c'est là la question...
S'il est plus noble à l'âme de souffrir
les traits poignants de l'injuste fortune,
ou, se révoltant contre cette multitude de maux,
de s'opposer au torrent, et les finir?
-William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Traduit en Klingon par Nick Nicholas et Andrew Strader
Introduction: Le Langage Artificiel dans son Contexte
L'étude
d'un langage artificiel n'est pas chose facile. Les aims
de leurs auteurs sont variés, quelques fois admittedly
inane. La majorité des systèmes artificiels, une
fois créésartificial systems, once generated, are never
used or revealed to anyone but the creator, and even then can hardly be
called languages. The distinguishing characteristics of genuine artificial
languages, codes and functional systems are hazy, and identifying them
is often viewed as missing the point.
An important thing
to keep in mind, however, is that although artificial languages are artificial,
they do exist. To assume that an artificial language is illegitimate because
a single individual or select group developed it is not only simplifying
the issue but also writing off any linguistic relevance it may have. Thousands
of speakers of various artificial languages would tend to disagree with
that assessment.
This study sought
to accomplish two goals: first, to define and identify artificial languages,
differentiating them from languages that might be thusly categorized.
Second, to analyze the artificial language in terms of origin, purpose,
structure, and audience.
I: Definition of the Artificial Language
BR> A simple definition
of an artificial language is any language whose lexicon and grammar were
developed from an individual source for the sake of itself. Individual source
refers to either one creator or a select body of creators. Unlike an authentic
language, the brunt of it emerges with relative suddenness. A great deal
of time might transpire over the course of its development, but when it
is released to others the language must be communicatively functional -
i.e. the system can be used to convey many ideas.
Another qualification
is inferred in the definition: the system is functional before there are
any real native speakers. The creator is in almost every case incapable
of speaking his or her own artificial language, and creates vocabulary and
grammatical systems at a much faster rate than they can be learnt and employed.
The definition also
implies that while others beside the creator are capable of learning an
artificial language, the reason it is artificial is because it is functional
before it is a language. To define a system as a language implies that there
are more than one speaker, which suggests this type of system is strictly
artificial as long as no one speaks it, and a language as soon as people
do.
For the sake of itself
does not mean that the language has no purpose, but that its goal is not
first and foremost an ideological one. Languages generated for ideological
purposes are similar but ultimately different. In the case of Klingon and
Elvish, they initially serve literary purposes, but in both cases their
roles are often self-serving.
II: Identifying the Artificial Language
Three factors determine
the authenticity of an artificial language: purpose, originality, and size.
The purpose of the
language is the clearest marker. By this definition, Esperanto would not
be considered a true artificial language.
It is beyond doubt,
despite the anonymity of his work, that Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof voluntarily
created the language Esperanto, publishing a grammar and dictionary under
the title International Language, Introduction and Complete Textbook. And
although his rarely mentioned wife, Clara Zilbernik, assisted him in this
venture, the language can be seen as artificial upon publication.
It is also clear,
however, that the function of Esperanto was not for the sake of itself.
Esperanto began with the intention of becoming "the international language,"
and was tailor-made to provide easy acquisition by future students. The
grammar is deliberately simple and flexible, and the words are veritably
phonetic. Despite the difficulties it poses for non Europeans (such as roman
letters), its purpose is to serve a real community by becoming a real language.
The language that
inspired it, Volapük, is a different case. Its creator, a Bavarian
priest named Johann Martin Schleyer, "loosely based [Volapük] on Germanic
and Romance languages." As far as purpose, Volapük "had a complicated
grammar with endless verb forms. The alphabet had no r, but included
the difficult German vowels ä, ö, and ü.
Words looked clumsy and sounded harsh, frequently having been altered and
shortened so they hardly resembled the natural forms they were derived from."
But it is precisely
this variance from existing languages that makes Volapük a fuller artificial
language. Where Esperanto vocabulary is clearly based on Indo-European languages
(e.g. Halo = Hello, grava = important, barbaro = barbarian),
Volapük warps the words in order to estrange them from modern languages.
The grammar patterns are complex not for the sake of the learner, but for
its own sake. This is where originality plays a key role: an artificial
language may be based on other languages, but not so significantly that
it is perceived as either a pidgin or an artificial dialect. As for Esperanto,
the system is too complex to be considered a code, but it ideally serves
as a unique conjunction of pidgin and lingua franca - a mutual blending
of existent languages that anyone can use. This is evidenced by its method
of lexical incorporation: "One rule provides that 'foreign' words, those
which most languages have taken from a common source, come into Esperanto
unchanged except for spelling."
The size of a language
is also important. This does not only mean how many words exist in the artificial
language, but also how much can actually be said: languages that lack number
systems or rules for certain syntactic situations could make many ideas
inexpressible.
This factor is the
downfall of many languages developed for literary and entertainment circles:
while they exist for their own purposes and include original grammar and
vocabulary, they boast only a few hundred words and an imprecise, sometimes
non-existent grammar. According to Jeffrey Henning, editor of Model Languages
electronic newsletter, "More ambitious still is a language that is actually
meant to be used to communicate. Such a language requires a vocabulary of
at least 1,000 to 2,000 words and a detailed grammar."
He references author
Harry Harrison as creating the Saurian language, which consisted of only
enough words to service his novel, West of Eden. This can hardly
be considered an artificial language, since it can't express any ideas except
those expressed in the book. He also mentions Anthony Burgess' Nadsat, the
fictive English dialect of A Clockwork Orange. "The reader finds
himself learning the language as she reads each page," Henning observes.
"Learning through immersion. Nadsat has about 300 words."
Henning doesn't work
with artificial languages, however: he is more interested in model languages,
which are similar in the sense that Esperanto could be excused as an artificial
language. Model languages, he explains, are "everything from a few words
of made-up slang to a rigorously developed system of interrelated imaginary
tongues." While the latter could be conceived as an artificial language,
the former is probably too limited to fit the definition. The purpose of
the language is not ideological, as it is more of a hobby, but the language
ceases to exist once the creator loses interest.
III: Actual Artificial Languages
In her essay on
the linguistic potential of science fiction, author Suzette Haden Elgin
described the genre as "a laboratory for exploring linguistic solutions...Because
most experiments involving language can't be done in the real world-for
ethical reasons-we're lucky to have science fiction. Sf gives us a 'thought
experiment' lab where both writer and reader can try things out at length
and observe what happens."
It is easy to explain,
then, why the two most popular artificial languages are science fiction
derivatives: Klingon and Elvish.
Klingon is the
language of a fictional alien race in the Star Trek television
series. The species is aggressive, ill tempered, and militant. While the
television series ran for two decades without an official Klingon language,
linguist Marc Okrand was given the challenge to develop not only enough
phrases to fulfill screenplay requirements, but to design a complete vocabulary
and grammar. Once finished, the language was published in its entirety
as The Klingon Dictionary. According to the Klingon Language Institute,
about one thousand people from over thirty nations have verifiably learnt
Klingon since the publication of the dictionary in 1985.
Elvish is actually
two languages, Quenya and Sindarin, which serve as the language of the
Elves in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Tolkien began creating
what has been above described as model languages, his "secret vice." In
elementary school he allegedly created, with the help of his friends,
Animalic (a code) and Nevbosh (a model language). Nevbosh "was mainly
a mixture of heavily distorted English, French, and Latin words. It did
not represent a real breaking away from English or other normal languages."
When he began tinkering
with Elvish, Tolkien generated the two artificial languages over a long
period of time, generating phonetic structure, writing systems, and grammar.
According to Tolkien, Elvish "intended (a) to be definitely of a European
kind in style and structure (not in detail); and (b) to be specially pleasant.
The former is not difficult to achieve, but the latter is more difficult,
since individuals' personal predilections...varies [sic] widely."
Quenya and Sindarin follow Finnish and Welsh patterns, respectively, and
incorporate roots from Indo-European words, but most of the vocabulary
(several thousand words) is of his own devising.
IV: Klingon
In the Star
Trek mythos, the Klingon language is an ancient organism and a symbol
of pride for the community. Their own culture and values constantly preoccupy
the Klingons, despite their warlike tradition. Their language is guttural,
choppy, and atonal. The grammar structure consists of patterned affixes;
a misplaced glottal pause or an extra syllable could render a functional
sentence incoherent. bel, to be pleased, changes to mubel,
they please me, to mubellaH, they can please me, to mubellaHtaH,
they are still able to please me, and so on. An entire sentence could
consist of one word and all the appropriate affixes:
mubelnISlaHbejtaHbe'
They clearly do not need to please me anymore
Critics complain
that while the language is functional, it has no aesthetic value, which,
presumably, is not a concern to the Klingons. The deep throated H,
Q, and q make the language unpleasant to the ear, and frequent
pauses (signified by an apostrophe) slow Klingon down considerably.
Nevertheless, Klingon
has come into its own. The Klingon Language Institute puts out a quarterly
journal (HolQeD) that "includes columns, articles, interviews, and letters
exploring the Klingon language." Conversation tapes are available for
the burgeoning speaker, as well as the (slightly satirical) Klingon
for the Galactic Traveler, by Marc Okrand. The latter boasts information
on "regional dialects of the Empire" and "proper verbal, physical, and
cultural responses." This information is a follow-up on the Dictionary's
claim that while "there are a number of dialects of Klingon...only one
of the dialects, that of the current Klingon emperor, is represented in
this dictionary." Of course at the publication of the Dictionary, there
were no such dialects, because there were no actual speakers of Klingon.
Any dialect material had to either evolve over the course of thousands
of Klingon conversations, or carefully emerge from Okrand's own imagination.
Klingon enthusiasts
are now so intrigued by the language that certain webpages, such as the
one belonging to ToDbaj, "an off-beat Klingon," can be viewed in either
Klingon or English. Contributions are constantly being made to the Klingon
lexicon, many hundred of which are listed in the Additional Canon Words
section of the KLI webpage. On their own these additions provide a wealth
of information about new items: butlh, or dirt under fingernails,
HuchQed, or economics, and even some vulgar terms (ngech
can mean either valley or cleavage, depending on its use).
When exactly an
artificial language becomes an authentic language is impossible to say.
Certainly there is a comparable number of self proclaimed Klingons as
there are speakers of Gaelic, but whether Klingon gains legitimacy depends
primarily on whether it can be taken seriously.
Its efforts at
seriousness are summed up in the literary material speakers and translators
have contributed to the Klingon world. While the television series and
films provide plenty of fictional Klingons, and thereby many script opportunities
to expand the wisdom and folklore of the Klingon race, several speakers
have taken on translating English canons. The two most famous are the
Hamlet and Book of Paul projects.
Both translations
come from Nick Nicholas and Andrew Strader, who have already succeeded
in publishing Hamlet in the "original Klingon" form. While this
is an extended joke based on a line in the sixth Star Trek film,
the project itself is taken as seriously as any other major translation
project. The linguists even face problems that would effect non-artificial
languages, such as how to translate the word God. The Klingons
are certainly no atheists, given the high level of spiritual pride they
demonstrate in the program, but an actual deity is never mentioned. Thus
the translators sated the issue by calling Him joH'a' 'e', or Great
Lord.
Here again is an
example of where the line between artificial and authentic becomes sketchy:
Star Trek has never referred, in all its history, to Christianity
or Christ. While the characters often refer to "secular" authors (Shakespeare,
Melville, Goethe), religion is only touched upon in alien communities.
Therefore it seems that translating the Bible is more important to Klingon
speakers (that is, real world Klingon speakers) than it is relevant to
Star Trek mythology.
V: Quenya and Sindarin
While Marc Okrand
was commissioned to take part in the Klingon project, Tolkien had no such
motivation. His means of language construction was personal.
In Helge Fauskanger's
article, "Tolkien's Not-So-Secret Vice", he refers
to Tolkien's "simulated changes within an imagined history." At first
it would seem irrelevant that Okrand did not create the Star Trek
universe, that the entire Star Trek phenomenon is generally attributed
to writer/director Gene Roddenberry, while Tolkien fashioned his language
in a world of his own making. They are both, after all, fictional worlds.
But unlike Star
Trek, where the language fits the culture, Tolkien wrote in one his
letters that "Nobody believes me when I say that my long book is an attempt
to create a world in which a form of language agreeable to my personal
aesthetic taste might seem real. But it is true." In his book, The
Monsters and the Critics, Tolkien elaborated on this point: "'If you
construct your art-language on chosen principles', you can write poetry
in that language - 'in so far as you fix it, and courageously abide by
your own rules, resisting the temptation of the supreme despot to alter
them.'"
Thus we see not
a language emerging after the fact, but a language and a culture that
mature simultaneously. The peoples of Tolkien's Middle Earth, living in
their various nations, each have a long history, detailed intimately in
his Silmarillion. As the language evolved in Tolkien's mind, so
too did the culture of Middle Earth. A smattering of Quenya and Sindarin
poetry colors the pages of The Lord of the Rings.
Again unlike Okrand,
Tolkien compiled a list of etymologies but no standard dictionary or set
grammar. In The Return of the King, he supplied a pronunciation
guide and some remarks on Tengwar, a Middle Earth alphabet, but mostly
only scattered poems reveal Middle Earthen languages in use. Pieces of
other languages (more model than artificial), such as Westron and Entish,
make occasional debuts, but they are not nearly so developed or significant
to the Tolkien milieu.
Another feature
of Elvish is the evolution of the language within the context of the novels.
Fauskanger observes that Quenya and the earlier Qenya, both pronounced
the same, represent different stages in the same language. He cites an
early Qenya poem and compares it to a later Quenya rendition of the same
poem:
QENYA
QUENYA
Man kiluva lómi sangane
Man kenuva lumbor
ahosta,
telume lungane
Menel akúna,
tollalinta ruste,
ruxal' ambonnar,
vea qalume,
ëar amortala,
mandu yáme,
undume
hákala
aira móre ala tinwi
enwina
lúme elenillor pella
lante no lanta-mindon?
talta-taltala atalantië mindonnar?
This poem represents
a sort of interior evolution, whereby the language modified itself over
time, like an authentic language, as a result of fictional speakers.
VI: Quenya as Authentic Language?
After Tolkien's
death, the study of Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin) became popular.
Quenya is clearly the more popular, but speakers of both languages currently
maintain chat-rooms, schedule conferences, and, as will later be discussed,
create E-mail lists for the discussion of Tolkien languages.
Several Quenya
and Sindarin dictionaries have been compiled - some more authoritative
than others - and posted on the Internet. Indeed, the Internet has become
a forum for speakers of all successful artificial languages. Whether they
can be considered artificial or not, Esperanto and the logic-based Lojban
are both popularly used throughout the electronic world.
Elvish does not
have the budget and centrality of Klingon, this much is obvious. While
the Klingon Language Institute offers merchandise, downloadable sound
effects, and official membership, most Elvish-related sites are personal.
The question is inevitable: which, Klingon or Elvish, is the more legitimate
authentic language?
Klingon, with all
its publicity, pulls in new speakers by the dozens. While there is no
base literature, they translate other's and develop their own.
Quenya, meanwhile,
is not nearly so prolific. One of the most popular websites, Tyalië
Tyelelliéva, is the personal creation of Lisa Star, which was based
on the principle that "I felt that there should be more Elvish poetry
in the world." As a channel for the arts, she offers poetry prizes, E-zine-status
publication, and access to the "Elfling List."
What Tyalië
Tyelelliéva proves is that contributions can still be made to the
language. Study of Elvish, in spite of the conjectural grammars set up
by its linguists, seems like a viable source of new literature. In Fauskanger's
insightful article on the issue of copyright, he argues that use of the
language (i.e. employing, critiquing and referencing it), are entirely
legal. The issue was brought about by accusations to the contrary, an
issue that Zamenhof expressly forbid in his introduction to Esperanto.
But if contributions
can be made, are they? This question prompted a subsequent study of the
Elfling E-mail list, which was established to facilitate discussion of
Tolkien's language. Over the course of a month, E mail messages were received
and analyzed for content. Analysis concerned the following:
1) Did writers address one another using Elvish welcomings?
2) Did writers use Elvish in writing (poetry, messages, etc.)?
3) Did they discuss history/etymology?
4) Did they discuss grammar?
5) What gender were the writers?
The results of the survey are as follows:
Did writers use Elvish address?
Yes 8.77%
No 91.23%
Did writers discuss history/etymology?
No 68.42%
Yes 31.57%
Did writers employ Elvish?
Yes 14.04%
No 85.96%
Did writers discuss grammar?
Yes 87.72%
No 12.28%
Of the messages
posted, 82.46% were posted by males, 8.77% by females, and 8.77% could
not be identified.
While one E-mail
list can hardly be conclusive, the results heavily indicate that Elvish
is not used as a language as much as an area of study. The limited number
of people actually using it suggests that writing in the language (much
less speaking it) is not what appeals to most learners. Indeed, in an
electronic interview with three Quenya-users, one said that he had translated
Bible passages and written poetry, and could compose "without having to
check any sources, dictionaries, etc." All three answered that they could
read it, one of them with "some ease," but another argued that "I don't
believe it is possible" to be fluent in Quenya.
When asked if they
created words themselves, all agreed that while it was common practice
to fill in gaps in the language, no words were arbitrarily made-up. If
new Quenya words were generated, they were based on either the older Qenya
or Sindarin root-stems. Since the design of the language was intended
to be poetry-friendly, users of Quenya seem open to new phrases and artful
elaboration on existing words.
Because the source
text cannot be continued (Tolkien himself is dead), and the language cannot
be expanded by its creator, study of Quenya seems to be not only a posthumous
field in terms of Tolkien, but posthumous in the sense that Elvish behaves
like a dead language. Just as Latin was modified but the vocabulary remained
largely the same after the fall of the Roman Empire, Elvish seems to be
more of a scholarly pursuit than a practical one. Where Klingon can serve
as a communicative utility, Elvish is more of a literary window into an
author's mind, much the way learning Greek is a window into the mind of
Socrates, or Aramaic is a window into the Talmud.
To say Elvish is
dead is to propose that it was once living, and that seems unlikely in
the real world. To Tolkien, however, the language was real enough to the
residents of Middle Earth.
VII: Conclusion: The Future of Artificial Languages
Because the phenomenon
of artificial languages is so rare, there is no way to divine what is
in store for them: will there be new artificial languages, given the surging
interest in Klingon and Elvish? Or will people be satisfied with these
alone? Will a hobbyist generate a language popular enough to be considered
an artificial language, and will current artificial languages one day
become authentic languages, usable at home or in the workplace?
At this stage an
artificial language is no longer an experiment or even a novelty; in the
case of Klingon and Elvish, they have expanded beyond the comprehension
of any one individual.
One scholar on
the Elfling list wrote this reply in answer to a question about Quenya
pronunciation:
Even if Elvish were a real language, we would be unable, in
absence of information from native speakers...to make more than a (perhaps
highly educated) guess at its phonetic detail; as it is, it's a fictional
language, and questions of phonetic detail are inherently unanswerable.
While many writers
try to maintain the illusion that Sindarin and Quenya are authentic languages,
the said author responded to the question with a glaring hopelessness.
The feeling is undoubtedly common, given the fact that Tolkien left a
more concrete legacy than notes.
Still, the fact
that a question could be asked on the subject of pronunciation reveals
an underlying interest in building Quenya into a usable form by manipulating
it to suit the purposes of the communicants. Whether it will reach fruition
is unknown, but as the concept of artificial languages attests, what can
be imagined is often realized beyond our expectations.
Bibliography
Anonymous, The
Elvish Linguistics List,
http://www.egroups.com/group/elfling/info.html
Elgin, Suzette
Haden, Linguistics and Science Fiction Interface, ©1999 by
Suzette Haden Elgin, http://www.webspawner.com/users/sfling
Fauskanger, Helge,
Tolkien's Not-So Secret Vice, http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.html
Henning, Jeffrey,
Model Languages, ©1995 by Jeffrey Henning, http://www.langmaker.com/m10101.html
Okrand, Marc,
The Klingon Dictionary, ©1993 by Paramount Pictures, Simon
& Schuster, Inc. New York, NY
Okrand, Marc,
Klingon for the Galactic Traveler, ©1997 by Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY
Richardson, David,
Esperanto: Learning and Using the International Language, ©1998
by David Richardson, Orcas Publishing Company, Eastsound, WA
Rosenfelder, Mark,
The Model Languages Kit, http://www.zompist.com/kit.html
Star, Lisa, Tyalië
Tyelelliéva, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902
Yaguello, Marina,
Lunatic Lovers of Language: Imaginary Languages and Their Creators,
translated by Catherine Slater. ©1991, Athlone Press, London
- - -
Ardalambion Index
|