Notice that Oijos won't even tell us where it/she/he is... mmm. Maybe Oijos is a computer program gone wild, who knows.
As for French TV, we used to have TV Cinq Monde - just that we can't afford both now. But they have a cool channel with programs from many different French-speaking countries. I really like that. I would like to see German-language TV from Namibia, for example. I have a friend who lives there. He was born in Spain to Dutch parents but he prefers to communicate with me in German. He visited us here in the US and we had a great time showing him around - but even though he speaks English (and Afrikans, Dutch, Spanish and....) he prefers German. He told us that it is the language to use in Windhoek. That blew my mind but I though it was great.

robbkvasnak:Notice that Oijos won't even tell us where it/she/he is... mmm. Maybe Oijos is a computer program gone wild, who knows.

If you want to perform a Turing test or know something, please send a private message in Esperanto.

robbkvasnak:... but even though he speaks English (and Afrikans, Dutch, Spanish and....) he prefers German. He told us that it is the language to use in Windhoek. That blew my mind but I though it was great.

In 1990 Namibia did set its declaration of independence. Since then first official language of Namibia and Windhoek is English. Official webpage of Windhoek town is served in English only.

Back to topic.

Peccavimus:As far as Raumists leading to rampant language change and irregularity, there is already some irregularity in Esperanto and it doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

As long the Fundamento is checked 'cross over' to new language use trends, Esperanto will not absorb irregularity. I.e. Bertilow's PMEG fullfills that function.

Peccavimus:It's at least easy irregularity. If Esperanto is a living language it will change; that's what living languages do.

In my opinion it will change little. Maybe it will 'grinding' itselves some more naturalistic in its pronouncation. More extensively spoken use could change Esperanto to much more naturalistic use. Maybe it will grasp some ideas by some other naturalistic conlanguages. But in overall it will not change very much.

Nowadays people can keep in touch to standardized language via central Internet ressources like Lernu.net and PMEG and cheap long-distance travel offers to participate offline at Esperanto events. At least written part of Esperanto is save. About spoken part of Esperanto I'm not sure. Maybe Lernu.net should plan some more activities to offer pronouncation checks of Esperanto, too. But technically I have no much ideas how to realize that. Maybe some Lernu.net speech recognition pool would be proper to offer some central point of Esperanto pronouncation standardization.

Maybe thats very European view. But thats how I see that based on both online participation at Lernu and offline participation at European Esperanto events. At least in Europe Esperanto community its ecosystej will remain stable near future.

Peccavimus:I suspect, since it's a second language for the vast majority of speakers, it will not change very quickly or develop difficult irregularities.

Yes, I agree.

Peccavimus:For Esperanto to evolve something like the six principal parts of ancient Greek verbs or the plurals of Arabic would require native speakers, I imagine, and quite a lot of them over a long period of time. I would say that the fastest way for that to happen is for Esperanto to become a universal language. That would lead to a larger body of L1 speakers over time (probably learning it at the same time as another L1), and thus lead to language change. That's my guess.

Sorry, nowadays people of every society group can travel and move around much more then it was in time of ancient Greek.

Peccavimus:I'm actually kicking around the idea for a paper along those lines.

Could you give some more details about?

spreecamper:As long the Fundamento is checked 'cross over' to new language use trends, Esperanto will not absorb irregularity. I.e. Bertilow's PMEG fullfills that function.

Btw. there excists similar efforts inside the Interlingua community, too. There the Fundamento de Interlingua (IED) mainly is checked 'cross over' by one person. That produces lot of controverse discussions but more or less I would compare PMEG's function with that of AIG and Mulaik's IGM.

spreecamper:There the Fundamento (IED) mainly is checked 'cross over' by one person.

The foundation of Interlingua is the methodology of Alexander Gode, spelled out in the introduction to the IED as well as the Manifesto de Interlingua and numerous other articles. The IED itself is not Interlingua's foundation, and even has some words that are explicitly named as not being in Interlingua.

That produces lot of controverse discussions

If Interlingua is only 'checked' by one person then this is probably due to laziness. Anyone else is capable of checking the methods of Gode, Mulaik and whoever else. If you read the intro to the IED, everything Mulaik says checks out. Anyone else is also capable of doing their own research into the vocabulary of Interlingua. It is (or is supposed to be) a science of sorts, rather than a constructed language with a universal dictionary set in stone. It's possible there are even errors in the IED.

leporinjo:The foundation of Interlingua is the methodology of Alexander Gode, spelled out in the introduction to the IED as well as the Manifesto de Interlingua and numerous other articles.

That methodology I only found well documented inside Mulaik's book. Are there any other ressources regarding Interlingua Prototype methodology? Sadly, there excists no public copy of Stillman's and Gode's two volume 'Interlinguistic Standardization' (1943) which is mentioned at Mulaik's book page 15. Best it should be placed inside Archive.org pool.

leporinjo:If Interlingua is only 'checked' by one person then this is probably due to laziness. Anyone else is capable of checking Stanley Mulaik's methods; ...

Well, at what page of his book he mentioned own methods? In my opinion, inside his book he tries to give the picture to use Gode's methodology with some small addenda.

leporinjo: ... if you read the intro to the IED, everything he is saying checks out.

I prefer Interforo's Annotated Interlingua Grammar.

leporinjo:Anyone else is also capable of doing their own research into the vocabulary of Interlingua.

I feel vocabulary of cognated conlang project Interslavic/Slovianski is discussed more intensive than that ones of Interlingua.

leporinjo:It is (or is supposed to be) a science of sorts, rather than a constructed language with a universal dictionary set in stone. It's possible there are even errors in the IED.

Humans make mistakes. But nowadays computer can help to minimize that errors. On other side, often errors are base of innovation.

spreecamper:

leporinjo:The foundation of Interlingua is the methodology of Alexander Gode, spelled out in the introduction to the IED as well as the Manifesto de Interlingua and numerous other articles.

That methodology I only found well documented inside Mulaik's book. Are there any other ressources regarding Interlingua Prototype methodology?

Yes. http://www.interlingua.com/ied/intro It's well-documented right there, and everything Mulaik says is just a repetition of that. Also: http://www.interlingua.us/pakupaku/uploads/GodeManifestodeInterlingua.pdf‎

IED §135 Wordbuilding

I'm not sure what your point is there; could you go into further detail? That's not the IED, that's a Grammar of Interlingua. It's not the only possible grammar of Interlingua, just a grammar proposed by Gode and Blair. [As it happens, few people have proposed any alternatives because few people competent to do so are actually interested in doing so.]

The main difference between the methodology of Gode and Mulaik is the difference in source languages. Mulaik adds Catalan, Occitan and Romanian. This is a nice trade-off, because it legitimizes a lot of the words that Interlingua-speakers regularly use (owing to ignorance of the meaning of brackets in the IED) but that had never been demonstrated as part of Interlingua before Mulaik.