Quote:
Originally Posted by FlorenceArt
Facilitate the emergence of a language and spread it in a wider area and population, that I can accept. It makes sense even. But this is absolutely not the same as creating a language. Volapük and Esperanto are created languages. Italian, German and Arabic are historical languages, evolved over centuries. That their evolution was affected by the diffusion of certain written words I can understand. But they were not created in a book. |
Objection!
Volapuk, Esperanto, Italian, German and Arabic are all "created" more or less consciously. The difference lies in its acceptance by the populace and their fortune as vehicle of expression for the elites. If a language is successful, it becomes spoken by many and it gets to have a history. If it is not, cryptographers of today must earn their bread by deciphering what was been said in a certain document.
Arabic was no more than a weird, non-vocalic blabber used by local merchants until something aesthetically pleasing (the Koran) was written in it (adding vocals was a great move, e.g.
) and later it was spread by military conquest.
Luther's printed Bible was distributed by the German princes who were joining the rebellion against the Holy German Empire. That indeed eased the adoption of the common language, which was finally established as we know it today by the Prussian elites in their wars against Austria.
Spanish was eventually given shape by
Alfonso X The Wise in his legal codes and game books.
It is true that languages are live things and that they need to be adopted by people. However, there is always a volition, one person or a small group who consciously decides about the core of the language, deep in its roots.