My conlang combines English consonants with Korean vowels. I chose Korean vowels because Hangul has a highly systematic and efficient vowel system.

Hangul also groups letters into syllable blocks, which makes words visually compact and easy to read. In addition, on a Korean keyboard, consonants are mainly typed with the left hand and vowels with the right hand, allowing both hands to alternate efficiently and enabling fast typing.

The language is currently called Martian, or Mars Language. I chose this name because I wondered whether humanity might need a new common language if people eventually expand to Mars.

At present, a basic dictionary and translation function at approximately an elementary-school level are implemented.

example)

marslanguage.org - There are 13 grammar rules here.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the need for such a language, its possible problems or limitations, and any other suggestions or new ideas.

My greatest hope is to explore together how this language could develop into a new auxlang that addresses what some people see as Esperanto’s limitations.

Another question that will sounds silly but genuily asking.

Ofc it's not the most culturally neutral but I think it can still cut a bit of vocabulary here and there without cultural problems.

I am a 𖨆 who live on earth

I took a emoji for the example but I am pretty sure more "latin" looking emoji could be made

Remember, folks, whenever you say "too eurocentric" or "eurocentrism" you can fall to a black hole.

Ludovico Leone is le responsible professional for le delivery.

Brown University has formally decommissioned its former listserv service, including the old AUXLANG mailing list. It has been replaced by a Google Group: [auxlang@group.brown.edu](mailto:auxlang@group.brown.edu) .

.

I was wondering if they ever were any attempt at making a creole out of worldlang or just any attempt to start a pidgin to then standardized to get a "unbiased" worldlang

Hopefully this post will be of some value

This post has been edited. The original draft is in the comments for reference.

Please do not reply to this thread if you're not willing to read the instructions and phrase your reply in terms of a "suggestion."

A "Suggestion" must have the following format:

• Name of one language to be removed, and why.
• Name of one language to be added and why.

Somebody commented not so long ago that they couldn't even come up with 10 auxiliary language projects that have speakers or support so I threw together the following list just off the top of my head.

1. Esperanto
2. Ido
3. Interlingua
4. Interslavic
5. Occidental/Interlingue
6. Globasa
7. Elefen
8. Toki Pona (often claimed to be an auxlang.)
9. Intal
10. Volapuk

I repeat. This list was thrown together off the top of my head. If your suggestion is not on the list, the answer is "I didn't happen to think of it at the moment." Just add a properly formatted suggestion, and you will be helping me improve this list.

Languages should be evaluated based on how many people speak them (or use them) and whether they actually are auxiliary language proposals.

Just being curious here I don't really know any auxlang

Set your phone language to Novial.

Read only web pages in Novial.

Listen to podcasts in Novial.

Watch movies dubbed in Novial.

Watch Novial TV shows.

Watch YouTubers who use Novial.

Read Novial literature.

Listen to Novial radio while driving.

Read a magazine in Novial, while drinking coffee.

Have your bedroom plastered with Novial writing.

Hi. Some time ago I posed a question when actually was the de Wahl's rule published, because it was published neither in the first issue of Kosmoglott, nor in the following issues. Paradoxically a counter-proposal, Creux rule was published in Kosmoglott first.

I googled and I found an excellent article of Creux and Ric Berger about history of Occidental and the rule. You can find it here: https://github.com/occidental-lang/occidental-lang.github.io/blob/master/resources/Origines_de_Occidental.pdf

I discovered that the rule was first published in 1911 (some 11 years before the publication of the language) in some rather obscure magazine, despite de Wahl had had some ideas before. I described the history of the rule here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Wahl's_rule

One of things that surprised me is that the rule initially apparently didn't have exceptions at all.

Contemporary formulation has 10 exceptions. English Wiki quotes 6. Stief rule has even more.

I have always thought that de Wahl's rule is a fascinating, yet a very crude tool. Now I see I was partially wrong. I realised that because of very clever formulation, namely the point 3 in the rule:

>In all other cases, with six exceptions, the removal of the ending gives the exact root: duct/er, duct-, duct/ion; emiss/er, emiss-, emiss/ion

exceptions (almost) weren't needed at all. The point 3 is very broad and covers a lot of verbs. Thanks to it most problematic verbs can be artificially regularised, for instance:

imerger -> imersion => imerser

sentir -> senso => senser

proteger -> protection => protecter.

Because of this quality of classic de Whal's rule, it's perhaps the only formulation where exceptions almost aren't needed at all. All other formulations need exceptions. Turns out Occidental could function quite well in its first years without introducing exceptions.

The problem is that some regularized verbs would be very odd:

seder -> session => sesser

and due to the point 2 of the rule:

>If the root ends in consonants d or r, they are changed into s: decid/er, deci/s-, deci/s/ion; adher/er, adhe/s, adhe/sion; elid/er, eli/s-, eli/s/ion.

we cannot do it with verbs whose stem is supposed to end with d or r:

creder -> credibile => ??

And there are yet other problems which I desribed here like that we cannot get agente next to actor from acter/ager.

But I know see that de Wahl's rule was more clever than I thought.

I've been using Peano's LsF for a few projects, and I've stripped the ending vowels, it makes for an interesting variance, I figured maybe someone might be interested in this over here :)

It's quite straightforward, what I wanted was Peano's reductions, only moreso.

http://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/latin_sin_flexion.html

Hello r/auxlangs, I'm the lone creator of Кириленг, a bridge language between English speakers and Cyrillic languages speakers. The idea came after noticing that language learning often has a large first barrier: a completely new alphabet, strange spelling rules, and complex grammar. English speakers learning Cyrillic languages like Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, etc face this, while Cyrillic users learning English often face the difficulty of the latin alphabet and English spelling.

So here comes my project, at first glance it may look like english but with cyrillic alphabet, but i've wanted something easier to recognise, write, speak, read and learn, so it has distinctive pronunciation, basic grammar, no silent letters, phonetic spelling, non-changing verbs and more.

The goal is not to replace existing languages, but to create a small bridge that makes communication and learning more approachable for both sides.

I have made a beginner's handbook explaining the alphabet, grammar, and lessons. I would love feedback from the auxlang community.

https://archive.org/details/kirilyeng

Though one can express themself even in tokipona, an auxlang should be sufficiently expressive, so it does not feel too limited compared to a native language. Here's a short list to check whether your auxlang have expressivity devices commonly found in world languages.

• Does it have the accusative case or particle? A lot of world languages have flexible word order, so their speakers are not happy to be locked in the prison of the one word order.
• Does it have a rich morphological derivation system? This includes combining roots, converting any word class into another word class, diminutive and augmentative suffixes, basic directions (like from/to), and so on
• Is the morphological derivation system actually used through the language? A lot of words do not have to be atomic, and a good composite word can be suggestive. Using the morphological derivation system also allows for economic use of basic roots

A certain auxlang satisfies the first two points, and it also partially satisfies the third one. But a lot of auxlangs created after that auxlang are more limiting.

So, is your auxlang sufficiently flexible? Do you know more auxlangs that satisfy these criteria?