Yeah, but ... it's fake

[Shelob]

I always reckoned that "real" languages were those which were not created by any one person. Languages spoken daily by people everywhere mostly evolved on their own, over time, have roots somewhere in the unknowable past, and are either dying out or continuing to evolve. Quenya, Esperanto, and others didn't evolve naturally this way, some person, somewhere, sat down and said "I feel like creating a language today".

The other thing I've always assumed made a language "real" was if people, somewhere, learn it as their mother tongue. I grew up in a house that speaks English, so before I'm really aware of the world around me and able to reason things out I am able to speak English. Others are born to Spanish, or French or what-have-you this way. But to my knoweldge no one's mother tongue is Quenya, people have to learn Quenya and don't grow up speaking it. As with any language you learn later in life it, therefore, is not as natural for you -- true after years and years of speaking Spanish it would become naturaler for me but it would never be as natural as English. It's because the section of our brains which learns languages is most malleable when we're really young, by the time we're really old enough to sit down and study a language that part of our brain has become fairly set in its ways and we have to force it to learn something new. A language which no one knows naturally (grew up speaking) can never be quite as "real" as a language people have learned naturally. Spanish isn't as real to me as English, it's real to natural Spanish speakers though...but there are no natural Quenya speakers (yet) and so it's not really "real" to anyone.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Shelob

But to my knoweldge no one's mother tongue is Quenya, people have to learn Quenya and don't grow up speaking it. As with any language you learn later in life it, therefore, is not as natural for you -- true after years and years of speaking Spanish it would become naturaler for me but it would never be as natural as English. It's because the section of our brains which learns languages is most malleable when we're really young, by the time we're really old enough to sit down and study a language that part of our brain has become fairly set in its ways and we have to force it to learn something new. A language which no one knows naturally (grew up speaking) can never be quite as "real" as a language people have learned naturally.

The new Barrow-Downs challenge: Every 'downer has to master quenya. When/if they get children, they must teach the language to them first before any other language. Slowly, but firmly, we'd have a small population whose mother tongue is quenya. Is anyone in?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

In reply to Anguirel's point about the limits of any language:

I was reminded of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Syme excitedly realised that the old language was being replaced. The manipulation of the language meant that certain concepts would be abolished. The proles would not be able to talk about freedom because there was no language to talk about it in.

Just made me think, is all. Is it right to say that a language must encompass all? Perhaps not; but are there areas it necessarily must encompass — the real and solid world, for example? Maybe.

What about the language of the Angels, then? Or of the Platonic Forms? ( ) Maybe our language does not touch on the more important things in the Universe at all.

Maybe it's all relative? Like, English is definitely a proper language down here, and Quenya is not here. And what of all other possible worlds? The world of the Elves — does it exist?

What am I talking about?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The fact that the language is fake, or unreal, is not important, I do not think. Certainly Tolkien didn't think that it was an important factor. When regarding his mythology as a whole, anyway, one can always make the argument, "Its fake! Ye fakey fakes!" but I think the good professor can speak for himself. As he says in his essay 'On Fairy Tales'...

Originally Posted by THE PROFESSOR!

But at no time can I remember that the enjoyment of a story was dependant on the belief that such things happen, or had happened in 'real life'. Fairy stories are plainly not primarily concerned with possibility, but with desirability. If they awaken desire, satisfying it while often whetting it unbearably, they succeeded.

I think the same is true of the Elvish language. If Tolkien has awoken a desire to learn the language of the Elves, he has succeeded. A round of applause is in order, I think.

[mark12_30]

I have no desire to learn Esperanto; but it would be cool to be fluent in elvish-- any elvish-- just because I like the elves. It would be cool to be one. I think there's another dimension to all this than "just the language". If you don't like the story, chances are you'll be unimpressed with the language. But if you like the story, then you just might go beyond saying "lembas" to trying your hand at baking some. And then it's a little less fakey-fakey-fake; at least to the person eating the "lembas".

And "Celebrimbor" is such fun to say.

[ninja91]

Nothing is stopping it. It is a language. It was made by a human being, just like every other language was. A language is a language!