International auxiliary languages

As a conlanger, I also show some interest in the other kind of conlanging: international auxiliary languages, or IALs in short. The idea of adopting a neutral IAL is an intriguing one. No doubt it would benefit trade, diplomatic relations, science and tourism if everybody could converse with everybody else in a single language. One may argue that an existing (ethnic) language may do the job (and it currently seems that English is about to win the race); nevertheless, many artificial languages have been proposed on the ground that only an artificial language can be both easy to learn and neutral in the sense of putting no nation at an advantage or disadvantage. (The criterion of neutrality would also be fulfilled by Latin, which, however, has the disadvantage of a rather complex grammar that makes it difficult to learn; there have indeed been several proposals to adopt a simplified version of Latin as an IAL.)

Of the various IALs that have been proposed so far, Esperanto has by far the largest community of speakers. There are, however, several others with small communities of users; and even Esperanto doesn't get anywhere near the popularity of English.

Essays

Designing an international auxiliary language is quite a different craft than designing an artlang. In this essay, I summarize the design goals for an IAL, and examine which choices with regard to origin of words (a priori or a posteriori), phonology, morphology and syntax best fulfill those.
Where Esperanto got it wrong. A (very brief) summary of the main sore points in the design of Esperanto. There are quite a few points against which objections can be made, and which were targets of reform projects.
Auxlangers vs. Artlangers. An analysis of the different personality types exhibited by those who design languages for international communication, and those who do so just for fun. Beware of the fact that this essay is, well, not entirely neutral, as I am an artlanger myself; auxlangers read at own risk!