Wikipedia articles: accuracy, vandalism, spam and administrators

I have discovered (among tons of anti-spam spam) a mail from a Wikipedian asking for collaboration on the discussion about some controversy regarding an article on Dnghu’s project, about Indo-European language revival – as far as I’ve read, it seems to deal with the question “is Modern Indo-European as Modern Hebrew?” – Even if I wanted to participate, I don’t know what else could I say, that is not already written down in our grammar.

Some months ago I saw that some links were coming from the Wikipedia article “Europaio” – of course, I felt excited about it, but then I read the talk page, the first entry log was a certain user CrCulver (now disappeared, I’ve found the same user in Citizendium) trying to delete immediatly the entry saying “Non-notable conlang project, and it appears that the initiator of it himself has put up this article (and put links to it in inappropriate places), so it’s also vanity“. That had already happened weeks before, and the question appeared to be solved, but it still bothered me a lot when I first read what was written about me and the project, and in the most visited online Encyclopedia.

I looked for the creator of the article, and it was a Mr. Extremaduran – hence probably from Extremadura, and apparently a new user created just to add the project. So, OK, there were signs that it could be me or one of us, and a bad day is a bad day, and all of us have accused or suspected from others, but that guy left his comment publicly “non-notable” “conlang” and “vanity” – two strikes against the project (without even reading it, as it was minutes after the addition), and one against me personally, without even giving me the possibility to answer – a personal mail could have made the difference (even a post in our forum like “hey dude, you fucking spammer, I’m insulting you and your stupid project publicly, just in case you wanna answer me”, that could have saved me the annoyance).

Then some others have tried to discuss in the talk page about our project, trying to ascertain what is exactly all about, and some absurd comments about what we really mean and do and want (which is what we clearly state in our website) and the rest can be seen in the discussion page.

Then I received incoming links from a discussion page in the German wikipedia to this personal blog, and again some were talking about our “conlang” – I showed up and (using one of our IPs, so there could be no confussion) I said I didn’t want the project to appear as a conlang. They eventually deleted it – “not even the creator thinks it is notable” – yes, that was the point, not even reading my comment…

Adapted from a R. Galli’s post I read some time ago (in http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/):

I think wikipedians can do whatever they think appropriate with their project, I understand it and think we should support this free project. But when they begin to 1) accuse others of spamming (without us being even aware of what is going on), 2) take arbitrary decisions like deleting articles because of “spam” (even after they have been vandalized), without following its own rules and “consensus”, 3) that even the same persons (a certain Mr. Christian Culver and others) dare to criticize the projects and works of others from the most profound ignorance, and 4) that they use their own opinions as arguments to justify their public editions in a work read by many – Now, even after some wikipedians tried to solve it (moving it to “Modern Indo-European”), other wikipedians are trying to delete it for “not notable enough” – so, now eventually using their self-defined rules -; That whole mess could discourage everyone.

And all this is brought to you without having even asked or tried to be there.

I don’t know if I wanted the project to be there one year ago, but I certainly thought before that it was a honour to be written about. Now I don’t – just see the discussion page on the German Wikipedia article, where dozens of personal “conlangs” were talked about as ‘personal shit’ along with our serious revival project of a language reconstructed by Indo-European scholars. Today it can happen that someone brands you as spammer, and that people think you are a spammer, or that wikipedians (just by creating an account) become judges of thousands of hours of work even without reading or knowing first what is all about.

Unless you are a very famous person, a friend of the administrators, or some project related to them, preferably North-American (or British), and that you or your project falls near the environment of some administrators, you might have it very hard to defend an article, it seems — some seem to know about everything, to the point they can decide about what is relevant and what not: I would really like to be an administrator, with all that knowledge about everything.

They can do with wikipedia.org whatever they like, they have the right to do it, and the Internet doesn’t end with the Wikimedia Foundation.
But things should be clear. One day you may wake up and see that because some well-minded person (or not so well-minded) wanted you or your project to be there, you are a “spammer” and a “vain” “conlanger” – and you still drinking your first coffee…

No, I don’t want to be there editing articles and participating in discussions with their administrators. If they want to talk about the project, they will have to read first about it (in our websites or in the press) – if they have questions, there is an open forum. It’s better not to be there and being able to work hard on the own projects, instead of trying to convince others that this or that account is not you, that this or that information is notable enough, or even care about your article just to apologize because some have considered your project “notable”, and have used their time to work a neutral and brief description of it. No, thanks.

Edit: By the way, what some Spanish media have done, vandalizing the Spanish Wikipedia to show how easy is to change it, showing it on TV, is a shame, and indeed I support wikipedia.org against such stupid examples of how to bother an online project.

Indo-European language or Indo-European languages?

I’ve recently received an email from a new reader who wanted to share with us “his language”, namely a ‘modernized Indo-European’, which he had been working on for very very long before we began our public work at the Indo-European Revival Association, and which he deems “a more modern version of our Indo-European“.

After telling him he was not the first who show up with such a project (there are at least one or two more out there in the Net), I told him very clearly what our opinion about IE is:

A) There are different schools about how to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language: those who make a main Satem-Centum distinction, those who talk about a very very old Indo-Hittite, those who (like us) distinguish a Graeco-Aryan dialect (or IE IIIa) and a Northern one (or IE IIIb), those who defend the existence of only one ‘original’ a-vowel, later colored, those who defend only 5 original cases (as we did before changing for a 7+1), those who talk about 9 or more laryngeals, and so on.

B) There are indeed different times for the reconstruction: the theory of the 3 main Stages let one reconstruct at least 2 languages (if we don’t take on account the highly hypothetical IE I or Early PIE), namely IE II or Middle PIE – which includes Proto-Anatolian and Pre-IE III -, and IE III or Late PIE, which is the one usually reconstructed. Also one could go still later in time and try to divide the (seemingly) two main dialects, the Northern or European Dialect (also IE IIIb) and the Southern or Graeco-Aryan Dialect (or IE IIIa): the problem with such a further division is that 1) Balto-Slavic dialects seem to be either in the middle of that classification, or at least within IE IIIb but very influenced by IE IIIa (due possibly to different contacts with Scythians, Persians, Greeks, etc.), and that 2) The IE IIIa (and thus Late PIE as a whole) may be better reconstructed than IE IIIb, as the former was attested earlier (in the form of Vedic Sanskrit and Mycenaean).

C) Also, there are many different ways to use a modern language system using an old language. For example, if we had to use Latin as a modern language, we could select different vocabulary (older forms, mediaeval and newer loans), different expressions (older syntax, newer modisms), etc. and there could be lots of schools defending more purism, more tradition, a complete renewal, etc.

If we sum up the aforementioned possibilities, and try to ascertain the number of possible outputs, one could conclude that there is no single Indo-European, but a hundred different combinations:

Indo-Hittite with 3 laryngeals and without feminine, 5 noun-case declension, with Latin-only alphabet and Satem-Centum distinction in writing, OV syntax.

Northern Dialect without laryngeals (with an -a), without augment in Aorist, with 8 (or 7+1) nominal cases, with dialectal Conditional and Passive, OV and VO mixed syntax.

– and so on…

Each one could have a different name, say ‘Bokmål’, ‘Nynorsk’, ‘Samnorsk’, ‘Riksmål’ ‘Høgnorsk’, etc., as the different Norwegian ‘languages’ or, better, language systems. But I think everyone would agree that, while the language may differ a lot from one system to another, the language spoken would still be the same, i.e. a very diffuse “Indo-European”, or (following the example above), a very diffuse “Norwegian” language.

There are a hundred different examples about how such internal and external tensions are usually dealt with, as with the unified Basque (Euskara Batua) opposed to its dialectal diversity, or the different Cornish language systems, or the Hebrew revival (with Semitic purists against modern influences), etc., not to talk about the inner and external tensions of ‘normal’ languages like Spanish or French, which are often subjected to “unifying-dividing” efforts – as e.g. the Asturian “language/dialect”, sometimes included as Spanish by Spanish philologists, sometimes not, always trying to include modern dialects like Argentinian, Mexican, etc. along with the ‘traditional’ dialects like Asturian-Leonese or Aragonese; or Francoprovençal with French, or Alemannic within High German (Hochdeutsch), and so on.

In any case, I think, there is a very clear line which separates all those language systems designed (more or less artificially) for a natural language, from artificial languages like Volapük, Solresol or Esperanto, which are inventions not distinguishable from Klingon, Sindarin or any secret language that anyone could have created at home when still a child.

One example I use with sceptics on PIE reconstruction could be mentioned here.

Proto-Indo-European is like the corrupted skeleton of a very old dinosaur: you can discuss whether such skeleton was actually this or that way, pertained to this or that species of dinosaurs, came from this or that hypothetical ancestor, and derived in those other dinosaurs this or that way, etc. You cannot, however, discuss (in a serious conversation) whether they lived with Noah, whether they didn’t exist at all because it’s a divine proof of our faith, or whether, unlike modern animals, they didn’t exist at all because we have no ‘real proof’ about it.

I will not discuss the implications of trying to draw a complete dinosaur from its bones only, as long as you don’t try to discuss the very existence of those bones, or try to compare our reconstruction of that dinosaur with your drawing of a dragon.Maybe your dragon is widely accepted as something useful, or beautiful, or even as something better than our drawing of the possible dinosaur behind those damaged bones; but please, let be serious to some extent, and don’t try to mix the Lord of the Rings or Star Trek with a manual of paleontology. Tolkien’s masterwork might be great, but it’s not ‘better’ or ‘easier’ (or whatever adjective you may apply) than the manual of paleontology; they just move in different dimensions.

As a conclusion, one may expect different modern language systems for Proto-Indo-European – some will be ‘easier’, some ‘purer’, some others ‘more modern’, etc. -, but still the language will be the same. The question is not whether such systems are possible (they obviously are), but whether this or that system is just an improvement made on the linguistic framework that contains the natural language behind it, or instead include random changes that a visionary (like Mr. Zamenhoff) wants to make to the natural skeleton of a language (or languages), hiding it as an improvement in, say, “usability”, “learning time”, “similarity with modern IE”, etc.

[tags]Indo-European,Proto-Indo-European,Indo-European grammar,grammar,syntax,phonology,morphology,PIE grammar,Proto-Indo-European grammar,Proto-Indo-European morphology,Proto-Indo-European vocabulary,Indo-European etymology,Indo-European book,indoeuropeo,gramatica indoeuropea,etimologia,sintaxis,fonologia,morfologia,protoindoeuropeo,lengua indoeuropea,lingua indoeuropea,ebook,libro,reference,referencia,enciclopedia,europaio,Indo-Europees,Indo-Europese,Indogermanisch, Indoeuropäisch,Indogermanische Sprache,Sprache,Urindogermanisch,Urindogermanische Sprache,Indo-européen,Indo-euroéenne,langue,langue Indo-européenne,Indo-Europeu,indo-europeia,proto-indo-européen,proto-indo-européenne,indoeuropejski,praindoeuropejski,indoeuropeisk, indoeuropeiska,protoindoeuropeiska,indoevropejsk,indoevropejska,Europa,Europe,European Union,Union Europea,Union européenne,Unione europea,Europäisch,Europäische Union,Unia,Unie,Evropa,Evropske,Europeisk,Europeiska,Latin,Greek,griego,Griechisch,traduction,translation,traduccion,traduzione, Spanish,English,español,inglés,italiano,Italian,Nederlands,inglese,français,French,France,UK,España,Spain,Inglaterra,Reino Unido,United Kingdom,Holland,Germany,Deutschland,Deutsch,francés,italien, allemand,portugues,Portugal,Belgie,Belique,Swiss,Sweiz,Svizza,Italia,Polska,Polski,Czech,Russian, Esperanto,Ido,Interlingua,Solresol,Latina,Latine,Lojban[/tags]

Indo-European Grammar, First Printed Edition, with maps, summary tables, etymologies, PIE phonology and syntax…

Yes, we eventually decided to print some copies of our Indo-European Grammar – with public subsidies, we will be able to release some dozens in this first printed edition.

Our objetive was to translate version 2.x (now near 2.2) into Spanish, German and French, to post news in Modern Indo-European and to begin with the Syntax volume, but now the order has changed.

We plan to publish an improved edition (revised by Indo-European scholars), which will probably be called already version 3.x. We plan to include more information about IE dialects and about Proto-Indo-European syntax, and to make printed copies of it – it will be called probably A Grammar of Modern Indo-European.

Then we will try to begin publishing news and podcasts and translating texts in Modern Indo-European – it’s already time to begin writing and speaking in Indo-European!

And, if possible, we will dedicate some time before summer to develop a detailed syntax volume – but, as the different Indo-European languages of Europe share a similar syntax (at least an informal one), we don’t deem the use of the purer Proto-Indo-European syntax essential to begin using the language in Europe.

[tags]Indo-European,Proto-Indo-European,Indo-European grammar,grammar,syntax,phonology,morphology,PIE grammar,Proto-Indo-European grammar,Proto-Indo-European morphology,Proto-Indo-European vocabulary,Indo-European etymology,Indo-European book,indoeuropeo,gramatica indoeuropea,etimologia,sintaxis,fonologia,morfologia,protoindoeuropeo,lengua indoeuropea,lingua indoeuropea,ebook,libro,reference,referencia,enciclopedia,europaio,Indo-Europees,Indo-Europese,Indogermanisch, Indoeuropäisch,Indogermanische Sprache,Sprache,Urindogermanisch,Urindogermanische Sprache,Indo-européen,Indo-euroéenne,langue,langue Indo-européenne,Indo-Europeu,indo-europeia,proto-indo-européen,proto-indo-européenne,indoeuropejski,praindoeuropejski,indoeuropeisk, indoeuropeiska,protoindoeuropeiska,indoevropejsk,indoevropejska,Europa,Europe,European Union,Union Europea,Union européenne,Unione europea,Europäisch,Europäische Union,Unia,Unie,Evropa,Evropske,Europeisk,Europeiska,Latin,Greek,griego,Griechisch,traduction,translation,traduccion,traduzione, Spanish,English,español,inglés,italiano,Italian,Nederlands,inglese,français,French,France,UK,España,Spain,Inglaterra,Reino Unido,United Kingdom,Holland,Germany,Deutschland,Deutsch,francés,italien, allemand,portugues,Portugal,Belgie,Belique,Swiss,Sweiz,Svizza,Italia,Polska,Polski,Czech,Russian,Esperanto,Ido,Interlingua, Lojban[/tags]

More WordPress Translation Plugins: now also Traducteur – Uebersetzer – Traductor – Traduttore – Tradutor – Vertaler

Although unrelated to my usual posts, I thought it interesting to announce here more language pairs for my very simple text-only WordPress translator plugin.

These new plugins don’t support as many language pairs as the English one – due to limitations from Altavista and Tranexp translation engines -, but Google translator is able to translate already-translated-texts from Altavista, so you may find some new languages to translate into in this release.

Translations other than direct ones are indeed not clean, and thus not usually trustworthy; but, it’s the most I could achieve at present. If you have more ideas on how to improve it, either change it by yourself (remember it’s GPL) or contact me per email, or just leave a comment if something goes wrong.

Btw, I invite you to visit a new DNGHU site on Proto-Indo-European history and maps and also remember you that DNGHU is now a legal corporation (a non-profit Association) you can easily join, either as a person or as another national legal corporation if it has similar aims.

[tags]Wordpress,Google,Google translator,Altavista,Altavista translator,Babelfish,Wordpress plugin,translator plugin,blog plugin,blog translator,Wordpress translator,Wordpress translation,translation plugin,blog translation,blog translator plugin,blog translation plugin,WP,WP-translator,WP-translation,WP-plugin,WP translator,WP plugin,WP translation,Tranexp,Poltran,Opentrad,Google translation,Altavista translation,Tranexp translation,Systran,Systran translation,Google plugin,Altavista plugin,Babelfish plugin,Systran plugin,traducteur,Übersetzer,traductor,traduttore,tradutor,vertaler,WP traducteur,WP Übersetzer,WP traductor,WP traduttore,WP tradutor,WP vertaler,Wordpress traducteur,Wordpress Übersetzer,Wordpress traductor,Wordpress traduttore,Wordpress tradutor,Wordpress vertaler[/tags]

The ‘Grin Report’ and its pretended support of Esperanto over Indo-European as European Union’s official language

We have received at Indo-European Language Revival Association an email suggesting us learning more about Esperanto, describing its advantages, and especially talking about the Grin Report, an expert study supposedly favoring Esperanto as the only language for the European Union. This mail comes probably from a reader of Spanish newspapers who read about recent news on Indo-European revival, who possibly didn’t read about our proposal, maybe because we use mainly English in our writings and he just can’t speak but Spanish and Esperanto…

I think that specially any study written about linguistic policy – in our outside the EU – before 2006 (i.e., before we made our proposal) is indeed not intended to support Esperanto over Indo-European, and that even present-day studies supporting the adoption of Esperanto are not – unless expressly doing so – against Indo-European, but just ignoring our project, thus invalidating almost any future use of it against us.

Here is an extract of the open letter sent to the European Parliament defending the adoption of one language for the EU – when it says Esperanto we will write Indo-European, and the Grin Report and the letter will still be saying the same…

We pay € 17 THOUSAND MILLION each year into the British economy!

Dear Member of Parliament,

October 2005 saw the publication of a particularly interesting report, accessible in French in PDF Format, by the Swiss Professor François Grin.

The most startling conclusion of the report is that, due to the current dominant position of the English language, the United Kingdom gains € 17-18 thousand million each year, which is more than three times the famous British rebate, or 1% of its GNP. In other words, each of the 394 million non-English-speaking citizens of the EU, including those from the poorest new Member States, are subsidising the British economy!

This amount comes from the sale of books and other goods relating to the English language, from the 700.000 people each year who go to Britain to learn English, as well as from the savings that stem from the neglect of foreign-language teaching in British schools. This does not account for all of the languagerelated economic transfers to the United Kingdom but for 75% of them, which the author sees as the fruit of the hegemony of English and not just of the demographic weight of the language itself.

François Grin who is a professor at the University of Geneva and a specialist in the economics of language, has released an extensive dossier in which he analyses the language policy of the European Union. The study was commissioned and published by the French Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école (High Council for School Evaluation) – an independent public body which evaluates and analyses the state of teaching in France.

The report poses the question “What would be the optimum choice for working languages in the European Union?

A more equitable system would save the EU at least € 25 thousand million annually!

The Swiss economist proposes a comparison between three possible scenarios:
1. English as the sole language,
2. multilingualism,
3. Esperanto Indo-European as an internal working language the EU institutions.

The third option, Esperanto Indo-European, comes out as the least expensive and most equitable, but Grin believes it is not currently viable because of the strong prejudices against Esperanto Indo-European based on simple ignorance. He believes, however, that it is strategically possible for a new generation, on two conditions:

  • a sustained large-scale information campaign throughout the EU about language inequality and
    Esperanto Indo-European,
  • the cooperation of all Member States in the campaign.

This could lead to net annual savings for the EU of approximately € 25 thousand million! “That is directly and manifestly to the advantage of 85% of the population of the 25 states”, Professor Grin claims.

Now do the same with the Grin Report itself and substitute “Esperanto” for Indo-European as the best option, and you will have a natural, democratic, culturally neutral and thus better language alternative for Europe than Esperanto, supported by previous economic and linguistic policy studies which didn’t take our alternative on account because they couldn’t.

[tags]Indo-European,Indo-European language,Proto-Indo-European language,Indo-European language family,Indo-European studies,Indo-European languages,Indo-Hittite,Europaio,IAL,International Auxiliary Language,EU,Europe,European Union,European language,Esperanto,Ido,Interlingua,Germanic IAL,Slovio,Occidental,Latin,Latine,Latine sine flexione,Occidental,Lojban,natural language,linguistics,linguistic policy,language policy,single language,democracy,politics,economy,culture,neutrality,EU institutions,Nostratic,Indo-Uralic[/tags]

Happy new Indo-European Year!

We are entering a new year, hopefully The first Indo-European Year.

I have been thinking about where we started, and what I thought exactly a year ago that it was going to happen with our Indo-European revival projects. Even though I usually complain a lot about our lack of resources, I shall say that if the coming years are so good as the last, then the language revival is certainly going to succeed.

I am quite happy now looking at the past, and I am usually very pessimistic. I won’t make an extensive report – we will publish one at Dnghu, I guess, around its first official anniversary, in March or so -, but here is why:

  1. Firstly, we had to deal with experts who knew about Indo-European and the EU, people in a poor region like Extremadura who, apart from supporting free software (GNULinex) and licences, usually want to fund only agricultural and industrial projects. After English, Latin, and also Esperanto and a thousand conlangs,… Still another language? We believed in the project, but never expected Extremadura to support it. Surprisingly, the University, the regional government and other public institutions liked it; also, two professors wanted to permanently support the idea, and so too the Department of Classical Studies.
  2. Secondly, the people: we thought they were not prepared for another language; in fact, the media repeated again and again “a new language for Europe“, when they wrote about our project. Some wanted us to talk for them in the radio and tv, and I think we didn’t do it that bad. At least we had the opportunity to say everywhere “It is not an invented language!
  3. Then, the Internet: well, this is the worst part, and we are not done with it. Having seen the success of social-driven projects, like the Online Free Encyclopedia (Wikipedia), we wanted people from all Europe to collaborate, so that – unlike past revival projects, lead by tiny groups of experts – it was really a common European project, and we planned accordingly a roadmap for the installation and promotion of different free sites and collaboration-based projects. As with many plans, I suppose, ours was wrong, and there is still no Internet community to support us.

So, people and institutions in our region supported the project, but, on the other hand, the Internet hasn’t been able to help the project any further! We are now trying to fix some common mistakes in our web pages, and even in some legal and web design aspects, possibly an important source of the misinformation about ‘Europaio’ that can be found in the Web right now. If you think our projects are interesting, and know how to help spreading the word, please do it! We trusted specially the Internet and free technologies and licences instead of traditional channels, and by now it is exactly that what isn’t working the way it should – or at least the way it could. Examining Wikipedia’s history, one could say we should hire an expert in Indo-European languages to work in the websites, until they have grown into well-Google-ranked pages; the only problem is that, unlike Jimmy Wales, we don’t have enough money to hire such an expertise, and the University of Extremadura won’t spend more resources on us…

The Paneuropean Movement and the European language

Paneuropean flagWe learnt some time ago about the Paneuropean movement in Europe, founded in 1923 by Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, and we thought we definitely found what we were looking for: a traditional idea of a single Pan-European State, formed by all European democratic states.

At first, we wanted the International Paneuropean Union to get involved in the promotion of the Indo-European language, but there is no easy way to do that. We are a modern private group, and they are a traditional public association; our proposal is completely new and unknown – to the extent that some people are classifying our efforts as ‘just another conlang‘ – while theirs is old and tries to defend some very specific European values.
I personally think that many ideas of Coudenhove-Kalergi are not sustainable in present-day Europe (or even in any modern society), but his Pan-Europa manifesto has still very strong pillars which go deep into Europeans’ common history and culture, and they can conform today strong foundations for a new sociopolitical movement.

We studied at Dnghu very seriously the possibility of transforming the Indo-European language revival projects – now mostly cultural and universitary activities – into a EU political platform or party, so that more people could become involved in the adoption of a common language for Europe. After so many months trying to get help from existing organizations, some of us eventually decided to promote the creation of a public legal corporation. A political party is, basically, just an association of people entitled to stand for elections, so it appeared to be a better solution than just another association.
The result is Oinion (“Union“) – provisionally called Gnationalis Oinion Paneuropas -, a EU-only political party that will be incorporated (at least in Spain) in the following months. Some Dnghu supporters preferred to avoid the political issue, so we are few again for this project. We cannot succeed alone in Spain, so we will wait for other Europeans to contact the Dnghu Group, to build together an important network of supporters.

Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua,… (2)

I was wondering what could happen if people disagreed with our approaches to Europaio. We have allowed anyone not only to disagree within our frameworks, but also to use our works and names to create their own projects – but for “Dnghu” and “Europaio”, if they completely disagree with our grammar rules. We thought this was the fairest legal position to hold, given that we had to defend our efforts as first-movers in IE revival issues, at the same time guaranteeing everybody the right to create a better project, as nobody should be able to retain rights over the Indo-European language in any possible way.

Leaving legal issues aside, what about a more Latin Europaia? a more Slavic Europaiska? a more Germanic Europaisk? or a more Greek Europaika? What about Europai, Newom? What about IALs like Enterdnghu or Sperantom? I hate giving ideas, believe me, but this way it cannot be said that we were not aware of the risks of releasing our works under free licences.

Unlike artificial languages, Proto-Indo-European was only one language, and especially the one we want to reconstruct and use as a modern language is the dialect spoken some 4.500 thousand years ago by the (mainly) European prehistoric community. For people wanting to be purer – thus older – in the verb reconstruction, or in the phonetics, or more neutral, or anything like that, there is always a place; we’ll still be trying to speak the same language. And for those enthusiasts looking for early PIE, or even Indo-Uralic, Eurasiatic, and so on, wanting to use laryngeals, to use a simpler syntax, an older noun declension system, etc. there is also a place, although those will mostly remain theoretical projects.

The problem with artificial languages is not the risk posed by disagreements with the majority of Esperantists, and proposals of (supposedly) improved languages derived from Zamenhof’s concept, such as Ido, Interlingua or Novial. The real problem comes when there is an overwhelming choice of very good conlangs [Wikipedia], each one better than others in some respects, and worse in others; then, learning one of those languages implies necessarily loosing your time if it is eventually not the one chosen by the majority. Learning Europaio, on the other hand, gives you not only the certainty of not being replaced by a completely different language with the same concept, as there is only one, but also, if it is not adopted officially by the EU, you will have learnt the linguistic features of the ancestor from which the mother tongues of half the world’s population are derived. In this respect, it would be like learning Latin before learning romance languages.