Access / Endangerment / Future of CJ

[Henry Kammler]

Dear listers,

through the recent discussions it becomes clear again that there are as many
motivations and approaches as there are individuals involved in CJ. When people
from different backgrounds and fields come together they have to find a common
language which confronts all of them with unforeseen difficulties. In a
goodwill-atmosphere one should at first try to avoid generalizations about
perceived "groups" like e.g. linguists vs. non-linguists. Some of the
frustrations that Nadja mentioned directly stem from what *individuals* in a
particular situation said or did and should be taken as that.

On the other hand of course, academically influenced language has a tendency to
exclude others, and all academics should always be aware of this. Academia has
an unfortunate heritage of exclusive elite-disources to deal with. But isn't
this list a good start for a counterpoint to "corporate confidential"?

In GR, the practical possibility of learning/teaching CJ and the motivational
base for it seems to be quite different from anywhere else. Who is to blame
when there are no CJ classes outside GR? (Should it be an issue of blaming at
all?) There are no teachers, just students, so its the students that should
find ways to come together and learn from what's available.

And as Jeff has pointed out, there is quite a bit available on the net. I think
someone who has thoroughly gone through the Melville Jacobs collection of texts
(there should be no problem to exchange photocopies) will already have a good
working command of CJ.

As CJ has been a second language for most of its speakers most of the time, its
survival will only be as a second language with limited degrees of fluency
among its speakers (and also this has always been the case). As well as there
is no objective criteria for "fluency" in any "natural" language, there is none
for CJ either. (Same goes for the highly problematic notion of "correctness".)

The /kwitshadi/-example reminds me of what is happening all over in native
communities with endagered languages which become constested grounds of
prestigious "traditional" knowledge. Additionally those who know much often
unintentionally make others feel bad (apart from language being used in
conflicts that are linked to other issues in those communities, which would
lead too far here). Just one reminder: the remaining speakers and semi-speakers
of all these languages are not *language teachers* and they themselves have
gone through extremely traumatic classoom settings in their lives. Young people
in these communities get easily discouraged in language learning because of all
the issues they also have to deal with beneath the surface. CJ is one (somewhat
special) case in a sea of dying languages. In all the cases I know of, language
maintenance is bound to strongly devoted individuals, and with the devotion to
CJ I see on this list I am optimistic that it will also be practiced in the
future.

The survival of a language is not so much an issue of the mere numbers of its
speakers but more how closely knit the language community is (i.e. do people
use it everyday not only at home but with friends and neighbors) and, above
all, if a substantial number of children learn it as their *first* language.
When we hear that less than a third of the Diné (Navajo) children learn Diné
bizáád as first language, we know that survival is by no means sure.

One serious constraint I see is that all CJ learners have a common language:
English, for most even the mother tongue. There is no functional need for
another language. When we look at Esperanto, it was born in multilingual
central Europe under the impression of ever ongoing wars between nations. And
it is the only artificial language that has had relative success (unlike e.g.
Volapük, another such language at that time). Several listers have expressed
their need for CJ expressions that match 21st century reality which means, new
words (neologisms) have to come up somehow through an agreement between the
users of the language -- i.e. like in Esperanto. And maybe this is the only way
CJ can survive - which has two consequences:
1) practical use will deviate more and more from the historic CJ as documented
in the sources
2) lacking a central language academy (unlike most national languages and even
Esperanto) there is no authority deciding on how to use words. (Natural
languages show spontaneous innovation all the time when it comes to everyday
speech, language academies only serve as a legitimizing agency. As no one uses
CJ sponateously, spontaneous innovation is less likely.)
THIS LIST seems to be the best place to discuss all the issues involved (like
new words), it is open and has no hierarchical structure.

OK, that's my long 2 cents here.
Henry K.