1

Michael Adams (ed.), From Elvish to Klingon. Exploring invented languages. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2011. vi + 294 pages, ISBN 978-0-19-280709-0, EUR 17.99.

Reviewed by SUSANNE MOHR, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

Next to the approximately 6,000 natural languages in the world, there is probably an equally

large number of invented languages of different types, ranging from pasigraphies (usually

dating from the 19th century) to secret languages that fulfill the purpose of restraining

communication to a certain group within a speech community, to international auxiliary

languages (IALs) that are supposed to facilitate communication across borders. In From

Elvish to Klingon, Michael Adams suggests that there are at least as many invented

languages as natural ones (p. 3), while Okrent‟s (2009) estimate based on Dulichenko‟s

(1990) work, lists roughly 900 of them. Differences in number, as in the study of natural

languages, depend on the defining criteria for invented systems. However, no matter what

the exact number of invented languages turns out to be, a comprehensive account is not

possible (nor desirable) in a work of the current design. While Okrent‟s (2009) impressive

book includes 500 languages, the book discussed here comprises eight chapters by various

authors introducing 20 invented languages. This is followed by eight appendices written by

the editor himself, which are supposed to connect the chapters of the book and provide

actual language samples or background information on the respective languages. While the

book‟s purpose is to “illustrate various points along the spectrum [of invented languages]” (p.

10) and “to turn a critical eye on the reasons why people invent languages” (p. 15), the

criteria for the inclusion of individual languages could have been made more explicit though.

Moreover, the range of languages presented seems rather limited from a typological

perspective. Certain kinds of languages are not touched upon at all, as will be shown

subsequently. However, while other works mentioned above are certainly more

comprehensive accounts of invented languages, the current issue provides a concise

introduction to the field.

For the present review, I will not proceed by chronologically discussing the chapters of the

book but rather by looking at different types of linguistic inventions in turn, starting with

invented vocabularies first, then continuing with languages that have a somehow limited use,

grammar and/or vocabulary, and finally finishing with full fledged invented languages to be

used for all communicative purposes. To begin with, I will briefly comment on the introductory

chapter of the book, written by the editor himself.

In the first chapter of the book on “the spectrum of invention” (p. 1), Adams mainly comments

on the different motives for language invention, the different kinds of invented languages

including many of the examples given later on in the book, finishing with a plan of the

chapters. He cites Okrent‟s (2009) statement that “the primary motivation for inventing new

language has been to improve upon natural language” as one of the main reasons for

language invention. Besides this main reason, he puts forth several other motives such as

recovering “the language of Adam” that was lost after Babel, filling a language gap, practicing

linguistic or philological technique or, simply reasons of fame and money. His list indeed

seems to cover the spectrum of reasons for language invention which is nicely illustrated by

examples. Concerning the different kinds of invented language proposed here, a major point

in Adams‟ chapter is the invention of new vocabulary items in the context of slang. He

2

conclusively argues for the consideration of slang as inventive language in the sense that it

tests the boundaries of language (p. 9). Slang, however, might never achieve wide circulation

as it is usually used to distance a small group within a speech community from the rest. It

thus constitutes an “anti-language” in the sense of Baker (2002). This hints at the fact that

Adams tries to apply a usage-based, socio-cultural model of language to the study of

invented language because the notion of “anti-language” is closely connected to that of “anti-

society” (p. 2). This has similarly been argued by Kiessling and Mous (2004) in the context of

urban youth languages in Africa. They define anti-languages as sociolects that “emphasize

the interpersonal function [of language] at the expense of the referential function” (Kiessling

& Mous 2004: 328). Further, they argue that with the disappearance of other socially induced

forms of manipulated language in certain societies, new sociolinguistic contexts emerge in

which new linguistic forms such as urban youth registers in Nairobi (Sheng based on English

and Swahili) or Johannesburg (Iscamto based on Zulu) emerge. Altogether, this is in line

with Storch (2011) who states that by using these (sometimes secret) forms of language,

social identities are not only expressed by created. Adams‟ scope of investigation is thus

comprehensible but could have been expressed more clearly. Storch (2011) explicitly

stresses the importance of sociolinguistic parameters in the use of different types of

manipulated languages, such as virilocal, patrilinear family structures enhancing the use of

in-law avoidance languages for hlonipa among the Zulu and Xhosa, for example1. A clear

argumentation in the same vein would have been desirable.

Starting the discussion of those chapters that treat an invented vocabulary, chapter 3 by

Howard Jackson describes Newspeak and Nadsat, used in G. Orwell‟s 1984 and A. Burgess‟

A Clockwork Orange respectively. Although this chapter naturally analyses many literary

issues, the linguistic analysis put forth by Howard is rather detailed. Howard bases his

analysis on the appendix to 1984 (Newspeak) and on the Nadsat vocabulary compiled by

Hyman (1963), as well as on single instances of words provided in the books. From a

linguistic point of view, the most interesting parts on Newspeak are Howard‟s description of

the three sets of vocabulary of the language and the linguistic rules that operate on them (pp.

50-54), and the paragraph on “Orwell and Sapir-Whorf”, commenting on Orwell‟s occupation

with the relation between language and thought in the context of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

(pp. 61 f.). The three sets of vocabulary of Newspeak are actually a pared-down English

vocabulary, similar to Basic English invented by Ogden (1930). Howard nicely describes

word derivation processes and affixation as exemplified by the formation of emphatics by

adding the prefix plus- to a word, as in pluscold (p. 52). This is similar to natural languages

such as Shizuoka Japanese, in which prefixed emphatic forms take the prefix [çi] (taken from

Ueda 2010: 1):

(1) [naku] „cry‟ → [çinnaku] „cry furiously‟ [Shizuoka Japanese]

Unfortunately, a point that seems to elude Howard in this context is the under-determinability

of lexemes in Newspeak: think and knife can be both nouns and verbs. Consequently, it is

not clear whether the above example of pluscold is actually a noun or a verb. The

multifunctionality of words like knife might be due to either a zero conversion principle or a

shared lexical category. Regrettably, Howard does not elaborate on this matter any further.

However, altogether his description of the completely regular word formation and thus the

avoidance of marked processes in the A set is concise. The main difference between the A

1 Avoidance languages will be discussed in more detail in the context of invented vocabularies.

3

and the B vocabulary set is the fact that the latter allows extensive compounding. His

comparison of the word formation processes of Newspeak to those found in Germanic

languages like Modern German and Old English hits the mark2; examples would have been a

bonus though. Moreover, comments on the types of compounds including features such as

possible headedness, endo- or exocentricity would have been interesting. On a more meta-

linguistic level, Howard comments on Newspeak and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in stating

that Orwell obviously proposed a linguistic determinist view of the relation between language

and thought (p. 61). Nadsat, the second language discussed, is treated in less detail. It is a

teenage slang whose vocabulary Burgess did not want to be dated in a certain period (p. 50).

As the name suggests (Nadsat being a Russian suffix equivalent to English teen), the

vocabulary of Nadsat is Russian with English inflections (p. 68). Pp. 67-70 of the chapter

contain many examples of Nadsat words in an English context, which emphasizes that

Nadsat is a vocabulary rather than a language (Burgess 1972: 16; own emphasis):

(2) Dim had a real horrorshow length of oozy or chain round his waist […] and began to swing it beautiful in the eyes or glazzies.

This substitution of words by youths is reminiscent of youth slangs such as Yarada

K‟wank‟wa used by young speakers of Amharic in Addis Ababa. It is similarly used as a

secret slang in order to exclude others (parents, etc.) from communication. This is especially

emphasized by the fact that as soon as a certain lexeme‟s meaning becomes known to

outsiders, a new word is created. Examples from Yarada K‟wank‟wa are shown in (3a) and

(3b) (taken from Wolvers 2008: 4 f.):

(3) a. k’ədus k’ət’äl - „marihuana‟ [Yarada K‟wank‟wa] b. čik - „girl‟ [Yarada K‟wank‟wa]

While the chapter constitutes an interesting linguistic account of Newspeak and Nadsat, a

linguistic comparison to other languages mentioned would have been informative.

The second chapter that treats invented vocabularies is chapter 7 written by Stephen

Watt. The chapter discusses the language of Joyce, Beckett and Muldoon in their literary

oeuvre. Although probably rather interesting for the field of literary studies, the chapter is less

useful from a linguistic perspective. The only issues worth mentioning are Watt‟s comments

on several important sociolinguistic issues connected with these invented vocabularies as

they express the writers‟ attitudes towards English as the language of the colonizers in

Ireland. He briefly brings up Hiberno-English and its linguistic features (p. 163) but fails to

provide a linguistically relevant account3. He continues in describing language attitudes and

the struggle between Irish Gaelic and English in the post-Famine period (after 1852), which

finally leads to the three writers‟ motivations for inventing language in their works, namely a

feeling of inappropriateness of the English language to express Irishness. While describing

the structures of invented language, the description is only sparsely illustrated with examples

such as mkgnao „meow‟ from Ulysses. The reader is referred to Appendix 7, which however

only contains examples of Synthetic Scots, invented in the early 20 th century by Hugh

MacDiarmid (1934). Language samples would also have been desirable to illustrate Watt‟s

claim that Joyce manipulates some 41 languages and dialects “from Albanian to Welsh, from

2 Examples from German such as Bügelbrettbezug (right-headed endocentric) = „ironing board cover‟,

as well as the sheer infinite scope of these constructions are well known. 3 His pronunciation samples of /t/ and /d/ lack the IPA transcription one would have wished for, for

instance..

4

Finnish to Russian, from Romani to Sanskrit” (pp. 170 f.). He cites single examples from

Finnegan’s Wake such as collideorscape consisting of collide combined with kaleidoscope

(p. 171) and correctly characterizes them as portmanteau constructions. However, more

examples, also from Beckett‟s and Muldoon‟s texts (discussed on pp. 173-182), would have

assured better comprehensibility on the part of the interested linguist. Summarizing, it is

certainly interesting to include this chapter in a book on invented languages but it would have

benefited from more examples and more linguistic analyses in order to be interesting for a

linguistic researcher.

Other types of invented languages that are not mentioned at all in the context of

invented vocabularies are avoidance languages. Of special interest in this regard are

avoidance registers created to avoid the names of deceased persons or in-laws (of the

opposite sex). These types of avoidance languages are abundant in Australian Aboriginal

languages and have been documented for some East Cushitic and Bantu languages as well.

The lexemes for „sun‟ in Yidiny (Pama-Nyungan) are shown in (4) (taken from Romaine

2000: 22):

(4) Guwal (everyday register) Dyalnguy (mother-in-law register) bungan gari:man

The process applied in the above example represents an instance of paralexification; one of

the possible processes used in the creation of invented languages (Mous 1994). The term

refers to parallel word forms for one lexical entry that share meaning and morphology. In her

description of Ballishsha, the avoidance register of Kambaata women addressing their in-

laws, Treis (2005) also mentions this process (taken from Treis 2005: 299 f.).

(5) Common word (Kambaata) Ballishsha birrá asurnà „money‟ hamiilú qabará-ta „cabbage‟

Avoidance languages might also lead to changes of the linguistic system, as exemplified by

hlonipa, the avoidance language of married Zulu and Xhosa women talking to their male in-

laws. Apart from the names of the male relatives, women are proscribed from using any

other words that contain the same syllables as the names to be avoided. In this case,

avoidance strategies include phonological modifications and borrowing from surrounding

languages. Borrowing for phonological modification purposes is probably the reason why

clicks, which are not usually present in Bantu, came into Zulu and Xhosa (Storch 2011).

The abovementioned forms of invented language are directly related to the next issue

to be discussed, namely invented languages with limited use. For many of these, it is not

completely clear in how far they constitute a vocabulary of the type described in the previous

paragraph or a basic/simplified language.

Chapter 5 by Marc Okrand, Michael Adams, Judith Hendriks-Hermans and Sjaak Kroon on

Klingon, the language invented for a fictional race from the Star Trek movies and series, falls

into the category of languages with a limited use, grammar and vocabulary. The

categorization of Klingon as a restricted language may seem disputable given that Klingon is

nowadays “the largest fictional language” (p. 111), also used in real world institutions like US

American hospitals (p. 128). However, the authors provide a very detailed sketch of the

sociolinguistics of Klingon mainly based on Hendriks-Hermans (1999), which clarifies that

there is no real speech community for the language. The authors continue by stating that

5

most Klingon speakers are male Caucasian US Americans of around 30 years (p. 129),

which hints at a rather restricted community of speakers. They also acknowledge the fact

that according to the Klingon Language Institute only a handful of people (20-30) are fluent in

Klingon and could use it in everyday life (p. 128). They continue discussing whether the

users of Klingon actually form a speech community according to Patrick‟s (2004) criteria

which suggest that there is a continuum of “speech-communityness” ranging from large

geographically bounded urban communities to small secluded communities such as court

juries. After illustrating these criteria with examples, they conclude that “if there is a Klingon

speech community, it is very small indeed” (p. 131). Altogether, the description of the

sociolinguistics of Klingon is very thorough. The description of the language‟s structure, its

grammar and vocabulary (pp. 116-124) is sufficient to gain an impression of its linguistic

type. The authors elaborate on the phonetics and phonology of Klingon as for example the

typologically frequent syllable structure CV (C), while on the other hand adding non-English

sounds to make the language sound “more alien”.4 The accurate description of the choice of

sounds, their formation and illustration with examples does not completely compensate for

the sometimes weird and non-IPA transcription of the sounds though: /H/ instead of /x/, /gh/

instead of /ɣ/ (p. 117). It seems to be based on the transcription system of Klingon developed

for actors. Interesting however, is the explanation of Klingon sound symbolism that

associates the /k/ sound with outer space and aliens, as in kryptonite. Apart from phonology,

a few comments on syntax are made, identifying OVS as the basic word order of the

language. Given the rarity of this ordering cross-linguistically – languages such as Urarina

(isolate), Guarijio (Uto-Aztecan), Hixkarjana (Carib) form an exception – the aim of creating

linguistic otherness or markedness is definitely achieved. Nevertheless, also the grammatical

part of the chapter is clearly written for a lay audience. The character of agglutinative

languages of which Klingon is argued to be an example is described in a rather simple way,

which hampers comprehensibility when it comes to examples. Instead of providing an

interlinear morpheme translation for jIqIp’eghpu’’a’ „Did I hit myself?‟, the authors analyze the

word in the text. An interlinear translation such as in (6) would have been much clearer:

(6) jI- qIp- egh- pu- ’a’ [Klingon]

PRN- hit- 1SG.REFL- PRF- INT PRN hit myself PRF INT „Did I hit myself?‟

A final issue worth mentioning is the detailed description of the Klingon vocabulary and its

semantic fields that is provided. Although the original Klingon dictionary (Okrand 1985) only

contained 1,500 words, many examples of Klingon words are given on pp. 121 f.

Summarizing, it can be stated that irrespective of the sometimes non-linguistic or lay take on

the description of the language, the chapter provides an interesting and thorough description

of the linguistic features and sociolinguistic situation of this fictional invented language.

Chapter 6 by James Portnow discusses the topic of gaming languages. Most invented

languages described in this chapter are actually limited in vocabulary and use to the gaming

world, which is why it is put in the category of languages restricted in use and

vocabulary/grammar. One exception might be 1337 or “Leet”, as will be shown later on.

Portnow starts his discussion by showing that languages and games actually have much in

common, and relates this remark to Wittgenstein‟s term of “Sprachspiel” („language game‟)

(p. 136). Although treating a subject of leisure, the chapter is expertly researched and

4 This clearly presupposes English as a point of reference, rather than universal linguistic tendencies.

6

reasoned as well as linguistically informative. Portnow comments on six gaming languages:

Gargish, D‟ni, Simlish, Al-Bhed, Logos and 1337. While some of them are real game

languages, others are rather language games that originated in the universe of a videogame.

He explicitly acknowledges this for Al-Bhed (“it is a carefully crafted substitution cipher”, p.

148) and outlines its substitution system. The common characteristics of gaming languages

are probably due to the general requirements on languages in videogames, such as

inessentiality to game play (p. 138). These requirements often result in the creation of so-

called “flavor languages” that usually only comprise a few sentences and operate

unsystematically with the sole purpose to deliver a taste of the culture of its speech

community (p. 140). Portnow fails to mention Simlish in this context though. Although stating

that it is a non-language and gibberish (p. 146/148), he never classifies it as a flavor-

language. Given that it is a purely emotive language, the relation between meaning and form

is very close and non-arbitrary: “the „meaning‟ of the sounds is supposed to be the meaning

of the words” (p. 148). This seems closely related to phenomena such as ideophones which

are characterized by an iconic relation between signifiant and signifié and often relate to

sensory imagery such as sounds, smells and tastes (Dingemanse 2011). An example of this

iconic relationship is shown in (7) (taken from Childs 1994: 185):

(7) kpuk-kpuk-kpuk = „insistent rapping on the door‟ [Gbaya]

The structural differences between gaming languages are mainly attributed to their different

dates of invention. Portnow divides gaming history into three periods, “the mists of history

[…] (i.e. the last 1980s, really, anything up until about 2000); the modern era – anything after

the launch of the PlayStation 2 in 2000; massive multiplayer games and the future […]” (p.

140). While the languages invented in the first era were much more focused on written

communication, the languages of the second period were supposed to be speakable. This is

depicted in his analysis of Gargish, a language of the first era. The setup of the language is

actually not found in any natural language. Thus, certain parts of speech and tenses are

made clear through gestures and intonation. It thus represents a hugely multimodal kind of

language that has not been documented to date. It certainly exceeds the level of

multimodality usually found in spoken languages, including spoken words and co-speech

gestures that have no grammatical meaning however. It is also different from the sign

languages of the deaf, in which manual signs may carry grammatical meaning such as

plurality (Pfau et al. 2012). Generally, the linguistic description of the language is very

thorough, also including select aspects of phonology, comments on vocabulary and a

complete sample sentence with the corresponding transliteration and translation. This

generally holds true for the description of D‟ni, another language of the first era. It is

described as a “calligraphic” and “phonetic” language (p. 144) which means that each letter

corresponds to exactly one sound. A short reference to the principle of orthographic depth as

proposed in Frost & Katz (1992), for example, would have been desirable here. This would

have been especially useful for researchers of languages with another shallow orthography

such as Finnish or Castilian Spanish. The concise list of linguistic features of the language

on p. 146 compensates for these minor deficiencies though. The languages of the second

era, Simlish and Al-Bhed have already been dealt with here. The languages of the third era

are Logos and 1337. Both languages strongly rely on symbolism, in fact, Logos is actually

referred to as a “symbolic language” similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs (p. 153). Thus, there are

base symbols like an upward pointing arrow signifying „up‟ that are very much iconic and

similar to Egyptian logograms. The other symbols, such as those that mark grammatical

7

meaning, are not completely similar to any kind of Egyptian glyph, as their function is clearly

grammatical in contrast to Egyptian determinatives that have classificatory function. The

analysis of 1337 is rather concise. It is the “international language of gamers” (p. 156) still

extensively used today. Strictly speaking, it is not a language but rather a form of digital

calligraphy (p. 157) that developed from “common letter transpositions that occur wh ile typing

[and] have become accepted spellings of words” (p. 157). While providing impressive

examples of whole paragraphs in 1337 and commenting on puns that are used throughout

the gaming community, Portnow fails to acknowledge several issues. Firstly, 1337 shares its

reliance on symbolism with Logos. Secondly, it is a curious mixture of a language that is

rooted in one culture (and one language, i.e. English) and functions as a lingua franca (due

to its main use for communication between international gamers) in the gaming world at the

same time. In this regard it bears strong resemblance to the phenomenon of English as a

lingua franca (ELF), which was originally rooted in Anglophone culture but is internationalized

with respect to lexicogrammar and pragmatics (Jenkins et al. 2011). Examples of

lexicogrammatical features that are part of a common ELF core feature set are dropping of

3rd person singular present -s, or the replacement of infinitive constructions with that-clauses

(Jenkins et al. 2011: 289). An example of ELF pragmatics is the creation of the discourse

marker in my point of view combining in my view and from my point of view (Jenkins et al.

2011: 295). All in all, despite some minor weaknesses, the chapter is a very thorough and

linguistically interesting analysis of invented languages in videogames.

Although not directly related, gaming languages are reminiscent of play languages.

Play languages are rule-governed systems that represent manipulated versions of the matrix

languages they are derived from (Storch 2011). Speakers consciously change different

linguistic units of their native language according to certain phonological rules. This provides

interesting insights into the psychological reality of the syllable and word (Storch 2011: 20).

After Bagemihl (1995) play languages can be categorized into infixing of affixing, templatic,

replacement and reversing types. In infixing languages, a syllable is infixed after the first

vowel of the matrix word (cf. example (8) taken from Ntihirageza 2006: 3).

(8) eka → émneka „no‟ [Kirundi]

Templatic patterns are often exhibited by languages that display root-internal grammatical

patterns, such as Semitic languages. Here, a fixed sequence of consonants and vowels is

filled with the actual phonological material, i.e. a vowel slot would be filled with the word‟s

first vowel, after which a consonant has to follow (Storch 2011: 20). An example from

Amharic can be seen in (9) (taken from Hudson 1993: 48):

(9) wərk’ → wayrk’ərk’ „gold‟ [Amharic]

In replacement languages, certain phonemes are regularly replaced by another phoneme. In

Tenda (Atlantic-Congo), /k/ is replaced by /p/ (example taken from Ferry 1981: 174).

(10) ekès → epès „name of village‟ [Tenda]

Finally, in reversing play languages syllables and other phonetic features (such as tonal

patterns) are reversed, as in (11) (taken from Storch 2011: 21):

(11) dánô → nôdá „person‟ [Lango]

8

As has become evident, play languages are fully fledged linguistic systems and

should consequently belong to the next and last category of invented languages discussed in

the following paragraphs. An intermediate type of language to be mentioned before is special

purpose registers which include languages that may be either spoken or signed. Spoken

registers are Hausa crafts registers or the language of sculptors in Ancient Egyptian. The

Hausa register operates with several semantic motivations such as the resemblance of the

performed actions or conceptual resemblance. (12) shows an example of resemblance of the

performed action, as a magnet pulls iron in the same way a hyena pulls its prey (taken from

Bross 1996: 221):

(12) kúráar ƙárfèe „hyena of iron‟ [Hausa]

Better-known, however, are the monastic sign languages used by Cistercian monks

(described in detail by Barakat 1975 for a Cistercian Abbey in Massachusetts) or the Sawmill

sign language that was used throughout large parts of the USA and Canada (Pfau 2012).

These systems belong to the category of secondary sign languages, which as opposed to

primary sign languages of the deaf, do not represent full-fledged languages but rather

gestural communication codes with restricted use and varying degrees of elaboration (Pfau

2012: 528).5 These systems were developed for situations in which spoken communication is

impossible (in a loud sawmill) or prohibited (in a monastery). The lexicon of these systems is

often rather limited, as is their syntax. It is however possible to form sentences (example

taken from Meissner & Philpott 1975: 298):

(13) INDEX2 CRAZY OLD FARMER [Sawmill Sign Language] „You crazy old farmer.‟

Recent studies of hunting signs found among certain San groups of the Kalahari-Okavango

region have also shown that these signs are analyzable according to sign linguistic

phonological criteria such as handshape, location, etc. (Mohr & Fehn 2013).

The last group of languages discussed in the book is full-fledged invented languages, of

which international auxiliary languages (IALs) described in chapter 2 by Arden R. Smith are

certainly the most important ones as linguae francae. Besides discussing the structure of

IALs, the chapter nicely describes the history of artificial languages, starting in the 17 th

century with languages that aimed at recovering “the language of Adam” that was supposed

to reflect the order of the universe better than natural languages (p. 19). The author cites the

19th century as the heyday of invented languages. Generally, he discusses languages

grouped into (1) “a priori”, (2) “a posteriori” languages and (3) mixed systems (p. 20). This

classification is based on linguistic criteria, meaning that a priori languages are not based on

any existing languages, while a posteriori languages are based on existing structures and

elements. Mixed systems are a combination of both. The scope of the chapter is very broad,

commenting on 12 artificial languages, namely real character, Solrésol, Volapük, Spokil,

Esperanto, Ido, Occidental, Interlingua, Basic English, Weltdeutsch, Wede and Saxon

English. However, some of them are only briefly mentioned and discussed, and sparsely

illustrated by examples (Solrésol, Ido, Spokil, Occidental, Weltdeutsch and Wede

5 The group of primary sign languages does not belong to the category of invented or manipulated

languages mentioned here, but represents naturally developed systems.

9

respectively). Based on written language is the system of the Ars signorum (17th century). It

is especially interesting in that a word‟s letters are supposed to indicate a referent‟s place in

the universe, as the n class denoting concrete physical objects. This system is reminiscent of

noun class systems found in many languages around the world. However, this kind of system

is always strongly culture-related and would pose serious problems for a universal,

international language. Even within one language family, such as Niger-Congo, the number

of noun classes and the members of each class vary considerably, reflecting culture

differences between groups of one language family (Williamson & Blench 2000). Thus, there

are only remnants of noun classes in the Dogon languages, whereas there is a full system in

Gade. The a posteriori languages that are discussed in the chapter are Interlingua, Basic

English and Saxon English (pp. 40-46). While the first has Latin as its base, the latter have

English as their origin. Interlingua was developed in the early 20 th century, consisting of

“Medieval Latin […] with the grammar stripped down to the barest minimum” (p. 41). This is

only part of the story, as the vocabulary could in theory be taken from any language as long

as its internationality was verified by one of seven control languages of the Germanic,

Romance and Slavic language families (Morris 1945). Iinterlingua‟s grammatical structure is

very “regular”, adhering to the grammatical principles of the contributing languages (Gode &

Blair 1955). Thus, verbs have the same form for all persons and adverbs are formed with the

suffix –mente or –amente, similar to Romance languages. Canonical word order is SVO, thus

being considerably less marked than other invented languages discussed previously, such

as Klingon. Basic English that originated around the same time, is viewed with a very critical

eye. Smith criticizes the retention of the unintuitive orthography and the periphrastic and

unwieldy character of verbs. Generally, the Basic English word list compiled by Ogden

includes 850 words which are categorized as “operations”, “general words”, “things” and

“qualities” (descriptives/opposites) (Iijima 2005). These words are actually only roots which

are then modified by the addition of affixes. These are for example plural –s or adverbial –ly.

The limited set of vocabulary also limits the expressivity of Basic English, one of the major

criticisms on the language. Saxon English, which is subsequently mentioned, is on the

border of a posteriori languages and mixed systems. While the original idea was to rid

English of its Greek and Latin elements, it also featured a reformed spelling and grammar (p.

45). The most interesting descriptions are those of the mixed systems Volapük and

Esperanto. While Smith elaborates on the history and creation of the languages in more

detail than absolutely necessary, the linguistic analysis is rather thorough. Thus, Volapük‟s

orthography is outlined meticulously as well as the vowel system consisting of 8

monophthongs ([a], [ɛ], [e], [i], [o], [ø], [u], [y]). Schleyer (the inventor of the language)

generally aimed at “easy” structures, also on the phonological level. When compiling the

language, he changed the phoneme /r/ to /l/ because of Chinese speakers‟ difficulties in

pronouncing the phoneme. However, difficult vowels such as [ø] were retained, which

counterbalances these efforts in the other direction. Smith‟s outline of grammatical aspects

leaves almost no room for improvement, mentioning issues such as grammatical gender,

tense or verb marking, for example. It is reminiscent of Indo-European languages. Thus the

case system is based on German with a nominative, genitive, dative and accusative case.

(14) shows the declination of the noun vol „world‟ in the different cases.

(14) vol „world‟ (Nom.) vola „of the world‟ (Gen.) vole „to the world‟ (Dat.) voli „world‟ (Acc.)

10

Verbal categories are optional, which contributes to ease of acquisition. He concludes by

naming English, German and the Romance languages as the main sources of vocabulary

(pp. 29 f.). As the epitome of IAL and invented language, Esperanto, is depicted most

illustratively. Again, the history and origin of the language are commented on in much length

but the outline at the same time provides a critical view of linguistic structures.

Phonologically, Esperanto is based on Indo-European languages spoken in Europe.

Originally, a „one letter one sound‟ rule was the basis of its phonological system, which the

system deviates from nowadays, as correctly mentioned by Smith: ĉ = /tʃ/ or ŝ = /ʃ/ (p. 33,

phonetic transcription added). The vowel system is extremely simple, consisting of the five

cardinal vowels only, thus supporting the major aim of ease of acquisition. The rules of word

formation are spelled out comprehensibly in Smith‟s account. It reveals Esperanto‟s

agglutinative character, as the main principle of word formation is the combination of

prefixes, roots and/or suffixes. An example of this is the noun ending –o as in patro „father‟

which is turned into an object by the object marker –n or into a plural by the plural marker –j.

This displays the general tendency towards regularity and the avoidance of marked and

irregular forms. One of the most interesting points in Smith‟s chapter is the discussion of

Esperanto‟s linguistic type with respect to invented languages. While Couturat and Leau

(1903) and the author himself classify it as a posteriori, it certainly contains a priori elements.

A fact that would further support the classification of Esperanto as a priori is the origins of its

vocabulary. Most of it is based on the Romance languages, some on Germanic, Slavic and

Greek languages (p. 34). Unfortunately, he fails to mention examples of this, although these

could be easily retrieved: vendi „sell‟ (Romance), ami „love‟ (Romance), patro „father‟

(Romance), kuko „cake‟ (Germanic), forgesi „forget‟ (Germanic). These elements combined

with invented structures clearly show the language‟s mixed character. In conclusion, it can be

stated, however, that despite the minor neglects mentioned above, the chapter is a thorough

and linguistically well researched account of IALs.

Chapter 4 by Jeremy Marshall on Tolkien‟s invented languages represents another

account of fictional languages. As far as fictional languages go, these are probably one of the

most famous and meticulously planned inventions. In the same vein, Marshall‟s chapter

provides a thorough and well researched analysis of the linguistic world of Tolkien‟s oeuvre,

which exhibits only some minor flaws of reasoning or illustration by linguistic examples.

However, the author acknowledges himself that there are far more detailed analyses, such

as Hostetter (2007), while the present account “consider[s] Tolkien‟s […] work of language

invention […] as a feature of his published work” (p. 76). Thus, Marshall first introduces the

reader to the main languages discussed, namely Quenya (or Highelven), Sindarin (or

Greyelven) and places them in Tolkien‟s fictional world. Throughout the chapter, the relations

of the languages among each other as well as their bases in real world languages are

expertly mentioned and discussed. He also explains Tolkien‟s motives for and the process of

language invention. Thus, he states that Tolkien intended the Elvish languages to be

especially pleasant (p. 77) and cites the features of word form, relation between signifier and

signified, elaborate grammatical structures and historical background as providing this

beauty or pleasantness. On pp. 81-91 the reader is provided with a thorough description of

the phonetics and phonology as well as the grammar of the various languages of Middle

Earth, including Adûnaic, the language of the humans, Khuzdul, the language of the Dwarves

and the Black Speech of Mordor. The phonetic description is mainly based on a comparison

between English and these languages (“absence of schwa”, p. 81) which, although probably

useful for a lay reader, could have been formulated from a less euro-centristic point of view.

In sound, Quenya is compared to Latin, with a tendency towards open syllables, long vowels

11

and diphthongs, while Sindarin is compared to Welsh with a more restricted set of consonant

clusters and a tendency towards closed syllables (p. 82). It is striking and regrettable that the

descriptions of Sindarin usually feature more examples than the explanations of Quenya.

The grammatical description however, does not leave room for improvement, as it is

thorough, well argued and adequately illustrated by examples. The topics discussed include

case marking, pronouns, number, derivation and tense marking (pp. 84-88). Especially

noteworthy is the comparison between natural real-world languages and Tolkien‟s languages

amply exemplified on pp. 98-101. An example is the inflection of possessive pronouns (pp.

84 f.):

(15) a. atari- nya [Quenya]

father 1SG.POSS father-my „my father‟

b. mal’ k - ī [Hebrew]

messenger 1SG.POSS messenger-my

„my messenger‟

Generally, though, Quenya is supposed to be more European in style and structure, while

Khuzdul and Adûnaic rather show Semitic structures as shown by the name Khuzdul

„Dwarvish‟ itself, which is derived from the stem KH-Z-D that not only forms Khuzdul but also

Khazâd „Dwarves‟ by means of non-concatenative morphology. It is hence a typical Semitic

word formation process. Although this general tendency towards European structures seems

to be disproven by instances such as the one cited above or the existence of a dual in the

Elvish languages, the author proves his linguistic expertise by referring the reader to the

vestigial dual pronouns wit „we two‟ and git „you two‟. The resemblance to Semitic structures

in (15) is supposed to be an isolated incidence. Interesting although not completely

convincing is the description of phonoaesthesis in the lexicon. While the author defines the

term correctly as “the notion that certain sound combinations symbolize basic concepts” (p.

103), his example of Quenya carnë „red‟, which might recall carmine and carnation or minas

„tower‟ that recalls minaret, do not exactly show a full-fledged system of phonoaesthesis in

the invented languages. All in all, the analysis of (mainly) Quenya and Sindarin put forth in

this chapter presents a linguistically very well researched and, although a little too euro-

centristic at times, scientifically interesting account of the fictional languages of J.R.R.

Tolkien.

The final chapter to be discussed in the category of full-fledged languages is chapter

8 by Suzanne Romaine on revitalized languages. Romaine herself admits that it might not be

obvious why a chapter on revitalized languages should be included in a book on invented

language. However, she reasons comprehensibly that language revitalization always

involves a certain amount of language planning (p. 186), which is ultimately similar to

language invention. She exemplifies this by discussing the cases of Hebrew, Cornish, Néo-

breton, Hawaiian, Māori, Galician and Irish Gaelic. Moreover, she argues that even standard

languages are planned and consequently, invented languages without native speakers (p.

189). Looking at the case of English, she certainly has a case in point: Crystal (2003:110)

mentions that Standard English (SE) represents a “distinct combination of linguistic features

with a particular role to play”. Similarly, Modern Hebrew is a combination of linguistic features

in that it is derived from Biblical Hebrew (a Semitic language) to which Yiddish and other

European influences were added (p. 187). Altogether, over 100,000 new words were added

12

to the vocabulary, including new coinages from Semitic roots. Regarding revived Cornish and

Néo-breton, there are several examples provided, such as pellgomz „telephone‟ in Néo-

breton attempting to replace the preferred French „téléphone‟ (p. 188). Most examples are

taken from languages such as Hawaiian and Māori. Thus, especially in the section on

vocabulary (pp. 198-205), Romaine mentions many new Hawaiian and Māori inventions.

New coining for items that were not yet included in the lexicon are shown in (16) (p. 200):

(16) a. ngaru- iti [Māori]

„wave small‟ → „microwave‟

b. konga „fragment‟ + nuku „earth‟ → prefix konu- [Māori] e.g. konukura „metal-red‟ = „copper‟

For Hawaiian she lists the examples in (17) (p. 201):

(17) a. lolo uila [Hawaiian]

„electric brain‟ → „computer‟ b. hale noho haum na [Hawaiian]

„house live student‟ → „dormitory‟

It is especially noteworthy that she mentions additional examples from Quechua and also

Néo-breton in this context. While all these words were newly formed, others were borrowed

from surrounding languages like English that served as the source for kope „coffee‟ and puna

„spoon‟ in Hawaiian (p. 198), or pounamu „jade‟ that was borrowed from Polynesian into

Māori (p. 202). As becomes clear from this account, the languages thus constructed are a lot

more natural in that they are less regular than planned languages like Esperanto or Volapük.

They do not avoid marked forms or categories, but rather resort to common linguistic

processes, such as borrowing. Altogether, this well informed account of the history, planning

process and sociolinguistic situation of these languages proves Romaine‟s experience and

expertise in the field and is informative for laymen and linguists alike.

A type of invented language that certainly lacks in this list of full-fledged invented

linguistic systems is speech surrogates such as whistle or drum languages. The most well-

known exemplars of these systems are certainly whistled languages such as Silbo Gomero

on the Canary islands and the drum languages used in Western and central Africa.

Generally, they can be found all over the world, with Australia and North America being an

exception in that only very few languages have been reported there (Meyer 2005). Both

kinds of surrogates use the same principles. A major distinction (especially with respect to

whistled languages) is often made between tonal or non-tonal, i.e. formant-based languages

(Meyer 2005, Rialland 2005). In his study on whistled languages Meyer (2005) mentions 25

languages, of which 11 are formant-based and 14 tonal. The formant-based languages such

as Silbo Gomero or the whistled speech form found in Kusköy (Turkey) are phonetic

representations of their respective spoken language. Vowels are represented by differences

in height of whistling, consonants are represented by “loci”: idealized points toward and away

from which contours of whistling appear to move. Silbo Gomero has at least two loci,

whereas the whistled language based on Turkish found in Kusköy has four (Rialland 2005).

Rialland (2005: 241 ff.) nicely depicts this in spectrograms of spoken Spanish and whistled

Silbo Gomero sounds. Tonal whistled languages transpose the tone differences found in

their respective spoken language (Hmong, for example, has seven tones) but also certain

aspects of the signal envelope such as manner of articulation of consonants (Rialland 2005:

13

262). The whistled language based on Moba, spoken in Togo, similarly transposes tone as

well as the dynamic frame of an utterance. However, whistled languages are rather rare in

Africa, as drum languages are usually used for long distance communication. Meinhof (1976)

comments on the close relation between drum and whistled communication among the

Duala, thus emphasizing the similarities between the two systems. As mentioned above,

drum languages are found throughout forested areas in West and central Africa but also in

East Asia. A major distinction is made between all-wooden slit drums and skin drums (Van

Valen 1976). While the first are manufactured from a single log that is hollowed out and

opened by a slit, the latter have an animal skin on top (Van Valen 1976). They often occur in

pairs (hence the name “twin drums”), with a small and a bigger drum that have different

frequencies. The male drum is higher in frequency than the female drum (Witte 1976: 287).

These “talking drums” are used to communicate important messages between villages or just

for gossip. Carrington (1976) mentions that the tonal pattern of words is represented by the

drums, which is rather convenient with most African languages having register tones. The

context of these tones is then conclusive as to which word was represented (Carrington

1976: 615). An example of a drummed sequence from Kele (Bantu) is shown in (18) (taken

from Carrington 1976: 614):

(18) drummed: HL LH L HH L LH spoken: wana ati la sango la ṉyango

meaning: „child has no father nor mother‟

Moreover, for better comprehensibility the message is repeated three to four times

(Carrington 1976: 631). Usually, the drums have names such “dundun” among the Yoruba in

Nigeria or the “ntumpane” among the Ashanti in Ghana. In some groups, there are additional

special drums for proverbs, such as the “fo nto mfro m” among the Ashanti (Rattray 1976).

Interestingly, not all groups develop their own drum language as the Ewe in Togo have

borrowed their drum language from the Ashanti and only drum Ashanti words.

Before generally concluding this review, a brief remark on the appendix, written by Michael

Adams himself, seems necessary. As Adams states in the introduction, the appendices are

supposed to connect the separate chapters of the book. However, while the individual

appendices are certainly interesting and provide additional information on the languages

discussed in the corresponding chapters, they do not actually provide a framework for the

book. Moreover, some of the appendices are not very informative from a linguistic point of

view, as appendix 4 on Tolkien‟s languages which merely represents a collection of

commentary on Tolkien‟s linguistic inventions (p. 249-255). However, chapter 4 already

provided a thorough account of Tolkien‟s fictional languages which did not call for further

information. Most of the other appendices are linguistically interesting however: appendix 1

(pp. 227-233) discusses sociolinguistic issues related to language ownership, parts of

appendix 3 (pp. 224-248) comment on the question whether Nadsat is an argot, a jargon,

etc., appendix 5 (pp. 256-260) provides original language material from Klingon and

appendix 6 places gaming language in the context of slang. Appendices 7 and 8 are slightly

different from the rest, as they introduce a language that is not discussed in the

corresponding chapters (Lallans or Synthetic Scots in appendix 7 and Neo-Latin in appendix

8). However, they are linguistically informative with respect to these newly introduced

languages. Summarizing, the appendix constitutes an interesting, although not absolutely

necessary addition to the book.

14

In conclusion, it can be stated that the present volume presents an interesting overview of

the study of invented languages. While not as comprehensive and detailed as other works of

recent years (e.g. Okrent 2009), it certainly achieves its goal to present different points along

the spectrum of invented languages and to critically discuss the motivations for language

invention. Especially noteworthy are chapters like Suzanne Romaine‟s on revitalized

languages as their place in a book like this is not directly obvious. All the more interesting is

their reasoning and analysis of languages like Hawaiian in the framework of language

invention. Other chapters exceed the boundaries of linguistics, such as Stephen Watt‟s

account of language in Irish literature. From a linguistic point of view, it would have been

more informative to discuss other linguistic inventions such as special-purpose sign

languages or speech surrogates instead. Chapters like James Portnow‟s account of gaming

languages seem to have it all though: commenting on the history of and motivation for

invention, they simultaneously provide a thorough linguistic analysis of linguistic structures

and sociolinguistic situations. Altogether, the book ably combines traditional views and

accounts with new and innovative takes on language.

References

Bagemihl, B. 1995. Language games and related areas. In J. Goldsmith (ed.) The handbook

of phonological theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 697–712.

Baker, P. 2002. Polari – The Lost Language of Gay Men. London & New York: Routledge.

Barakat, R. 1975. The Cistercian sign language : a study in non-verbal communication.

(Cistercian Study Series 7) Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications.

Burgess, A. 1972. A Clockwork Orange. Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin.

Carrington, J. F. 1976. Talking drums of Africa. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-Sebeok (eds.)

Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter,

591-668.

Couturat, L. & L. Leau. 1903. Histoire de la langue universelle. Paris: Hachette.

Childs, T. 1994. African Ideophones. In Hinton, L. et al. (eds.) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 178-204.

Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.

Dingemanse, M. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation:

Radboud University Nijmegen.

Dulichenko, A. 1990. Mezhdunarodnye vspomogatel’nye jazyki. Tallinn: Valgus.

Ferry, M.-P. 1981. Les ganles tecresses des Ndéta (les langues secrètes des Tenda).

Objects et mondes 21:173–176.

Frost, R. & L. Katz (eds.) 1992. Orthography, Phonology, Morphology and Meaning.

(Advances in Psychology 94). Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier.

Gode, A. & H. E. Blair. 1955. Interlingua. A grammar of the international language. New

York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.

Hendriks-Hermans, J. 1999. Klingon and its Users: A Sociolinguistic Profile. MA thesis:

Tilburg University.

Hostetter, C. F. 2007. Languages Invented by Tolkien. In Michael Drout (ed.) J.R.R. Tolkien

Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. New York: Routledge.

Hudson, G. 1993. Evidence of an Argot for Amharic and Theoretical Phonology. Journal of

African Languages and Linguistics 14:47–60.

15

Hyman, S. E. 1963. Nadsat Dictionary. <http://soomka.com/nadsat.html>

Iijima, R. 2005. 850 Basic words: grouped and listed by C. K. Ogden.

<http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~ryota/word-list.html>

Jenkins, J., A. Cogo and M. Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research on English

as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3), 281-315.

Joyce, J. 1939. Finnegan’s Wake. New York: Viking.

Kiessling, R., & M. Mous. 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological Linguistics

46(3): 303–341.

MacDiarmid, H. 1934. At the Sign of the Thistle. London: Stanley Nott.

Meinhof, C. 1976. Die Geheimsprachen Afrikas. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-Sebeok

(eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de

Gruyter, 151-157.

Meissner, M. & S. B. Philpott. 1975. The Sign Language of Sawmill Workers in British

Columbia. Sign Language Studies 9, 291-308.

Meyer, J. 2005. Description typologique et intelligibilité des langues sifflées, approche

linguistique et bioacoustique. Phd thesis: Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Mohr, S. & A.-M. Fehn. 2013. Phonology of hunting signs in two Kalahari Khoe-speaking

groups (Ts‟ixa and ||Ani). Paper presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic

Society of America, Boston, MA.

Morris, A. V. 1945. IALA‟s system: Underlying facts and reasoning. General report.

International Auxiliary Language Association: New York.

Mous, M. 1994. Ma‟a or Mbugu. In P. Bakker & M. Mous (eds.) Mixed languages.

Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use, 175–

200.

Ntihirageza, J. 2006. Tone, vowel length and dissimilation in Kirundi language games. Paper

presented at ACAL 37, Eugene, Oregon.

Ogden, C. K. 1930. Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. London:

Paul Treber & Co.

Okrand, M. 1985. The Klingon Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.

Okrent, A. 2009. In the Land of Invented Languages. New York: Spiegel & Grau.

Orwell, G. 1954. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Pfau, R. 2012. Manual communication systems: evolution and variation. In R. Pfau, M.

Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.) Sign Language. An International Handbook. Berlin/New

York: De Gruyter Mouton, 513-551.

Pfau, R., M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.) 2012. Sign Language. An International Handbook.

Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Railland, A. 2005. Phonological and phonetic aspects of whistled languages. Phonology 22:

237-271.

Storch, A. 2011. Secret manipulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tolkien, J.R.R. 1966. The Lord of the Rings. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Treis, Y. 2005. Avoiding their names, avoiding their eyes. How Kambaata women respect

their in-laws. Anthropological Linguistics 47(3): 292–320.

Ueda, I. 2010. On the sociophonetic status of emphatic verbs in Shizuoka Japanese.

Proceedings of the workshop “Sociophonetics, at the crossroads of speech variation,

processing and communication. Pisa, Italy.

Valen, L. van. 1976. Talking drums and similar African tonal communication. In T.A. Sebeok

& D. J. Umiker-Sebeok (eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The

Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter, 746-750.

16

Williamson, K. & R. Blench. 2000. Niger-Congo. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (eds.) African

Languages. An Introduction, 11-42. Cambridge: CUP.

Witte, P. A. 1976. Zur Trommelsprache bei den Ewe-Leuten. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-

Sebeok (eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris:

Mouton de Gruyter, 285-288.

Wolvers, A. 2008. Yarada K’wank’wa and urban youth identity in Addis Ababa. Unpublished

manuscript.