WORDS FOR REPTILES IN THE ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE RO

WORDS FOR REPTILES IN THE ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE RO Dr. Alan Reed LIBERT ORCID: 0000-0003-1446-4183 Discipline of Linguistics, University of Newcastle NSW Australia ABSTRACT Ro is an artificial auxiliary language created by Edward P. Foster in the early 20 th century. Unlike most such languages (e.g. Esperanto), it is of the a priori type, meaning that it (supposedly) does not draw on natural languages as sources. Some a priori languages had their vocabulary designed in such a way that words with similar meani words for reptiles, and the system with which these words were formed. An additional interesting feature of Ro is that Foster wrote works on it over a period of more than 20 years, and he made (relatively minor) changes to it during that span of time, and this will be seen in the words for reptiles. Words for reptiles all begin with the sequence mu, as do all words for animals. Muk(a) all words for reptiles start with muk, but so do words for amphibians, e.g. mukaf mukag Was this because Foster did not know that amphibians are a separate class from reptiles or because he did not think it worth the trouble to create a different sequence of initial letters for amphibians? Words for different types of reptiles are distinguished by their fourth letter, e.g. mukla Further letters distinguish different subtypes of these, e.g. muklab mukma mukmal of a priori artificial languages have been constructed. Keywords: artificial languages, lexicon, herpetology INTRODUCTION Ro is an artificial international auxiliary language designed by Edward P. Foster. By artificial language, I mean a language which has been consciously created, as opposed to natural languages, i.e. languages which have arised natural, such as Turkish and English. International auxiliary languages are language designed as a means of international communication. One such language is Esperanto, but there have been hundreds of others. Esperanto is well known because it has been relatively successful, while most international auxiliary languages have not been, and today are obscure, having been used by few people, if any, other than their designers. Ro is one of these unsuccessful languages, although it was used more than many of them, or at least had more texts written in it. This is because Foster put a large amount of time and effort into Ro, writing several works on it; www.isarconference.org 2. INTERNATIONAL MARMARA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CONGRESS --316-- 19- 20/04/2022 writings can be difficult to find; I have been able to consult (mostly PDF) copies of several of these, Foster (1910), Foster (1913), Foster (1919), Foster (1921), and Foster (1931), and this paper will use data gathered (1932), and thus have not included any data which might be in them. Esperanto, and most of the other relatively successful artificial auxiliary languages, got most of its material (e.g. words) from natural languages. Such languages are known as a posteriori languages. A few artificial auxiliary languages did not do this, i.e. they were attempts to create a language (mainly) without making use of natural languages. These languages are called a priori languages, and Ro is a language of this sort. A priori languages, at least on the surface, can appear alien and will be difficult for anyone, regardless of his native language, to Raday Jones. Ab ne relef A particularly alien (from the point of view of natural languages) feature of Ro and some other a priori languages is the creation of a system of vocabulary such that words with similar meanings or functions sound similar. We ad, af, and ag see this in the passage just quoted: ab and ac ok at Ro words in one semantic field, reptiles, as example of this During the more than two decades that Foster worked on his language, he made changes to it; this is true of some of the words for reptiles, as we will see below. DATA AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows words for reptiles in several versions of Ro. In most of these versions, words for animals begin with the sequence mu, the exception being 1910 Ro, in which such words start with mor. Words for types of animals were formed by adding a letter to this initial sequence, e.g. in 1913, Ro mug muj and mul for some types of arthropods are mugca addition of another letter, e.g. mugdab mugda mugdak Ro. The system often does not always work in exactly this way, but this description gives the general idea of it. Let us now see how this scheme works with respect to reptiles. www.isarconference.org 2. INTERNATIONAL MARMARA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CONGRESS --317-- 19- 20/04/2022 Table 1. Ro Words for Reptiles English Ro (Foster 1910) mori Ro (Foster 1913) Ro (Foster 1919) Ro (Foster 1921) muk muka muka Ro (Foster 1931) mukaf morig mukaj mukaj moril mukla mukla mukfa mukla mukla muklab morim muklak muklak muklar muklar mukma mukma mukma mukmal mukmap mukpa moris morit mukpa mukra muksa mukrac muktaf muktaf muktar mukta One might quickly notice that the system seems to consider amphibians to be reptiles, given that words for them have the same initial letters (muk in most version of Ro, mo in 1910 Ro) as words for reptiles, and, in those sources which have them, they are listed among words for reptiles. In fact, Foster (1913:56) gives three other words for amphibians, all of which also contain the same initial letters, e.g. mukac unaware that amphibian are not reptiles, or did he think it not worth the trouble to create a separate category marked by a partly different sequence of letters (presumably words in such a category would also begin with mu, but would not have k as the next letter)? l, even though 1910 Ro differs in its characterizing letters for reptiles. (Foster 1910 uses the term serpent; the other works referred to here use snake.) Only two of them have words for types of snake, the 1913 and 1919 versions. Like most artificial languages, Ro does not have a fully developed vocabulary, although (some versions of) it has a relatively large vocabulary compared to some other artificial languages. It is therefore not unexpected that it does not have words for every reasonably common type of snake. The types of snake which it does have words for, boa, rattlesnake, and viper are fairly well known, and occur naturally in the United States and/or elsewhere in the Americas; since Foster was (apparently) American, it is not surprising that he created words for these types of snakes, and no the United States. www.isarconference.org 2. INTERNATIONAL MARMARA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CONGRESS --318-- 19- 20/04/2022 Ro is supposed to be an a priori language, but one might wonder whether the b at the end of the 1913 word for muklab, is due to influence from English, namely that the English word boa begins with the letter <b>. (There are some other instances of (apparent) English influence on Ro.) Similarly, could the r at the end of the muklar, be (partly) because the English word ends with <r>, and could the k which ends the muklak, have been chosen because the English word ends with the sound [k]? m. Only 1913 Ro has words built from it for types of lizard, mukmal mukmap word for another kind of lizard, mukpa p, not the m which we would expect; Foster thus seems to classify chameleons as a separate class of reptiles and not as lizards. Perhaps this is because chameleons (in the strict sense, i.e. not anoles) have such a distinctive appearance, and look different from typical types of lizards. Only the 1910, 1913, and 1919 versions of Ro have words for crocodilians. The first two of these have a word s and r for the 1910 and 1913 versions respectively (the words being moris and mukra). However, s muksa. This gives one the impression that Foster considered alligators and crocodiles as separate classes of reptiles (though, in fact, they are both crocodilians). While 1910 Ro lacks a mukrac. The form of this word, with six letters, indicates that in this version of Ro crocodiles are seen as a subtype of a class (of crocodilians), although it does not have a word for this class (if there were one, it would be *mukra). Again one might wonder whether this word is completely a priori, i.e. is the final c due to the fact that the English word begins with this letter? Finally, all but one of the all have the same characteristic letter t, which yet again, may not be a priori. However, only 1910 Ro and 1931 Ro have a word whose form (i.e. with five letters) indicates that it is the name of a general type. The 1931 Ro word is mukta tortoise is not generally used as a broad term for turtles, tortoises, and terrapins (i.e. members of the order Testudines muktaf, and the 1913 muktar, have a form suggesting that they are sub-categories of a more general group, for which the word would be *mukta. However, as we have seen, there is no such word in these versions of the , as we have just seen. Thus the Ro system of vocabulary for the semantic field of reptiles appears not to have been fully thought out or worked out, in spite of the large amount of time which Foster gave to his language. CONCLUSION www.isarconference.org 2. INTERNATIONAL MARMARA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CONGRESS --319-- 19- 20/04/2022 We have now had a look at one area of the vocabulary of an a priori artificial auxiliary language in which words with similar meanings share one or more sounds. In this respect Ro is quite unlike natural languages. It would vocabulary with those of other artificial languages whose vocabularies were constructed in the same general way, e.g. Babm. REFERENCES Foster, Edward P. (1910). Ro (2nd edition). The Ro Company, Cincinnati, OH. Foster, Edward P. (1913). Ru Ro. World-Speech Press, Marietta, OH. Foster, Edward P. (1919). Dictionary of Ro. World-Speech Press, Marietta, OH. Foster, Edward P. (1921). Roap. The Ro Language Society, Waverly, WV. Foster, Edward P. (1931). Ro-Latin-English Vocabularium Dictionary. Roia, Waverly, WV. Foster, Edward P. (1932). English-Ro Dictionary. Ro Language Society, Waverly, WV. www.isarconference.org 2. INTERNATIONAL MARMARA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CONGRESS --320-- 19- 20/04/2022