This time, we’ll be considering Na’vi, Esperanto, and the idea of community. As mentioned in Conlanging, the Art of Crafting Tongues, many conlangs, even ones created for media like Na’vi was, have enough structure in them that they can be used for real, practical communication. Auxlangs like Esperanto naturally accommodate this because they were expressly created to be used. If these languages can be used for real communication, then, a question arises: Can there be a notion of “community” for people who speak an invented language?

To begin thinking about this question, do the following:

1. Read Christine Schreyer’s 2015 article “The digital fandom of Na’vi speakers.”

2. Watch Esther Schor’s TEDx talk “The Transformative Vision of Esperanto.”

3. Think back to what you saw in Conlanging, the Art of Crafting Tongues as well. If you want to review, go to 15:05 for Esperanto, 36:27 for Guosa, and 1:04:20 for Klingon and Na’vi. You may also want to think about the discussions of heartlangs as well starting at 1:16:50 – Aluhrsa, Itlani, Idrani, and Sandic.

Having done that, respond to this prompt in at least 5-7 sentences. Make sure to touch on all of the questions in the prompt.

In this response, please reflect on the ways in which Na’vi and Esperanto differ, in the following ways. First, based on what you read in Schreyer’s article and saw in Schor’s talk, what do you think are the distinctive elements in the Na’vi and Esperanto communities? Then, based on what you come up with, how do those different communities might lead to different ways the languages change or develop? In either case, you should talk about how your reasoning relates to what you read and watched and, if helpful, your own experiences.

Unlike the Dovahzul/Animalese and aUI/Solresol comments, you will be coming up with a response to this prompt on your own. As always, a key component of your comment is to write not only what you think, but why you think it. Make sure to explain your thoughts. You can use the responses that you responded to in the first two Conlang Comments as models for the kind of “what I think and why” type writing that I’m looking for.