Yes, of course the chinese story is complete nonsense that's not what I was interested in. I was only interested in whether you thought the auxlangs where indo-european by chance/mistake like you seemed to simply or whether it was by design. From your reply here it seems you agree that in the case of auxlangs it's more a matter of design.Libertine Seguros said:The point was that they were taught that Japanese came from Chinese prisoners escaping to the islands, and creating their own language to avoid recapture. But the fact that there is no linguistic link other than the writing system between Chinese and Japanese - Japanese is not related to Chinese in the slightest, it's like saying that Russians escaped and invented Basque. Even for a linguist doing conlanging, if you're trying to create a language that you want to come into wider usage you have to use some kind of grammatical system that is uniform and intuitive, otherwise people won't bother learning it. The easiest way to do that is to use the system that the people already know - hence why all the European auxlangs like Esperanto, Ido, Latin sine Flexione, Volapük and Interlingua use a very clearly Indo-European (and usually Latin-derived) vocabulary and grammar base - because that's what the people they're creating it for know. If a group of Chinese fugitives were going to create a language, the chances are it would be an adapted wordstock over a grammar similar to that of their first languages, the same way as thieves' cants, jargons and socially limited languages have adapted over the years, with results of everything from carny-speak to legitimate languages like Yiddish. It would not result in completely uniform vocabulary and grammar that is nonetheless completely alien to the language that the speakers supposedly spoke prior to resettlement, hence why I consider the story to be utter propagandistic hogwash.