On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:

>> Date:         Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:05:23 +0100
>> From: Daniel44 <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> What do you all think?

I think you ought to consider subbing to Auxlang. I thought
you were pointed in that direction a while back.

>I think that as long as you aren't going to say anything interesting
>about it apart from it being a better IAL than Esperanto, you won't
>find anyone here who's interested in arguing for or against, except
>for people who are on AUXLANG as well. So don't be disappointed if you
>only get flames.


I agree. Discussing _conlangs_ here (even those intended to
be auxlangs as well) is what this place is all about. Talking
about a conlang _as an auxlang_ really should be done on
Auxlang. That's what it's for.

>
>There's nothing wrong with a conlang for being intended as an IAL, but
>yet another Esperantido won't catch many people's fancy here, as a
>conlang.
>
>Of course, the question of what makes a conlang a good IAL is a valid
>one, and an objective, scientific discussion would be well within the
>charter of this list.

I'd disagree with that. That seems to be what Auxlang is really
for. Or rather, what it really _should_ be for, if it weren't
for all the yelling and politicking.

>But experience tells us that an objective
>discussion will not happen if any specific hopeful IALs are even
>mentioned. (Dead-as-a-doornail IALs are almost safe).
>
>ObDrift: Why is a doornail in English more prototypically dead than
>other dead things?

There is also the proverbial dead horse. Which also gets beaten
with undue frequency.

>Only after its alliteration?

That sounds about right.

Padraic.

>Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <[log in to unmask]> (Humour NOT marked)