James Chandler wrote:
 
> On Sat, 9 May 1998, Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
>
> > BTW, in your pursuit of Occ. I see what I hope will be a _friendly_ rivalry.
> > Both of us are taking something the IAL world wrote off years ago and bringing
> > it back to life. I think we face some of the same obstacles, and may need to
> > use some of the same strategies.
>
> I would definitely like to sign on to these views expressed by Bruce.
 
Mir! [wonderful!] Kou natop. [Welcome aboard.]
 
> When reviving a language which has no movement and almost no speakers, I'm
> afraid I am tempted to make some changes I see as improvements, which I
> know infuriates the more conservative-minded interlinguists (tho' I find
> their views to be often inconsistent), but it is the only way I can see we
> can make progress.  The best time to make reforms is before anyone learns
> a language, and the Esperantists continue to pay the price for not
> realizing that from the start.  And, incidentally, reforming Novial is
> entirely in keeping with J's view of the future of his language, even if
> we can't claim his support for the changes we make (or for the finished
> product as a whole).
 
As mentioned in a previous post, I read de Wahl's comment about Occ. and change. He
did not appear to be against change. But, change for change's sake is a "false
attraction" and has lead many a folk into the clutches of the "abyss" of
treadmillism.IMO most of the language "failures" over the years, had to do with
economics more than the goodness or badness of the languages. [I am speaking here of
only a specific few, as most would never go anywhere even with a bottomless
bankroll.] Cos. made a comment that if it had the money to use that Esperanto was
wasting, it would have made much more of an impact. And, Interlingua IALA was funded
by some major $$$'s. To my knowledge, Occidental never was highly funded at any
time, nor Novial, nor Ido. Of course, I know someone will take the opposite tract on
one or more of these, but relatively speaking I think this is true. Frankly, PR is
everything, and it takes money to do the vast PR needed to move one of these
languages into major position.
 
So, with that in mind, I think Occidental did amazingly well considering, lack of
major funding, no dictionary, no grammar in the beginning and even its critics were
correctly reading and understanding it. Says a lot to me.
 
> I would like to wish Bob luck with his revival of Occidental.  Can I make
> two requests?  1. That the name Interlingue not be revived,
 
That, zar James, is a given. It was a major mistake to change the name from
Occidental to Interlingue.
 
> 2. That if
> Cosmoglotta is ever brought back to life, one of the t's be dropped.  Two
> small wishes to throw in at the stage.
 
Can't do that one. There are some major discussions in Cos. about why double
consonants were kept in Occidental, and they appear to me to be quite valid in
reasoning.
 
>  Also, if anyone does come along
> and start talking about changes, please don't try to suppress the
> discussion, even if your personal preference is for promotion not reform.
> I think there is room for both types in this movement, tho' the fights can
> get rather nasty, I admit.
 
I'm not against changes per se, since the only constant IS change. However, some
just want to change because in some way, change is the only thing to keep them
happy. Occidental, at this stage does not need much change, if any. Natural changes
through usage can never be stopped, but "academic" changes for "mental puzzle
solving" to me will always ultimately end up in catastrophe. I would suggest this
constant need to change borders on the insatiable need of "puzzle" hobbyists. And, a
language under constant change, or need to change, will never make it in the public
where all this has to end up anyway, at some point. I say now for RLR and
Occidental.
 
> And perhaps one day we can all meet in the middle: Idists, Novialists,
> Occidentalists alike, and form one big, round, solid family.
 
I think the tide is turning finally, and something wonderful is in front of us.
 
& re, al l sue,
Bob