 |
 |
Paul Bartlett wrote: > Why do you think the Interlinguaists would be any more problematic > than, say, the Esperantists or Occidentalists? I don't think they would be more problematic than the Espists: quite the reverse! That is why I didn't even include the Espists in the original list... I _do_ think they would be more problematic than the Occists, mainly because the Ia-ists have that confidence that comes from using a language that is the (official, at least) result of so many years work and so much research (the Idists are also affected by this, tho to my mind with _considerably_ more justification). Also because compared to the _current_ Occ movement, the I-a one is much larger and much more established, and would take more convincing to ditch the product of IALA's labours. All that could change over time, tho. > One person who no longer (so far as I know) participates in this > forum claimed repeatedly that the IAL to "displace," so to speak, is > not Esperanto but English. My view is that English is the ethnic IAL to displace, while Esp is the artificial IAL to displace. I think we can make that distinction. James Chandler [log in to unmask]