LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG Archives

AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG  November 2001, Week 1

AUXLANG November 2001, Week 1

Subject:

Checking the Sources (all sorts of topics on Ido/Esperanto)

From:

Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

International Auxiliary Languages <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:29:55 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

Hello James,

You wrote:
> It is not a question of changing ways to attract
> anyone back to the movement.  It is a question
> of the espists realizing that they have to make
> changes for their own sake,
        Isn't this splitting hairs?  Is there much
of a difference between attracting 'reformemuloj' back
and attracting potential reformemuloj.  The latter
is closer to what I meant.

> Perhaps some espists are satisfied with having
> built a movement of the size they currently have,
> and do not have any higher goals.
        Perhaps, but this isn't what I was saying.
Saying that the fina venko will not happen in my
lifetime is not the same as saying that it will
not happen, or that it is irelevant to my interest
in Esperanto.

> > > an IAL movement that is paralyzed
> > > by a disastrous early history,
<snip>
> the severity of the schism that occured between
> the idists and espists back in 1907,

Again in the category of "I'm sure you heard it
all before": I think that this schism is one of
of the best things in Esperanto history.  It
allowed Esperantists to get on with *using* an
IAL while others went off for the next 100 years
trying to *invent* the perfect IAL.

> it cannot be denied that it has paralyzed the
> movement ever since, making the espists highly
> suspicious of any proposed changes to their
> language, and marginalizing to a great extent
> all rival languages and movements.
        I think it can be denied.  I think it
has been denied.  If not, I'll deny it now.


> I have nothing against English:
        Me either.

> What i am against is a future world language
> situation in which there is only one language,
> English, which has displaced all other
> national tongues.
        As if I'm for this?  My point was about
strategy.

> > One thing that strikes me when I read various
> > anti-esperanto tracts is that they could be so much
> > more effective if they actually knew Esperanto.  :-)

> I do know Esp well enough to be able to criticize its main failings.

I wonder if the other authors would have said the same thing.  :-)


> This sounds to me like you are comparing
> Esp to an ethnic language,
        I am saying that Esperanto is a regular
living language, not that it is an ethnic language.
Esperanto "has the numbers" which Ido doesn't, I
believe, because it is treated as a living language
and not as a bunch of parts to be tinkered with
and problems to be fixed.


> Presumably by natural you mean solutions that
> do not involve any real change to the language.
> I fail to see how the fundamental problems of
> Esp can be addressed in this way.
        Have you ever considered that these
problems might be overrated?

> I cannot believe that the general appearance
> of Esp has not influenced some people who
> have encountered it.
        Surely it has.  I bet it's worked both
ways in some circumstances.  In fact, come to
think of it, part of my initial curiosity about
Esperanto which encouraged me to research the
language more and eventually learn it was the
question "why does it have all those x's and
j's in it?"
        All I was saying is that Esperanto's
alphabet does not rank on the top 10 reasons
I have encountered for not learning Esperanto.
(tio estas, from people in "real life", not
the net.)

> All Beauchemin is saying is that the discovery was
> made some time around 1887, which is when Esp was
> published.  I do not see any historical inaccuracy
> in this.
        He said the discovery was made at least
"about" 10 years after it was actually made, and that
it was published 3 years after it was published.
Does this fill you with a feeling that he's got
an attention for detail?

Amike,
Tomaso