Je Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:22:41 +0200, maf <[log in to unmask]> skribis:

>> > Apropos of nothing, I also have a pet theory that Eo attracts a lot of
>> > ear-dominant people while the Interlingua (and maybe Occi) attracts sight
>> > dominant people. Too bad there's no good IAL for us touch-dominant folks.

I don't know whether the sense-domination theory is a well accepted
one or not, but I think it's true that some people seem more sensitive
(from an aesthetic point of view) to some kind of sensory information
or another. I found it surprising when some guy told me about the
beauties of Tolkien's Quenya and, when I asked about the pronunciation
of some letters (for I could hear the language and get its feeling),
he commented not being very sure on it (and he seemed not to care too
much). I feel very uncomfortable when reading a language and not
knowing for sure how does sound what I'm reading. So I guess I'm also
an ear-dominant person, Mike. (not surprisingly from somebody who
dedicates himself to music).

>> Actually, I don't think (at this stage of the game) it's possible to tell
>> whether Esperanto, Interlingua, Occidental or whatever is more
>> attractive to ear-dominant people. Almost everyone who has ever
>> been attracted to any of these languages has started out with them
>> on the printed page. There _is_ some difference in the thrust of
>> advertising (Esperanto's proponents advertise its use in
>> conversation

I wouldn't say that Eo is more attractive to ear-dominant people than
Interlingua or Occidental, because I don't think anybody would say Eo
sounds better (neither I'm implying the opposite with this, though).
But OTOH I would dare to say that Occ or Ia are indeed more attractive
to sight-dominant people, for whom their naturalistic appearance can
mean a lot.

>second) and sight is a very distant third). Similarly, the eye-bias of Ial
>means that no-one's worried about micromanaging pronunciation (another
>ear-dominant preoccupation).
>I have hypotheses about the sensory preferences of some listanoj, but I'll keep
>those to myself for now.

Well, after reading your theories I think we can guess very well what
your hypotheses may be.

BTW, on your speech, as well as in other's, I've found samples of what
would be one of the most interesting linguistic fenomena after a
hypothetical finavenko. I'm referring to the interferences between the
IAL and the natlangs, mostly under the form of lexical borrowings.
Your usage of "listanoj" (and other esperanto words) in your English
speech reflects in this case just a common preference for brevity
(avoiding saying "members of the list") which Esperanto derivational
morphology can often fulfill in a way natlangs can't (therefore the
borrowing). I myself have sometimes felt this need in my daily
language (for example, of using "skribilo" instead of saying
"something to write" or "a pen or a pencil...").

Another motivation for borrowings can be the need for semantic
precision in a given moment (when our natlang forces us to use a
polysemic word where we would like to be more specific). I can also
envisage a mild introduction of some of conIAL's affixes into our
natlang's grammar (that is, adopting the affix with its meaning to
stick it to natlang's words), in accordance to their utility.

My conclusions are then that the consecuences of a conIAL adoption
(much further than a natIAL adoption) would not limit themselves to
the international communication level, but would also affect the way
in which we communicate daily with our samlingvanoj.
It would be open to debate whether this is a good or bad. I for myself
find it good, since these borrowings are mostly made to fill in the
gaps our natlang has, and thus make it more expressive and efficient.
However, I'm afraid language purists would opine otherwise.