>[pri un umbrella-organisation por li diversi Lingues International]
>Ante quelc díes yo desabonat me de Auxlang, proque yo pensat, que it ne va
>venir nov idées dum li secuent mensus. Ma yo errat.
>Li idé de un commun representation del Movement por un lingue international
>(quel existe quam ún idé ma in mult formes) sembla me tre bon e vell esser
>certmen un positiv facte.
>Un commun lobby-organisation posse interprender un plu successosi labora,
>p. ex. sur li camp del sciencie e exploration del acutal situation del
>Lingues International, quel in li momente jace presc totalmen in li
>responsabilitá de esperantistic organisationes.

Thanks Sebastian, this is very positive.  If you look back at the history of
the IAL movement, you see that the times when it had an umbrella
organization were the times when there was most cooperation and constructive
work done on the IAL problem.  If you think about it, it was only when these
organizations were dissolved that the trouble started.  Thus the Delegation
gave way to a schism between the espists and idists, leading to decades of
disputes and eventually more languages: Novial, Occidental etc.  If you look
at the original volumes of Progreso, you can see all these people working
together: Beaufront, Couturat, Jespersen, Wahl to name but a few.  The IALA
had the effect of replacing one naturalistic system with another one, but
otherwise did nothing to bring harmony to the movement.

But while these organizations were in existence they did tremendous work on
the IAL problem.  Just think of the Histoire de la Langue Universelle by
Couturat and Leau, and the reports by IALA, the semantic frequency lists by
Helen Eaton, and the set of variants (C,K etc) which are still quoted so
often on this list.  This work is timeless in a way that the work done by
Espists, Idists, Novialists etc. alone is not.

Thats why any new organization must differ from the previous ones in one
important respect: it must NOT have as one of its aims either to choose or
to formulate a system of auxiliary language at any time in the future.
Because such a choice leads inevitably to dissolution of the organization,
the end of cooperation and everybody falling into two groups: one who
support the language chosen, and the other who do not.

Any new organization should proceed slowly and carefully, and its primary
goal at all times should be to keep everybody on board.  Its success all
depends on the answer to the following question:


If the answer to this is YES, then the organization should proceed to find
the limit of that common ground, codify it as clearly as possible, and then
make it known to the public at large as evidence that the proponents of the
IAL idea ARE capable of working together and that there IS some non-zero
common ground between them.  Then with this shared common core clearly in
mind the public would be free to go off and survey Esperanto, Ido, Ia and
all the others, always able to relate them back to what the key aims of the
movement are.

Unfortunately there is one quarter from which there has so far been no
response to my ideas, and that is from the Esperantists.  Hopefully one of
the espists on this list will be able to give some reaction, even if it is
only to say that the idea has no second act.  Then at least I will have a
chance of knowing where I stand with this vis-a-vis the Esperanto movement.

James Chandler

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: