Thanks for your reply.  Reading through your note,
I have the feeling that although it's all generally
interesting, it's not "nonsensical" enough for what
I have in mind.  When I made up my list of "nonsense"
in my last message, I intentionally did not include,
for example, the argument in Stan Mulaik's note in
French (recently cross-posted here in Auxlang) that
the best argument against Esperanto is a text in
Interlingua.  While I personally disagree with that
line of thinking, I can't quite call it nonsense,
because I can accept that a reasonable person can
believe it (even if he is wrong), and can continue
to believe even in the face of reasonable arguments
or sources of information which might be contrary.

> many of these "flaws" follow directly from the
> principles on which those languages were created,
> which were significantly different from those of
> Esperanto, and so we have to step a bit further
> back and argue principles).

    Right.  This is a danger even for people who
profess to understand this danger - although my
original question has to do more with myths than bad

    On one hand, I'm curious how wide spread some of
the beliefs I mentioned are.  Are there people, for
example, at a typical Interlingua gathering who
believe that "in Sweden, only 5 people speak
Esperanto fluently because it is so difficult" or is
this an exception?

    I'd like to think I'm beyond believing similar
nonsense - but I suspect that few people knowingly
believe nonsense, so I am trying to be open to the
idea that I might not be immune either.

    When I saw Jay Bowks in Vermont, he was kind
enough to give me a number of half-size magazines.
My favorite was Panorama in Interlingua (a16/n4)
which was all about the world Interlingua convention
in Bulgaria last year.  I have read that particular
magazine many times over, taking notes, and studying
every small detail.  (Thanks again Jay.)

    While my impression is that the Bulgarian
conference was very much enjoyable (to the point that
my family and I will likely take part myself in a
conference this summer in the same place by the same
"lo-ko-ko" (to borrow the Esperanto term), the other
impression that I got is that an Esperanto conference
of the same size and quality would never merit so
much attention.  We Esperanto speakers simply are not
impressed by conventions of 50 people.  We take them
for granted.  ISE/Okemo in Vermont and REF (the
Renkontigxo de Esperantistaj Familioj) are two that
I like to go to myself.

    (As a side note, that same radio broadcast of
Pola Radio which you mentioned here recently was
recently described in INTERLNG as a "hijack" of an
Esperanto news program for Interlinguan purposes.
This is mildly amusing to me since it was *in*
Esperanto, and said, among other things that the
Interlingua community is "not comparable" to that of
Esperanto.  The main pro-interlingua message is that
Interlingua isn't completely dead.)

    Along these lines, not long ago, I exchanged
e-mails with (interlinguan) Allan Kiviaho in which I
told him that my interest in Interlingua can only go
far because Interlingua doesn't have the kind of
activities that hold my interest in Esperanto.  He
responded with a list of things which, while very
nice on one level, did not compare to the things I
was describing.  I can't help but think that if he
really understood that I spend a week every year with
dozens of childrens of various ages, all of whom
speak Esperanto fluently, that he would have brough
up three childrens playing nicely together in
Bulgaria as a great argument for Interlingua.  It
makes me wonder whether the "in Sweden, only 5 people
speak Esperanto fluently because it is so difficult"
idea isn't alive and well among certain Interlingua


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!