David wrote:
> Why not just use an existing AIAL?  History.  Volapuek died at least
> partly from squabbles over how it should be used.   The Esperanto
> movement is mired in pointless disagreements about design and pie-in-
> the-sky visions of grass-roots promotion.

I'm not aware of any disagreements about design by current
Esperantists. Back in the 1950s there was a serious debate
about the "ita/ata" verb ending, but that's been resolved, and
all the Esperantists I know today simply accept Esperanto as
it is.

And Rosta wrote:
> Nonrhetorically, I want to ask why people create IALs --
> but I don't understand how come
> it is fun to create something very similar to innumerable
> existing members of the same category.
> ................. Nor do I understand why IALs are published
> with the usual IAL message: "this IAL is the solution to
> the usual problems IALs are touted as solutions to, and it
> is better than other IALs".

There are some people who believe that the only reason
that some particular IAL hasn't won over the world, is because
it contains a particular flaw, e.g. E-o's accusative case or
the "unnaturalness" of the correlatives. They believe that if
they create a similar language which corrects that problem,
the world will accept the IAL.

--Ph. D.