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.