On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 08:02 , Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
>> I like the name "Aiola", assuming it's pronounced roughly as I'm
>> guessing;
>> [ajOla]. Does it mean anything?
> My problem with the name of that language is that it sounds far too much
> like "aïoli" (that's a i-trema), the name of a Southern French sauce
> strongly based on garlic

Funny - it too reminded me of "aïoli"   :)
Also I was reminded of the ancient Greek 'Aiolia'. The though of Greeks
conjures up, among other things, the smell of olive oil - ah! olive oil &
garlic - I love 'em both.
On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 08:14 , Aiola Research Group wrote:

> Thank you, Andreas! Yes, "Aiola" is pronounced just as you guessed.
> As far as whether it has a meaning: we referenced several language
> dictionaries for nice-sounding, meaningful words and settled on "aiola"
> from Italian simply because we liked how it sounded. In Italian the word
> translates as, "bed of flowers or plants."

Small point - but I thought the Italian word was 'aiuola' - but I may be
On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 12:20 , Jim Grossmann wrote:

> About Aiola:
> 1.         I didn’t really see anything new on your site.    It makes a
> pitch for yet another proposed artificial international auxiliary language
> with the same virtues and problems as all the rest.

The rest of Jim's excellent critique is snipped. I merely quoted the
letter to say that I think Jim has made very sound points.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 01:15 , And Rosta wrote:

> I went & had a look at Aiola.
> Nonrhetorically, I want to ask why people create IALs --

Why do people create artlangs, loglangs, engelangs etc.?

> the
> question poses itself particularly acutely wrt Aiola when I
> see the effort & resources that appear to have gone into it
> (judging from what the website says). Presumably IALs are
> created mainly for fun,

I guess so. Certainly all the very many IALs I churned out during the
1950s were for fun  :)

> but I don't understand how come
> it is fun to create something very similar to innumerable
> existing members of the same category.

Yes, they do have an almost predictable similarity, don't they. But when
one considers what some people will do for fun & the trouble they'll go to,
  this seems relatively mild and harmless.

> ................. 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".

Ah, but that's practically mandatory in Auxland. However, I promise (and
flame me mercilessly, please, if I don't keep the promise) _not_ to do
this if ever BrScA or BrScB (whatever their names turn out to be) are
On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 06:49 , Adam Walker wrote:

> --- And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  -- a kind of
>> elective
>> blindness to Reason, akin in nature to religious
>> Faith?
>> --And.
> And, I find this highly offensive.  Faith is not
> "elective blindness to Reason".

Offensive? Yes, indeed, if I could take it seriously. But I found it silly
and, in view of the well-known religious allegiances of many members of
this list (and And has been here longer than I and ought to be even more
aware of them), very insensitive.

Unfortunately, the examples of people who choose to close their minds to
modern science, to opinions of others or any other influence through some
- IMO completely misguided - religious faith are only too ready at hand.
It is also unfortunate that these bigots tend to have the loudest mouths,
so that the vast majority of ordinary believers, whatever the religion,
get overlooked.

Of course faith per_se is not "elective blindless to Reason". Indeed, my
own religion teaches me that while some matters of faith cannot be either
proved or disproved empirically, it would be immoral of me to hold
something as true if all the evidence pointed to its being false. That's
why I think the statement "elective blindness to Reason, akin in nature to
religious Faith" is silly & misinformed.

In any case "elective blindness to Reason" is not by any means confined to
religion. I have certainly met atheists who pursue their atheism with
fanaticism which is blind to Reason.

The 20th century gave us ample examples among political fanatics: the
Nazis, the Bolshevics, the Maoists, among the more obvious groups, gave us
more than enough examples of such people. But would it be really sensible
to say: " a kind of elective blindness to Reason, akin in nature to
political Commitment?

Are not racist bigots also examples of people who elect to close their
minds to Reason?

Bigotry is by no means the preserve of religious extremists. It's found in
many areas. Those who, like me, have spent some time on auxlang will know
only too well that the IAL community does have more than enough examples of
elective blindness to Reason. Unfortunately - also as those of us who have
visited Auxlang know only too well - these bigots shout the loudest.  But,
  as in the case of religion, it is foolish to judge all proponents of IALs
as bigoted fanatics.

What all these people who elect to be blind to Reason (and those I've
listed are, sadly, not the only ones) have in common is not religion (many,
  indeed, have no religion at all): it is bigotry & fanaticism.

Socrates is an Athenian;
Socrates is a philosopher;
therefore being a philosopher akin to being an Athenian.

X has a religious faith;
X exhibits an elective blindness to reason;
therefore an elective blindness to reason is akin to religious faith.

Umm - There seems to an elective blindness to reason here, methinks.

[log in to unmask]    (home)
[log in to unmask]   (work)
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760