Print

Print


Risto Kupsala skribis je 2006.02.26 2.41 atm...
> Don Harlow kirjoitti:
> 
>>Risto Kupsala skribis je 2006.02.25 1.39 ptm...
>>
>>>Then again somebody else has said that perfection lies in the details.
>>>There are reasons why the auxiliary languages haven't got more popular
>>>than what they are now. If you can identify them
>>
>>Actually, they are quite easy to identify. To (perhaps over)simplify
>>them: no auxiliary language has ever had at its disposal a major army,
>>navy, air force and munitions industry; no auxiliary language has ever
>>had at its disposal a country's worth of industry; no auxiliary language
>>has ever had at its disposal the funds to buy even the cheapest of
>>politicians.
> 
> 
> Then the question is, why no conIAL has ever reached the position where it
> had all these things at its disposal.
> 
Actually, the more important question is: how can a conIAL reach such a 
position? But I would agree that your question is probably a necessary 
first step on the way to answering my question ...
> 
>>>Another lesson is that the
>>>naturalistic Euroclones have turned out to be failures in terms of
>>>popularity.
>>
>>By comparison with, e.g., English or Chinese, absolutely. By comparison
>>with non-Euroclone planned languages ... I think the history of the
>>field speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Considering that tens or even hundreds of them have been created, their
> success hasn't been that great in average.
> 
On average, quite true. But "on average" is still far superior to "at 
all", and none of the non-Euroclone planned languages has been _at all_ 
successful.
> 
>>>Many other ideas haven't got enough public exposure in
>>>order to be judged by success.
>>
>>But again you would have to ask: why have they not got enough public
>>exposure? Esperanto (as a prime example) started out with no more public
>>exposure than, e.g., aUI or Soma or Ro. Why has it been so much more
>>successful?
> 
> 
> It's a good question and I would like to get answer to it.
> 
> Could it be because the author didn't give up trying despite the difficult
> years in the beginning? I don't know enough about the history of aUI, Sona
> and Ro to be able to judge them, but I know that Zamenhof's work with
> Esperanto didn't end at one published book.
> 
However, it probably would have if external support -- at least moral, 
in the sense of people learning the language and wanting to help with it 
-- hadn't been forthcoming. One must remember that Zamenhof was, at the 
time of publication of Esperanto, pretty much impoverished (he had to 
leave his new family and go off to Grodno or some such place to try and 
earn some money to support himself and his wife), and changing careers 
(from brand-new M.D. to brand-new ophthalmologist). If people like 
Grabowski hadn't popped up out of nowhere, Esperanto would simply have 
gone the way of aUI and Hom-Idyomo -- an interesting one-book historical 
curiosity.

Which brings us back to a variant of the original question: why did 
Esperanto (and, to a lesser extent, Interlingua and Occidental [*]) 
garner such initial support where no non-Euroclone (in the current use 
of the term) has failed to do so?

(*) I exclude Ido, almost all of whose early support, with a few 
exceptions such as Jespersen (but not Ostwald), came from disaffected 
supporters of Esperanto rather than newly-minted outsiders.

-- 
-- Don HARLOW
    http://donh.best.vwh.net/
    http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/Tarzan/
    http://www.harlows.org/don/