Print

Print


Thomas Alexander wrote:
> I see this the other way around.  Considering that
> so many "universal languages" were added to those
> created at the proverbial Babel, it's amazing that
> any of them were successful at all.  That is, the
> more language proposals we make, the more we hurt
> the auxiliary language idea in general.
 
How are we hurting the IAL idea? Do you mean that new languages distract
prospective learners from learning some of the stabilized IALs? Or do you mean
that by creating new languages we invalidate all IAL candidates because we
have compulsive need to replace them with something better, i.e. new languages
corrode IAL movement's credibility from the inside?
 
-- Risto