On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:31:59 -0500, Steve Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:01:51 -0800, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>
>>So I'm sort of surprised about Andrew's occasional
>>posts about Islam, as well as by the posts of some
>>Euroclonists about how the West has to "unite behind a
>>Western IAL." I'm not under any illusion that an IAL
>>will somehow make everybody in the world get along,
>>but on the other hand, I don't think it's a wise idea
>>to design a language that is meant to be divisive. In
>>my mind, the more a language designer takes the
>>sensibilities of large numbers of cultures into
>>account, and more acceptable the language will be to
>>many people.
>Hogben (Interglossa) and Searight (Sona) both did this, albeit in different
>ways. Look how well that worked! The main argument for a moderately
>Eurocentric project--probably with Anglo-Romance vocabulary tempered with
>popular extra-IE terms--is that the "united front" would already exist.
>Instead of trying to unify disparate groups, work with one that already has
>some relevant cohesion.

And Ceqli is trying to do the same.  Not so much to
consider anybody's sensibilities, but to mine out the
best features of English, Mandarin, Japanese, whatever,
and incorporate them, where they fit, into a new

It's kind of similar to cuisine.  The Old World didn't
start using potatoes in its cooking to honor or please
the Amerinds, but because they liked potatoes, and
found appropriate ways to fit them into their
cuisine styles.

>>Additionally, rejecting any "civilization" simply
>>because there are radicals/fundamentalists among its
>>members seems odd to me from this point of view. Sure,
>>I'm sure that there are Europeans who would also
>>condemn the US because of the presence of our own
>>fundamentalists, but that would be ignoring the fact
>>that there are many US people who are not that way.
>Bearing in mind that US Christian fundamentalists practically all believe
>in feeding the poor, healing the sick, and not beheading or blowing up
>people who disagree with them, I don't see the similarity. There is a
>difference between debate and boycott on the one hand and threats and
>killing on the other. And yet proportionately more US Christians are
>fundamentalists than Muslims are fundamentalists (terrorists, whatever).
>All dangerous Christian (or Jewish) fundamentalists could be accommodated
>in a fairly small prison; their muslim "counterparts" would require a city.

You're dead on here, Steve.  It's very silly to make
an equivalence between Christian fundamentalists
in the US and, say, Afghanistan.  The use of the
word 'fundamentalist' here is very misleading.  Much
like when unregenerate Kremlin communists and
American free-market libertarians are both called

OTOH, a lot of 'terrorists' from the Islamic world 
are not Islamic fundamentalists, but, for lack of
a better word, 'nationalists.'  Just as IRA terrorists
are better called nationalists than 'Catholic