On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:52:35 -0800, Jens Wilkinson 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> Den 2007-02-15 19:40:16 skrev James Chandler
>> <[log in to unmask]>:
>> >
>> > I'm sure this depends a lot on the part of the
>> world
>> > you are in.  I remember that one of the first
>> people
>> > who saw me using Ido (a colleague at uni) had
>> exactly
>> > this reaction (the "me Tarzan", pidgin English
>> > reaction - I think he also scoffed at mea =
>> my/mine).

You should have just replied, "Mea culpa."

>> > I worry that we drive more discerning, educated
>> people

Who don't know Latin...

>> > away from the idea by using object forms as
>> subjects.
>There was another interesting thing in James' post. He
>mentioned that the leadership wouldn't adopt new
>words. But could you imagine an American novelist
>deciding to give up and learn Spanish because the
>American leadership wasn't adopting new words? It
>would never happen. People just make up words when
>they need them. Why is it that auxlangs have this kind
>of idea that somebody needs to approve things? That's
>one thing I won't do in Neo Patwa, is decree that
>anything has to be approved in a committee somewhere.
>It will definitely be anarchy. :)

I wondered about this too. I posted some months ago that I thought the 
typical Idist attitude toward neologism was handicapping writers. Case in point.

But consider Eo: writers neologize and otherwise mess with the language all 
the time. I've seen some that put an explanatory note on vocabulary or usage 
somewhere, but they don't go sticking asterisks on things. And if a form is 
eventually made official, well and good. But they don't wait. Eo has standards, 
which are necessary--anarchy sounds cool, but it's a pain in the field. (And 
possibly elsewhere.) But they aren't a straitjacket, either.

And that is one of the reasons why Eists probably put more content on the 
Web in a month than Idists put there in a year--or five.