--- Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues <[log in to unmask]>

> On 2/24/07, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > In fact, I'm not sure if a
> > big body of literature is a positive or negative
> > thing.
> It is undoubtely a positive thing. 

This was the overwhelming response to my comment, so I
don't think I'll respond individually. I do see the
position in favor of developing a literature, but I'm
still not fully convinced. There is an advantage in
terms of acceptance. But the advantage in terms of
creating a standard is what I'm somewhat unsure about.

There was a discussion some time back about whether a
submarine goes "in the water" or "under water". I
remember that somebody pointed out that the second is
illogical, because "under water" would mean "under the
water," i.e. in the rock below the water. Which struck
me as a fairly silly position at the time. But the
real point, for me, is that it shouldn't matter. If
one person says "the submarine runs under water" and
another says "the submarine swims in the water," it
should be OK because to me, at least, they are both
clear sentences. 

It's fine for a non-auxlang (I don't know what to call
it, a language that is based on a group of native
speakers) to have rules like "on an airplane" versus
"in a car", but for an auxlang it's silly to have
rules like that. And my concern is that the
development of a body of literature tends to encourage
that kind of ossification. 

And I do recognize, yes, that it is futile to try to
forbid a literature from developing. I'm not
advocating criminal penalties against it. I'm just
thinking that maybe it is best not to encourage it too

Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa language:

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.