Je 07.30 atm 2007.05.26, Antonielly Garcia RODRIGUES skribis
>On 5/23/07, Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I worried this over in my head for half the night last night,
>>wondering what I should reply to "Cue Mr. Harlow", and I finally
>>encountered one of those epiphanies that sometimes hit you about the
>>time you're ready to drowse off. And this was that Gode didn't just
>>create a language. What Gode created, of equal or perhaps greater
>>importance to him, was a strategy for promoting that language. And it
>>seems quite possible to me that the form of the language was to a
>>great extent determined by that strategy, which did not necessarily
>>involve a speaking community.
>Sure. I had already realized that, but this occur for *all* the
>conauxlang proposals. The arguments that Zamenhof presents in the
>Introduction to the original Esperanto grammar
>[] are also attempts at
>giving legitimacy to his language as a serious competitor in the
>"highlander auxlang championship". As expected, all those attempts at
>persuading the public that a choice is better for the world belong to
>the sphere of politics and interpersonal relationship. There existence
>of many philosophies and many auxlangs is also a symptom of the
>existence of many political views in the world for any
>politically-oriented issue ("which auxlang is the best" is just one of
>those issues). Each person is oriented towards certain political views
>and is against others. The result of this collective struggle of ideas
>shapes our society.
>I would say that such strategies for promoting the language are
>attempts to develop a speaking community. I do not see them as
>separate things.

My argument, however, is that (a) Gode's strategy was _qualitatively_ 
different from that of e.g. Schleyer, Zamenhof, Couturat (*) and Wahl 
(all of whom were indeed interested in the development of a speaking 
community; Gode appears to have been less interested, and perhaps 
disinterested, in this), and (b) Gode's strategy may well have 
contributed to the design of the language. Gode appears to have seen 
Interlingua as the solution to a problem that affected not the global 
population as a whole but a segment of the _educated_ population; and 
he appears to have seen use of the language as being primarily 
_passive_ in that segment. Hence, despite the fact that IALA as an 
organization was well aware of certain advantages of other, 
particularly schematic, planned languages (e.g. the advantage of 
having a standard adjective ending that could be applied to all nouns 
rather than having a couple of dozen different adjective endings 
whose use was etymologically determined, thus requiring, at least for 
_active_ use, memorization of adjectives derived from nouns along 
with the nouns themselves; (**) or the advantage, especially for 
_active_ use, of having a regular set of correlatives rather than a 
defective or even irregular set), none of these results, shown both 
by practice and by experiment (for instance, Thorndyke's famous 
experiment with the correlatives, sponsored by IALA) was taken into 
account in devising Interlingua.


(*) Couturat's strategy was perhaps the most interesting, however; he 
simply intended to take over (I like the term "hijack") the speaking 
community of another planned language. The strategy, of course, failed.

(**) This is, IMHO, the moral equivalent of reintroducing grammatical 
gender into a planned language, since it puts a similar burden on the 
student who wants to learn to _use_ the language rather than simply 
_recognizing_ it.

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):