Print

Print


Steve Rice skrev:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 10:32:00 -0700, Donald J. HARLOW 
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> This reminds me of an e-mail debate I had with Mike Farris about seven years 
> ago. I suggested that one reason the Powers That Be ignore the auxlang 
> movement is all the squabbling, so we should all get together to promote one 
> auxlang EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE IT. My example was having everyone, even 
> UEA, back a proposal to make Interlingua an official language of the EU.
>
> Why Interlingua? The target demographic includes bureaucrats (slobs) and 
> elitists (snobs). Interlingua is the best candidate for both groups:
>
> 1. Slob factor: Bureaucrats are even lazier than human beings, so they will not 
> even consider something that isn't at-sight readable. ("I can read it without 
> much effort, so I can probably use it without much effort!") Exit Eo and Ido.
>
> 2. Snob factor: Interlingua's "Latino moderne" approach and its "Romania" idea 
> are tailor-made for the EU's pretensions. Besides, Interlingua is not quite "le 
> belle lingua," as its proponents claim. Rather, it is the PRETTY language: the 
> John Edwards of auxlangs. ("It feels pretty, oh,so pretty! It feels pretty and 
> witty and...")
>
> Hey! He's dissin' Interlingua again!
>
> Not at all. Interlingua probably couldn't win as president of the U.S., but that 
> sort of image would appeal to the people running the EU.
>
> (Why not Occidental? Becuase it isn't metrosexual enough. It's a Joe Sixpack 
> language, like Eo.)
>
> Why should Eists and others support such a move? Because it would usher in 
> the Auxlang Epiphany--the realization that artificial languages can work as real 
> languages. That's the real brake on Eo's progress--and Ido's and Occ's.
>
> Could Interlingua do the job? Sure--it's a modern auxlang, so you don't really 
> need to know it to use it intelligibly. Most of the potential users already know 
> at least two languages, so they won't make the mistakes monoglots would. 
> Besides, anyone who knows French should be able to cobble together a 
> decent text in Interlingua: it was designed as a kind of Anglo-French, if you 
> look at the grammar.
>
> And how often would bureaucrats and politicos need to use it spontaneously? 
> Bureaucrats have boilerplate: fill-in-the-blank texts that they reuse endlessly. 
> Most politicians' speeches are carefully prepared. A relatively small group of 
> translators could do the actual work, and the current crop could probably learn 
> to read and write Ia very quickly. 
>
> So it would be largely a do-nothing or do-little job, but the prestige would add 
> to the credibility of auxlangs in general. And once the Epiphany has occurred, 
> all the Eists and others have to do is say, "Yes, but X is easier to use actively 
> in real speech!" I doubt Interlingua would do very well in that area, but 
> Interlinguans would have their pan-European language (until the Muslims take 
> over and change it to Arabic), and the Eists et al. would have their shot at 
> global conquest.
>
> Any takers?
>   
And then a score of Language professors in Spain and Portugal will say 
that it is unnatural if one cannos say aqueste and aquelle! :-)

And the Esperantists would never suport something else than Esperanto, 
inspite their assertions to do so!

Occidental has a good chance. If Joe Sixpack can manage it, that is a 
good step forward!

Kjell R