Print

Print


Dear Don Harlow (and other Esperantists of the list),

I think we sometimes don't agree about specific issues because "we do
not speak the same language" (sorry for the pun :D ). Most of our
discussions follow the following (inaccurate and extremely simplified)
scheme of "philosophies":

Esperanto philosophy = "Ignore the linguistical quality attributes of
the conauxlang, as they are already good enough: Does it fulfill our
extralinguistical ideals?"

Ido/Occidental philosophy = "Ignore our extralinguistical ideals, as
any conauxlang will fulfill them (otherwise it wouldn't be a
conauxlang, but a non-aux conlang -- probably artlang or loglang). Is
the conauxlang good enough in terms of linguistical quality attributes
I find important?" This is where most controversies reside, as the
benchmark (the priorities of each existing quality attribute) differ
for each person (and often for the same person along time, as it has
happened to me).

Interlingua philosophy = "Is it objective, i.e., does it conform to
the linguistic material shared by a given set of source languages?"
Maybe this is also the Folkspraak philosophy, at least in part.

Natlang-only philosophy = "Any natlang (English, Mandarin Chinese,
Portuguese/Spanish/Portuńol, creoles, etc.) is good enough as a WAL.
But, please, do not adopt one of those 'fake languages' (aka
'conlangs')!"

Promiscuous philosophy = "Any natlang is good enough, and any
conauxlang which has been proven to work quite well (Volapük,
Esperanto, LsF, Ido, Occidental, Interlingua, etc.[*]) is also good
enough. Let's just adopt any of them as the WAL, no matter which one!"

I usually analyse Interlingua with the Interlingua philosophy, and
Esperanto with the Ido/Occidental philosophy. Then I can elaborate a
small bit of criticisms about Interlingua and a good (but not huge)
list criticisms about Esperanto. You, on the other hand, analyse
Interlingua with the Ido/Occidental philosophy, and Esperanto with the
Esperanto philosophy. This way you elaborate a lot of criticisms about
Interlingua and virtually no criticism about Esperanto.

Sometimes I change my focus a bit and I analyse Interlingua with the
Ido/Occidental philosophy. This way, just like you, I can elaborate a
huge list of criticisms. And sometimes you also analyse Esperanto with
the Ido/Occidental philosophy (usually when you want to compare a
specific feature of Esperanto to the equivalent mechanisms in other
conauxlangs to demonstrate the advantages of Esperanto), and you also
elaborate a small list of criticisms about Esperanto (although you do
not reveal most of those criticisms, due to political reasons).

Politically, I am sympathetic to the Esperanto philosophy, but I
adhere to the promiscuous philosophy (although I am not an activist,
and I do not intend to become one). Any natlang or proven conauxlang
is good enough for the world, in my opinion.

Anyway, we perform all those comparisons and analyses just for fun.
Long life to our shared hobby!!! :)

[*]  Please don't add Klingon, Lojban/Loglan, Ygyde, Toki Pona,
Quenya, Sindarin and other artlangs or unfeasible conauxlangs to that
list! :D

Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues