Print

Print


On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, steve rice wrote:

> --- In [log in to unmask], Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote:

>> Well, yes, I did mean what I said, but the interpretations of what I
>> meant may differ. :-)
>
> [cut]
>
> O-kay. What I still can't figure out is that your
> message said that Occ's accents made it less natural
> on machinability grounds.

I don't know how else to explain it in any way that I have not
already said. :-)

> None of which has much to do with my post. I asserted
> that accents look natural (especially to a late
> 19th-century European), and I stand by that.

Given "natural language" orthographies, as I said, I don't have a
problem with that.  We take them as they come.  In my opinion, however,
in constructed languages we have a choice.

> Machinability is another issue entirely. I am not
> arguing that a new auxlang should have accents; I
> can't find much argument for accents now. But it's
> silly to bark at people for an issue that didn't even
> exist until well after they died.

I wasn't barking at dead people.  I was referring to the situation
as it is now.

>                                   It may prove silly
> to make a fuss about an issue that will almost
> certainly prove transitory, so people next century
> will wonder about the short-sighted twits who ranted
> about such a short-lived matter.

I will leave the people of the next century to themselves, as I will
the dead people.  I am referring to the here and now, not a hundred
years from now or a hundred years ago.

> Again, I'm not arguing for accents in modern projects.
> I'd just like a little sense of perspective.

I don't see that we have a problem here.  At the same time, I myself
and not aware of any west-European-derived conIAL projects that have
used accented letters other than Esperanto and Occidental.  There
could well be some, just that I am not aware of.  So the issue of
accented letters is not unique to me or some others here.

>> I disagree.  To me, in my subjective opinion, Interlingua has a more
>> natural appearance than Occidental, completely apart from any issue of
>> accent marks in the orthography.  Occidental has always seemed to me
>> somehow to be sort of jerky and ragged, to use terms that I cannot
>> think of any better.  Interlingua has always seemed to me smoother.
>
> The funny thing is that I agree about the "feel" of
> Occ and Ia, yet come to the opposite conclusion. Occ
> is "jerky and ragged," or as I put it some time ago,
> "sloppy."
>
> So are natlangs. You see, real languages just aren't
> as flawlessly coiffed as Ia, which is why it looks to
> me more like a mannequin than a real language. Occ, on
> the other hand, looks as sloppy as any real language,
> only without the irregularities. I bet it picks its
> nose when no one's looking. The accents are just
> strands of fallen hair or dandruff on the shoulders:
> normal for real people, but not for mannequins.

What can I say?  My opinion is just the opposite.  To me, it is
Interlingua that somehow seems more natural (real, if you wish) and
Occidental that seems more mannequin-like.  As they say, there is no
accounting for taste.  If *any* conIAL were to make any real progress
I would support it, whether it be Occidental, Interlingua, Lsf, Sona,
LFN, Ido, Suma, or even the dreaded Esperanto.  But as I see it none
of them have progressed beyond the hobby stage (not even E-o).

-- 
Paul Bartlett