> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues > On 11/6/07, James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > I'm still not convinced of the need for a multiplicity > > (or Babel) of different worldlangs. Would there not > > be enough room for experimentation within one > > broadly-defined project that could unite all > > supporters of the idea? > > I believe at least some broad guidelines could be agreed upon. This is > not to mean that we would have only one worldlang project, but that > most worldlang projects would be somewhat compatible on key issues. It > is all a matter of willingness to negotiate and awareness that some > positions in minor issues would have to be given up to achieve a > consensus. Given the common lines of thought among the worldlangers, I > believe this would be feasible. > > Why not start by eliciting all the common features of Neo Patwa, > Pandunia and Sasxsek? They would be consensual by default. We tried a group project early last with Demos. Jens, Risto, Rex and other active members of Auxlang who are on the language engineering side of the fence were all members. The idea was to create a WAL by majority rule, but that didn't necessarily mean a worldlang as we are discussing here. The nature of the group could very well have created a Euroclone if that's what the majority wanted. Anyway, the goup was going pretty strong for about a month and we had a basic phonology and orthography laid out, but that's about as far as it went before everyone lost interest and went on with their other projects. As far as taking common features from these three, I would say that could be tough because while they all have things in common they each represent different philosophical approaches that may not intermix well. > Other issues would be subject to calm negotiation. I am sure that the > process of discussion would increase the quality of all current > worldlang projects. > > A manifesto document detailing the key philosophy, principles and > features of worldlangs, signed by all the current worldlangers, would > be a formidable output of this process. It would certainly advance the > cause of worldlangs. Well we could do something like that, maybe just a set of guideline, not necessarily a new language project.