Print

Print


> [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.