James Chandler wrote:
> I am tempted to sign up to this, but I don't want to
> limit my interest in worldlangs to just one project.
> If I join Risto's list, then Jens creates a list for
> Neo Patwa, Dmitry creates one for LdP, Dana has one
> for Sasxsek - I will need to be on several lists to
> keep up.

Jens has had two lists for Neo Patwa for a while already. :-)

But please join the list. Dana and Jens are already there. The discussions
don't have to be restricted to deal with only my language, we can talk
about worldlangs in general too. It will be good if we can find some ways
to cooperate.

> 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?

Of course a everybody together would achieve more than a bunch of
individuals separately. We have a lot of disagreements but I think that we
could settle down many of them if we were committed to work together. The
direction where I have taken my language is not the only direction that
would be acceptable to me. In my own language I can be uncompromising but
in a group effort compromises are inevitable. With that in mind it will be
easier to work together.

For example I and Jens have disagreed about formation of the adjectives
for a long time. My idea is to have only one word, "size", and the
adjectives are derived from that, e.g. much-sized house = a big house.
Jens' idea on the other hand is to have two words, "big" and "small" but
no word for "size". The compromise could be that we have "size", "big" and
"small" as separate words. The probable response from everybody will be:
"I can accept that... Next!"

Maybe we can give a shot at working together again. We can start with the
general guidelines that Antonielly suggested, but if we can agree in a
deeper level too then we can go for it. Let's see about that then.

-- Risto Kupsala