--- Geoffrey King <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> steve rice wrote:
> > ...
> > 3. If you ever bother to read what Dr. Z had to
> say on the topic, he wasn't against change as such.
> He was against PREMATURE change--change just because
> someone unimportant wanted it. If the LoN had
> accepted Eo in principle but asked for changes,
> Eists probably would've gone for it. Dr. Z would've.
> >   
> I'm not so sure about this. Zamenhof had seen
> Volapuk fall apart largely 
> because of Schleyer's insistence on "no change,
> ever, because I say so" 
> (remember he thought Vp. was a divine revelation)
> and wanted to be a bit 
> more sneaky, so he said "change may happen, but not
> right now". The 
> Delegitaro took his dog for a walk and came back
> with a different dog, 
> so it wasn't proposing an amended Esperanto but a
> new language; and 
> Zamenhof was able to keep things as they were
> without putting his foot 
> down about anything.
But the Delegitaro had no authority anyway. They had
tried to gain the support of a society of learned
societies (perhaps knowing it would fail), but nothing
came of it. But instead of admiting that they had
nothing, they acted as though they were in a position
to anoint Eo as the global auxiliary--with some
"minor" tweaks. It's no wonder Dr. Z and company blew
them off.

But Zamnhof's attitude toward change appears to have
been uniform: get the proposal in writing from someone
you cna trust, and then make the changes. I volunteer
as one of the editors on a literary e-zine, and when
we ask for a rewrite, we have two ways of phrasing it:
"If you will change X, we will reconsider the piece"
and "We will accept the piece if you change X." Dr. Z
was holding out for the latter from someone able to
follow through on the acceptance.

You can get an idea of his view of change and growth
from the fact that in the early years, he introduced
more neologisms than everyone else put together.


Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.