Print

Print


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> As far as post-1900 interlinguistics is concerned "having precedents in natlangs" is absolutely the way to go.
>
>

I will temporarily ignore the unconvincing appeal to novelty (AKA
"what is newer is necessarily better") to ask which conauxlang
strictly follows this principle in any possible way imaginable. Not
even the naturalistic projects are completely faithful to the idea of
"having precedents in natlangs" for all their language features. In
other words, you can always coin an interpretation of the idea of
"precedence in natlangs" with the purpose of making a given conauxlang
fail the test.

Examples:

* In Esperanto and Ido, the huge majority of nouns end with "o" and
the huge majority of adjectives end with "a". There is no natlang with
such properties.

* In Interlingua, adjectives are not inflected for plural *and* are
used after nouns. There is no natlang with that property.

* Occidental has the word "ples". No natlang AFAIK has this word.
(English has "please", but "ples" is not "please" according to my
spellchecker(R).)

If you try to create a language that, in your view, completely sticks
to "precedence in natlangs", any person could always find some way to
complain that you didn't follow the principle for all cases.

I believe I can say the same for any "principle". For instance, it is
easy to prove that Esperanto is not a completely regular language.
Principles can have various interpretations; you can always find an
interpretation to argue that a language is not compliant to a certain
hard principle.

Now, let's be honest here. You are not starting from a principle and
accidentally discovering that Esperanto does not follow that "sacred"
principle. You've started from the hard point of view that Esperanto
is the evil and you are trying to find ways to show that.
"Rationalization" is the word of the day.

Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues