Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> 2. Novial - there have reportedly been flamewars on AUXLANG
>    between different Novial revivalist fractions.  (Similar
>    to the divisions observable in the Cornish revivalist
>    movement.)

There most certainly was at least one set of flame wars there - it was 
during them that I left AUXLANG. They were raging during 1998 IIRC.

When I left, there were four competing versions. Links to four versions
may be found on:

(I don't know why Eurial is listed there as it is _not_ a 'Novialid' and 
was not involved AFAIK in any flame war.)

Jörg's comparison with Cornish is interesting. One of the sticking 
points in both revivals is which version of Novial/Cornish to use.

In the case of Novial, it is whether to use Novial as presented in 
_Novial Lexike_ (1931) or Novial as it was just prior to WWII (the 
latter had moved more towards Occidental and had a more 'natlangy' feel, 
including e.g. use of 'hard' and 'soft' _c_). In the case of Cornish it 
is whether to base it on the language as attested in documents of the 
16th century ("Classical Cornish") or to take as its basis the language 
of the 18th & early 19th century ("modern Cornish").

Interestingly, in both cases it is the older version that most 
revivalists went for - arguments being about what is the 'purer' form of 
the classical model. It seems that most people 'instinctively' consider 
the 'classical' form of a language to be "purer" than its later 
developments. One thinks of how medieval Latin was despised at the time 
of the Renaissance and a conscious attempt was made to reform Latin 
along the norms of Caesar and Cicero. The same mentality seems still to 
affect the revival not only of of dead/moribund natlangs, but also of 

"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".