MacLeod Dave wrote: > 2010/1/2 <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>: >> MacLeod Dave wrote: >> >>> I think the lesson of Na'vi may end up being that in the beginning, >>> communication is secondary to simply having a powerful reason for >>> existence, some sort of mythology that people are interested in >>> besides just the language. Appealing to groups simply on the basis of >>> communication usually just leads to a Nutterist conclusion that >>> English is the best way to go since so many speak it anyway. Actually >>> the interest in Na'vi is probably a good sign for languages like >>> modern Indo-European and Sambahsa, since people that are interested in >>> a language clearly don't mind if it's more complex than your average >>> auxlang. >> Their interest isn't in the language or languages in general. > > Wrong. Look at the number of people on the Na'vi group that are > professional linguists. Also check out the people that have written up > the Na'vi page on Wikipedia. Yes, linguists. It had a thread on conlang too which is probably where a lot of the activity was spawned though discussions have moved onward to other things. The general public though couldn't care less and even for the linguists the it's just a current fad. Remember the Demos group like so many others had a lot of activity early on. After a couple of months everyone strayed into other projects or interests and that was the end of it.