Hallo conlangers!

On Wednesday 30 November 2011 17:49:14 R A Brown wrote:

> On 30/11/2011 10:32, Michael Everson wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 2011, at 21:37, Gary Shannon wrote:
> >> By "taken seriously" I was really referring to someone
> >> who honestly believes their new or favorite auxlang
> >> has a chance to become the lingua franca of planet
> >> Earth.
> > 
> > I don't think I know any auxlangers who believes this.
> You are very lucky indeed.  I've come across more than
> enough of such - and not only their favorite auxlang, but
> their own version of their favorite auxlang!!

I have heard of that quarrel, too.  From my infrequent peeks
into the AUXLANG archive, I got the impression that the list
is now more civilized - the different camps ignore each other
most of the time.

Yet, most of the issues discussed there simply do not interest
me, and hence I do not join that list.

> >> Auxlangs are fun when treated as conlangs, with a lot
> >> of interesting issues to discuss and explore.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > So far I know of two translations of Alice into
> > Esperanto, one into VolapŁk, one into Neo, and fragments
> > into Interlingua. All Auxlangs, at least originally. I
> > know of only one conlang translation,
> But Esperanto, VolapŁk, Neo and Interlingua are conlangs,
> aren't they?   ;)

The notion of excluding auxlangs from conlangs is sometimes
found here on the list, but it is misguided.  A conlang simply
is a _constructed language_, no matter what its purpose is.
In fact, I believe that the term "constructed language" was
originally coined to refer to - auxlangs!

> As Gary writes: "Auxlangs are fun when treated as conlangs."


> ========================================================
> On 30/11/2011 14:40, Michael Everson wrote:
> > On 30 Nov 2011, at 07:58, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> >> One has only to look back in the archives at the
> >> emails to Conlang prior to the Great Sundering of
> >> January 1996 to see why the lists were separated.
> > 
> > I don't know where the archives are, but... does an
> > argument 15 years ago mean that people can't get along
> > today? I am not suggesting re-amalgamating the two
> > groups, but it sounds like you're holding a grudge.
> Hardly - I knew nothing about either list in 1996!
> But I assure you that the emails make grim reading - also
> you would need to set aside quite a bit of time to read
> through them all.  I don't recall how many there were in
> that weekend before the Great Sundering, but it was quite
> horrendous.

According to Rick Harrison, it was an Esperanto vs. Ido
flamewar which yielded as many as 71 posts on a particular
day - what is quite a lot (we have had times when we had
more than 71 posts on a day here, but that was mostly
off-topic chat rather than flames).

> I joined both lists year or so later, quite unaware of the
> past history and quite enthusiastic for both auxlangs &
> non-auxlang conlangs.  It was my experience on the Auxlang
> list itself, with its bigotry & fanaticism that turned me
> off.  The final straw, so to speak, was when IIRC four
> different Novial revival camps were trading insults &
> flames.  I had run out of asbestos suits and quit.
> I am told that things are more civilized over in Auxlandia
> now, but personally I have no desire to return.  Nothing
> whatsoever to do with grudges - I am a little bit more grown
> up than that.  Life is far too short to bother with grudges.

Sure.  AUXLANG is no longer in a state of constant war between
different auxlangs, it seems.  They have reached a ceasefire
and ignore each other most of the time.  Also, it seems that
traffic on AUXLANG is slowly petering out.  At any rate, it is
now less busy than CONLANG.
> [snip]
> >> Whether any VolapŁkists still hanker after such a
> >> dream, I do not know.  Certainly I cannot recall any
> >> making such claims during the time I was on Auxlang.
> > 
> > None of the VolapŁkists I know have ever suggested it.
> I've not come across any either.

I think that VolapŁk is firmly out of the race now, and those
who are into it now merely see it as a scurrilous conlang, or
a milestone long passed in the history of the IAL movement.
> >> If one wants to understand the attitude of people like
> >> Gary and myself towards auxlangs, read:
> >>
> > 
> > Well, there's a lot of criticism in the "eristic"
> > section of "some [particular] Auxlangers" in this. Maybe
> > it was icky in 1996.
> Oooh - I can assure you it was true later than that.
> > Still, today is today. For my part, I enjoy auxlangs as
> > conlangs, rather than in hope of their implementation.
> As I say, I hear it is more civilized now.  But I am sure
> that what Gary was meaning with "taken seriously" was 'taken
> seriously as international auxiliary languages.'

Yes.  I think so, too.
> Enjoying them as a _conlang_ is a whole different matter.  I
> happen to share very much your views on VolapŁk, as it happens.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong in being interested in VolapŁk
(or any other auxlang) as a *conlang* - as an example of human
linguistic creativity!

> >> My own view is given briefly on:
> >>
> > 
> > You said there: "My time on the latter led me more and
> > more to the conclusion that any successful IAL was more
> > likely to be a development of a natural language." I
> > think Interlingua fits that bill rather more than most
> > of them.
> The most polite & civilized auxlanger I think I came across
> was in fact a proponent of Interlingua.  But then he didn't
> push it as global auxlang, but commended it as a useful
> auxlang for those with knowledge of western European languages.
> At present the most successful global auxlang is the
> international English Koine which has been developing over
> the last half century and is still developing.  Who knows?
> It might even lead to spelling reform    :)

I consider a successful English spelling reform unlikely in the
foreseeable future, and see the same misguided zeal among would-be
spelling reformers as among auxlangers, and this seriously puts me

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"BÍsel asa  m, a  m atha cvanthal a cvanth atha  mel." - SiM 1:1