Print

Print


On 2014-07-04 5:46 PM, Scott Raney wrote (small excerpt):

> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>   There is a general perception that
>> artificial languages are (by definition) fake languages, and that
>> perception must change before adoption becomes possible.
>
> Meh, I think you're overthinking this: Most people won't give a damn
> about these sorts of theoretical concerns.  Make them something that's
> interesting and useful, and they'll use it (in FB's case, nevermind
> the fact that they have to give up something that should be very
> valuable to them (i.e., their privacy) as part of the process).

So far as I can tell, the overwhelming number of people around the world 
have little or, more commonly, NO awareness of auxiliary languages, 
especially not constructed ones.

In the early 1970s there was an Esperanto Universala Kongreso in the 
medium sized USA city in which I was then living. After a brief 
television article, my father remarked that his father (i.e., my 
grandfather), who was born the year after Z published E-o, had tried to 
learn Esperanto. I suppose this was in the 1920s. I first had any 
knowledge of E-o on my own in 1961, and any other conIALs (Ido) in the 
1970s.

Indeed, I have a set of DVD lectures on linguistics by an academic 
professor, and his brief lecture on "artificial languages" slightly 
mentioned E-o and none others, and mostly dealt with sign languages 
developed by deaf children in Latin America. So much for professional 
attention.

Yes, I am a "finvenkisto," but just not with respect to Esperanto 
(although given present circumstances I think it has the best likelihood 
among conIALs, with Interlingua a distant second in the WENSA ambiance).

-- 
Paul Bartlett