Print

Print


Scott Raney skrev 2014-08-29 20:33:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, maybe not, but I consider that observation irrelevant. Your point, if
>> I am understanding correctly, is that any (con)IAL should be "cool," and my
>> original point in my post starting this (happily active) thread is that in
>> fact there are people who in this day and age *do* consider Esperanto to be
>> "cool."
> There's no inherent reason why it has to be cool if it's a hobbiest
> project.  My point is that it *does* need to be cool if you're
> expecting a few billion (or even a few million) people to learn it.
> And that's a minimal requirement, as it also has to have some other
> compelling reasons behind it (e.g., my political movement).
>
> As for Esperanto being cool, there are people who think wearing
> suspenders and bow ties is cool.  That's not the definition of cool.
> And again, another nail in the coffin of why we shouldn't even be
> having this discussion now because *we* don't even know what cool is.
> Instead we need to create a system that allows people who recognize
> cool when they see it to help us create it or find it.
>
>> And a user today in that language of conIAL X asserts that it is "cool"
>> which many, many people around the globe have been using for generations,
>> but it is "another dead-end project" (even if the originator's ideals have
>> not, yet anyway, fully come to pass)?
> Whether Esperanto is a dead-end project is more likely something we
> have the skills necessary to determine.  I say it clearly is, but we
> need to define terms:
> 1) How many speakers does it have to have to be considered a success?
> Clearly it's more than the number required for the Zamenhof's
> Esperanto Promise to trigger (10 million), which it's about 9-some-odd
> million short of as of now...
> 2) Do we see anything on the horizon that will result in a huge
> increase in Esperanto speakers?
> 3) Seems to me that the *only* proper definition of success for an IAL
> is that there's a reasonable chance that two randomly chosen people
> will both speak it.  How many people knowing the auxlang would that
> require?
>
>> Again, I consider this criterion of "coolness" to be largely irrelevant to
>> the success, or lack thereof, of a conIAL.
> I'm assuming you don't work in the marketing or sales fields or you
> wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.  Or maybe it's just that
> you really would have been happy living in the Soviet Union where such
> frivolity didn't have any impact on the extremely limited number of
> products you had access to.  Nowadays most people have a *choice* of
> products, especially for nonessential items (where they also have the
> choice of not even choosing one).  If you don't take that into
> consideration, you're designing a conlang, not an auxlang.  Not that
> there's anything wrong with that ;-)
>    Regards,
>      Scott
>
>> --
>> Paul Bartlett
Esperanto I learnt as a free choice 
English was in the school's 
curriculum. There was obviously an 
Esperantist who thought Esperanto 
is "mojosa", cool. I would not use 
"mojosa". I think it is a hopeless 
construct. That is my subjective 
reaction.

I think that a language that begins 
like e booklet and has lots of 
speakers 125 years later is 
somewhat of a success.

Kjell R