Print

Print


On 21 October 2016 at 00:29, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> So I reach Ray's conclusion: I can only see auxlang-makers as those who
> want to make fun macaronic conlangs.


I think that potentially reads as overly dismissive, if not in the words
then maybe in the attitude one perceives to lie behind them. An auxlang's
design goals can make it an engelang -- which certainly describes well Leo
Moser's approach. That is, the conlang seeks to realize the optimal auxlang
design, having defined optimality as satisfaction of a number of reasonably
objective criteria. It need not necessarily even be macaronic. The creation
of the engelang may or may not be nothing more than a fun intellectual
exercise -- maybe we'll gain useful new knowledge and insights from it,
maybe we won't; maybe actual people will find profit in actually using the
engelang, maybe none will -- but on this list, of all places, the conlanger
need not justify the creation of their conlang by presenting a case for its
utility, spurious or not.

--And.