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.