Print

Print


At 11:01 11/10/97, Robert J. Petry wrote:
>Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I suspect that _all_ authors of conIALs considered that they were
>> rationally & carefully working out a solution.  Certainly, Bob Petrie will
>> tell you that Dutton did so with Speedwords (Rap Lin Rie),
>
>Bob Petry, me, would say that Dutton did an extremely good job with Speedwords.

Sorry for mis-spelling your surname  :=(
I should know better - every so often someone tries to stick a final -e on
my surname.  Ach.

[.....]
>Speedwords certainly meets most of the requirements. The problem seems to
>be "it
>can't be pronounced"

Oh yes it can.  I give the rules on Richard Kennaway's website.  Though I
do think the rules are more complex than they need be.

>and it "can't be both a shorthand and auxiliary language at
>the same time." Well, it can be pronounced, and it is both a shorthand, or
>rather, a brief script, and an international auxiliary language.

Yes, yes - the brief script bit's Ok - it's the claim that it can be used
for note-taking in English, Spanish, Japannese, Zulu, Mandarin, Arabic &
any other language spoken on this planet.  But I think in this context
we're concerned primarily with its use as an IAL.

[....]
>
>By the way, being rational and careful does not necessarily imply being
>perfect.
>If we had perfection as the only standard for a good language, then no one
>would
>be speaking anything today. Communication would come to a standstill until we
>developed the perfect language.

Who decides what is perfect?

>> I notice yet again that any idea of a natlang solution is apparently ruled
>> out from the start.  What a surprise.
>
>Well, if, as so many seem to think, Speedwords is nothing more than English in
>short form, then Speedwords is a great natlang. And, a fast way to teach the
>world English. That's what I like about Mote, it is very flexible.

Hang on - IF Speedwords is this, or can be "flexed" to this purpose,
doesn't it render itself superfluous.  English seems to be making great
headway without it.

>
>> Unity requires that _all_ points of view be respected - the Eurocloners &
>> non-Eurocloners - the conIALists & natIALists?  Is James including all?
>
>Pei makes this comment. "This simply means that there is no rhyme or reason to
>the controversies now bitterly raging as to whether it would be better to use a
>natural, a modified, or a constructed language as an international medium of
>communications. Esperanto, Interglossa, Basic English, natural English, French,
>Chinese -- it makes no difference which one is selected, provided all
>people now
>living agree to use it, not primarily for themselves, but for their
>descendants.

Yes, indeed.  I tried to say something along these lines not so long back &
got flamed for my pains.

But back to James' orginal post.
Will you ditch Speedwords and join with him & others to fashion the (near)
perfect IAL with the greatest facility for the greatest number?

I think not.  Indeed, why should you?

The idea sounds to me like a totalitarian nightmare.

Over the last three centuries there have surely appeared more than enough
conIALs.  If any deserve to survive, good luck to them.  Let them be used.
Let Bob promote Rap Lin Rie, Robin Gaskell promote Interglossa, the Novial
group get Novial up and running again.  Let Afrihili, Babm & the others
live a little. The world's big enough.  Then let the people of the world
decide.

Pax omnibus,
Ray.