Print

Print


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.
In reading all the criteria from Mario Pei's Story of Language, and the book Loom
of Language, and others on the requirements of a good auxiliary language,
Speedwords certainly meets most of the requirements. The problem seems to be "it
can't be pronounced" 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. That does not
mean, nor imply, that I think it is perfect. But, it's close. With a little
tweaking, it will be outstanding. And, I think the response I am now getting on
the web page, and in email to me, shows that it is going in the right direction.

> Robin Gaskell
> will tell you this Clark & Ashby rationally & carefully worked out Glosa.
> I'm sure that Jespersen & Zamenhof (yes, and even Schleyer) were no less
> rational & careful.

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.

> 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.

> 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.
What is needed for the solution of the world's language problem is simply A
language, any one of the world's 2,796 natural languages or of the five hundred
or so constructed ones that have at various times been proposed; with however two
qualifications: the language selected must have absolute correspondence of
written symbols for spoken sounds, and it must be adopted, by international
agreement, in all countries at the same time, not in the high schools or colleges
or universities, but in the lowest grade of the elementary schools, side by side
with the national tongue, sothat it may be learned easily, naturally and
painlessly by the oncoming generations." p.393-4. The Story of Language.

Bob Petry