Print

Print


Je 10:21 ptm 12/30/97 +0000, James CHANDLER skribis:

>It is fair to say that IALA Interlingua is nothing but an abberation
>in the history of IL development, a dinosaur from the pre-1907
>days when the Latin projects held sway.  It will now kindly admit
>its unfitness for its purpose and bow out gracefully.
>
James, Interlingua -- and its supporters -- are no more likely to do
anything of the sort than Esperanto and its supporters, Ido and its
supporters, or Novial and its supporters. (I expect to see a new crop of
Occidentalists appear on the net any day now, to keep company with the
supporters of Volapuk already there. In fact -- Arthur Maass, where are
you? -- I would not be surprised to see a Neo home page appear before long.)

One of the main theses of many supporters of Interlingua is that evolution
of the fashion in planned languages since the beginning of the century has
not been _away_ from "naturalism" but _toward_ it. They are correct.
Esperanto was more "natural" than Volapuk, Ido somewhat more "natural" than
Esperanto, Occidental considerably more "natural" than Ido, and Interlingua
most "natural" of them all. You are wrong to refer to Interlingua as an
"aberration"; it is, in fact, a natural product of this development -- some
might call it a natural culmination.

(What the reasons for this evolution in fashion were is another question. I
have my own hypothesis about this, one with which I am sure the Interlingua
supporters would disagree. But it _has_ occurred, whoever likes it or not.)

(Argh! How horrible! As I was typing the above, some character in "Frazier"
on the telly at the other end of the room said the E-word! Oh, well, it's
only a rerun.)

-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)