Print

Print


[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
 http://adam.cheshire.net/~jjbowks/index.html
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 >>>On the other hand, both James Chandler & Jay Bowks do seem
to be going in
 
***I have always maintained that more naturalism is the one
thing
Jespersen accepted and indeed helped to develop in his work
with IALA conferences. To not accept his full work is to deny
that
he progressed and advanced his language Novial
 
>>>an opposite direction, i.e. towards "more naturalism".
>>I have not seen enough of James' changes to tell if this is
true of him. He has
>>_argued_ in favor of keeping more of the changes toward
naturalism that the
>>LJN introduced in the 1930s. But the language I see emerging
from James looks,
>>to my eyes, _closer_ to what we are producing than Marcos'
proposed language
>>does. James has adopted a few of the same changes we have
(merging -u and -im
>>adverbs under -im, for example) and kept most of the same
endings we did.
>>Jay, however, _does_ want a more naturalistic language. He is
a partisan of
>>Interlingua, and it shows. I think that when we compare Jay's
(and Phil Hunt's,
>>BTW: he is also in our group even as he continues to elaborate
Eurolang)
 
***I sincerely hope that my experience with Interlingua can be a
positive
influence on the Novial project if not why still continue to be
involved in
ironing out the wrinkles and pleating the folds? Interlingua is
an ideal
IAL for the Romance languages and English; its work on
extracting the
common international vocabulary from the natural/source
languages is
still without equal. Wouldn't a reformed Novial benefit from
this experience?
 
***On the other point... I don't feel it is in anyway wrong to
work on another
project if it parallels the same goals... Interlingua hopes for
communication
without frontiers, a common average european language. Novial
the
Cosmopoliti Lingue hopes to serve as a bridge of communication
for
different national groups.  I do not see how these would rival
each other.
What would prevent me from speaking and using both? Or anyone
else
for that matter? Why must it be seemed as a rivalry in the first
place?
 
***Considering what work Jespersen did for IALA and how he
insisted
on mutual cooperation and encouraged mutual effort, I think I am
being
true to that same spirit of progress. It is regrettable that
some might think
of it as a race or competition... I feel it would be on the
WRONG path to
think "May the best IAL project win!" but rather "May the best
IAL come
out of the best in different projects!"... IALA set out to
accomplish this
in an effort of mutual cooperation... It was not until
Esperantists and Idist
representatives refused to go along with this cooperation and
mutual
acceptance for compromise that IALA rejected schematics as too
flawed
by personal biases and concentrated on the more scientific work
of extracting
what existing natural languages have in common... what they
share in vocabulary
and grammar.
 
***I would encourage all to show the same spirit of cooperation
that Jespersen
exhibited in his work towards an International Auxiliary
Language here on
Auxlang and on Novial-Liste Grupe. Remember that the efforts of
G. Peano,
E. DeWahl, Jespersen, E. Privat, Shenton, Sapir, Dr. Auerbach,
Stillman,
and Collinson at IALA's conferences centered on "reciprocal
concessions"
and they "accepted alterations" to a degree. However it was the
reluctance
of schematics that brought down the discussion by their refusal
to compromise.
In pages 97-100 of International Languages by Gopsill one can
get the scoop
on IALA's experiences in this regard.
 
Most sincerely,
Jay B.