[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.