Print

Print


On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 05:04:49 -0800, "Bruce R. Gilson" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
 
 
 
>I don't necessarily want to go back and undo a lot of work we've done =
over a
>period of several months. I think if, perhaps, someone had proposed this
>scheme to me in 1996, I might have adopted it. (Note the word _might_ =
here,
 
I'm glad to see you consider this scheme an acceptable one.
 
>however. I cannot reconstruct my mental processes as of a year and a =
half ago.)
>I think too much thought has gone into the system we _did_ adopt to =
scrub it
>now.
 
I understand you, but I think (not sure, I have not been there) that
the most of that work is fitable on the new scheme, isn't it? And an
important point is that we all (you of the group, James, Philip, Ray,
and me) would be more closer one of each others and our work would be
more mutually profitable, and it's possible that eventually some of us
we were working on the same project. Please, think about it, Bruce.
 
 
>pated in Novial, _including_ the -o/-a/-e applied to pronouns as well as=
 to
>nouns, I was happy to transfer my allegiance to Novial.
>
>So I admit that this is a matter of personal taste. But when I find that=
 a
>particular feature of Novial _coincides_precisely_ with what I would =
build into
>a language if I were starting from scratch, I am not about to change it,=
 or to
>look kindly upon someone else's plans to change it. Does this make my =
views
>any clearer?
 
I suspected the -o/-a markers were more a matter of personal taste
than a real necessity on an IAL. Its dropping is the *sacrifice* I
think you have to do for achieving a hardly critizable novialide. If
you dare or not to do that sacrifice is on your hands. I think it's
worth it.
 
 
 
Saludos,
Marcos