Print

Print


James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> skripted:
 
>Bruce Gilson skripted:
 
>> >Now, don't you catch the message yet? "Every non-native-English
>> >speaker abandons N98": couldn't this mean that N98 is unacceptable for
>> >non-E-natives?
 
>> It could, but we've had only three non-English speakers on the list in its
>> history. Kjell Rehnstroem and Jay Bowks were committed to Interlingua already,
>> and you had already made your proposals. We have not yet seen any comments by
>> non-native-English speakers who simply were interested in a new IAL.
 
>It is true in general that quite a few of the past and present members of
>the Novial list have had fingers in other pies.  What I don't understand is
>why that necessarily makes their opinions less valid than those of Bruce
>and the handful of others around him who are committed to N98 alone.  Is
>Bruce saying they haven't given enough time to the project?  In my
>experience, those with other interests have at times given more time to
>it, or shown a more thorough knowledge of it than those without.  Or is
>Bruce implying something altogether more sinister?  Does he think that
>Jay, Kjell and others have deliberately tried to sabotage the project to
>further their own languages?  That would be quite a serious allegation,
>if it were made.
 
No, I am not saying any of these, though I think at least one person who was
briefly on the list might have had sabotage in mind, but I'm not naming names.
 
And in fact I think that both Phil Hunt and Chris Zervic have contributed
substantially, one of them being of course the inventor of his own IAL and the
other a serious Esperantist.
 
What I am saying is that a person with other irons in the fire is going to be
less concerned with our developing a viable language because if we fail, he
has another place to go. Not deliberate sabotage, simply less of a commitment
to our success. Not that their opinions are invalid, but that they may see this
project as less important than those of us with no other alternative.
 
Ray Brown has held stronger opinions in this regard than I: he said a while ago
that he just could not see how anyone could be involved in two competing pro-
jects. I am willing to accept their contributions, and I _have_ accepted their
contributions, but it's also true that there is far more chance that they will
simply leave if they find another language needs their efforts more. Note
Kjell's comment about using his time more profitably. Note your own experience:
you were offered a chance to edit an Ido publication, and you took it
 
>> Admit it. You came into this list with certain specific proposals in mind. You
>> had posted many of your ideas on Auxlang before you ever read a word of what
>> we had already done. The proposals you had in mind _all_ had as a base the
>> -e/-a/-o derivation of Jespersen's Novial, and you find attractive a feature
>> that all of us, unanimously, not just myself, think ugly. David Harris may
>> have said it more politely than I did, but he made it pretty clear how he
>> feels.
 
>I don't think it really helps to use words like "ugly" of a part of J's
>system that happens not to fit your personal plans for POS marking.  You
>yourself weren't even aware a few days ago of the a posteriori justification
>for -o as a verbal sb ending.
>If you call -e/a/o words ugly, what do you expect the rest of us to say
>about your -r ?  Certainly I could think of much ruder words than that.
 
Note that I used the words "all of us... think ugly." This is an expression of
_opinion_, not a statement of absolute truth, and when I said "you find attrac-
tive" I furthermore accepted that others disagree. If you read the statement,
it simply says that Marcos' esthetics differ from that of the NRG. And the
conclusion to draw is not that Marcos has no right to develop whatever language
he sees fit, but that the _common_ ground between Marcos and the group just is
not there. That's a far different thing from saying "-e/-a/-o IS ugly." Surely
you can accept that.
 
>Admit it.  Marcos has come along and started saying the things you didn't
>want to hear, albeit rather insistently, so be it.  But the fact remains
>you have reacted in a pretty disgraceful manner to the criticisms made
>by him.  You have certainly given a very bad impression to Auxlang of the
>internal workings of your group.
 
You have a great luxury in your project that we do not have. It is _your_
project, not that of a committee of which you are simply one member. Anyone
who makes a suggestion can simply be refused consideration, because it's your
language.
 
The group has said no, twice already, to dropping -r as a verb marker. It has
said yes, resoundingly, to the PoS scheme I favor. These decisions were made,
not by me, but by the _group_, either unanimously or with no more than one
dissent. Marcos came there assuming it was my pressure that was preventing our
adopting what _he_ believed to be a clearly better scheme. The more I tried to
communicate to him that his ideas were at variance with those of the _entire_
group, the more he refused to follow what I _still_ believe to be the appropri-
ate advice: to elaborate his scheme on his own and compete with us, rather than
try to co-opt our group.
 
You, James, have done exactly what I advised Marcos to do. I don't know why you
don't agree with me that Marcos should follow that approach, since it's the
approach you yourself _have_ chosen.
 
                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)