Print

Print


Kjell =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rehnstr=F6m?= <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>>You know, I think this is right, and one of the things that hurt Novial. VA
>>and the other Novialists were so eager to compromise with Occidental that the
>>strengths of Novial were compromised out. So from my point of view (as one
>>_less_ impressed by Occidental than by some others, though it is pretty good
>>for a very naturalistic language) Bob Petry is right.
 
>Isto non del toto es correcto. Le facto es que Novial era solo describite
>in un libro e il habeva troppo multe personas qui non era capabile
>apprender le lingua e pro isto illes comenciava manipular (Io vole dicer
>_tinker with_) le lingua in vice de usar lo.
 
>Or in English:
>This is not at all correct. The fact is that Novial was only described in a
>book and there were too many persons who were not capable of learning the
>language and therefore they started to tinker with the language in stead of
>using it.
 
 
Naturally Kjell thinks so. This is because he's got it into his head that the
way to propagate a language is to just use it without thinking. But the fact
is, Novial _was_ used. _Novialiste_ was an ongoing publication. We know that
such people as Valter Ahlstedt _did_ use it in their contacts with others.
 
I remain with my earlier comments.
 
                                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)