Print

Print


Je 04:20 AM 02.05.98 -0700, Bruce R. Gilson skribis:
 
>I'm not going to quote Ken Caviness' entire post, but just in order to make
>clear to which I refer, understanding that I am responding to the entire=
 post
>and not just this one sentence:
>
>> ... If you had used Interlingua extensively over the
>>je-ne-sais-combien-de years that you have been interested in IALs, I think
>>it would have done more for the IAL movement than constructing new
>>planlingvoj or modifying old ones.  IMO.
>
>In YOUR opinion yes. I firmly and totally disagree. I would never have
discov-
>ered Novial, which I deem a _much_ better language. I do not believe, as=
 Ken
>appears to, that _any_ interlanguage is equally useful if you can find
another
>user.
 
This appears to be a jest.  As I have made clear often, for an IAL to=20
interest me (only speaking for myself here) it must have more than "another
user": there is a critical mass of users, and of use.  Those interested may
consult my "Esperanto Unue"  (Esperanto First) page, section "Kial
Esperanto?" (Why Esperanto?): =20
 
   <http://www.southern.edu/~caviness/Eo_unue/Eo_unue.html#kial_eo>
 
>For the purpose of wooing the overwhelming majority of the world's billions
>of people who do not already use a conIAL, Esperanto, with its=
 noun-adjective
>concord and accusative-flexion, is an inferior vehicle, as is Interlingua,
with
>its two-stem verbs and vague-meaning derivations.=20
 
It would be better to learn from history (than to be doomed to repeat it). =
=20
IAL History is littered with hundreds of languages whose authors thought=20
they had created a "much better" one.  Trouble is, around the bend is=20
another reformer with her own ideas of what constitutes "better".  And so=20
it goes.
 
>Time spent developing a
>better one is not time wasted. If it were, Zamenhof should have given up=
 and
>simply learned Volapuek.
 
Well, if I had been there, I certainly would have learned Volapu"k.  It has=
=20
many nice features, although Esperanto is (lau` mi) a more satisfactory=20
compromise between word-building and recognizability.  Zamenhof did a lot=20
of things right, perhaps he had good instincts, and it helps that he was a
polyglot, although he wasn't a professional linguist.  (But notice that we
can't leave the products of professional linguists alone, either!)
 
Be that as it may, let me remind you that at least for most of the time=20
period of the creation of Esperanto, Zamenhof was not aware of the existence=
=20
of Volapu"k.  At least this is my understanding from the material that I've=
=20
read, perhaps a "pli-spert-ul-o" (more-expert-individual-[noun]) can help us=
=20
here.
 
Salutas
Ken
 
  *-----------------------------------------------------------------*
  | Ken CAVINESS           Physics at Southern Adventist University |
  | [log in to unmask]             ESPERANTO =3D Lingvo internacia |
  | http://southern.edu/~caviness/     E-o/English/Fran=E7ais/Deutsch |
  *-----------------------------------------------------------------*