Print

Print


Ken Caviness skripted:
 
>Well, if I had been there, I certainly would have learned Volapu"k.  It has
>many nice features, although Esperanto is (lau` mi) a more satisfactory
>compromise between word-building and recognizability.  Zamenhof did a lot
>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!)
 
There are a number of separate points in this rather rich paragraph.
 
First of all, I have never said that Zamenhof did NOT do a lot of things right,
and indeed, as compared to Volapu"k, E-o was a major improvement. My post to
whom Ken was responding, however, said that according to Ken's philosophy, Z
should not have even _tried_: Volapu"k existed, it had speakers, even inter-
national conferences!
 
Secondly, "we can't leave the products of professional linguists alone," I am
sure, is a barb against my revising Jespersen's creation. Well, one will see
that GN really resembles J's creation far more closely than E-o resembles Vpk.
And furthermore J, unlike both Schleyer and Z, _accepted_ that his product was
not final; so really this is not a slap in the face, but the attempt to follow
his _process_ (The NRG is self-constituted, rather than appointed as was the
LJN, but it functions much the same way).
 
I'll leave it at this, for now.
 
                                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)