Print

Print


Je 04:12 AM 5/6/98 -0700, Bruce R. Gilson skribis:
 
>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!)
 
...
>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!
 
Please read the rest of the message to which you are replying.  You have
omitted the portion applies to with this point.
 
>Secondly, "we can't leave the products of professional linguists alone," I=
 am
>sure, is a barb against my revising Jespersen's creation.=20
 
Perhaps my phrase was "too barbed", in fact is was intended as a "gentle
jibe", with a modicum of truth to it.  Of the planlingvoj which seem to me
to have been "successful enough" for me to take some interest in, Novial
stands out as the brainchild of a respected professional linguist.  And
supporters of Novial have repeatedly pointed this out:  it's only natural,
and good salesmanship!  But this talking point is largely nullified by the
presence of competing reforms.  "Situation normal", on the auxlang front,
c^u ne?
 
>Well, one will see
>that GN really resembles J's creation far more closely than E-o resembles
Vpk.
 
Certe!  Mais bien s=FBr!  But E-o was not designed from Volap=FCk, nor as a
replacement for Volap=FCk.
 
>And furthermore J, unlike both Schleyer and Z, _accepted_ that his product
was
>not final;=20
 
It is my understanding that even Schleyer made changes to Volap=FCk, so
perhaps didn't regard it as "final".  The point is that he insisted that
_he_ make all the changes, no one else.  Esperanto, too, changes, despite
your insistence to the contrary.  Zamenhof gave up the right to rule on
those changes.  It is the entire Esperanto community which decides --
through usage.
 
>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 doubt is such a system can function for a large, active IAL-community. =20
 
>I'll leave it at this, for now.
 
Too bad you only responded to one paragraph.  I would be interested in why
you see Esperanto as growing out of Volap=FCk, merely because from our
present vantage point one "bloomed" after the other?  No causal connection,
I'm afraid, the maximum speed of information transfer was much less in
those days.  Zamenhof heard of Esperanto first.  ;-)   But notice that I
have already said that if _I_ had heard of Volap=FCk at the time when it had
a larger movement than E-o, I would have learned it.  (Hey, who am I
kidding?  I've been slowly learning Volap=FCk now, just for the fun of it.)
Then if Esperanto continued to grow, I would have learned that, too.
 
Amike salutas vin c`iujn
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 |
  *-----------------------------------------------------------------*