Print

Print


Don HARLOW wrote:
 
> [kut]I would agree with Bruce that from the point of view of the early
> 1880s, Z. would better have spent his time learning Volapuk and
> helping to promote it. Z. was, however, young, and, like Bruce, felt
> that he had a better product. Whether it was actually better or not
> is largely irrelevant, because about two years after Esperanto was
> published the Volapuk movement self-destructed, leaving the field
> essentially clear for Esperanto. (Those who believe that Volapuk
> yielded to Esperanto haven't been reading their history all that
> closely; when the collapse occurred, Volapuk had on the order of a
> hundred thousand adherents on several continents, compared to at most
> a few thousand primarily in Central Europe for Esperanto.)
 
I had always thought Volapu"k had failed because they held a congress but couldn't
speak with each other in the language. At least, that was what I had read. Then I
got a book out of the library about 5" thick on Cryptography. A long discussions is
given in this book about Volapu"k showing it failed because of internal fighting
over who would make changes, etc. It had nothing to do with not being able to use
it. In the 1893 magazines I have, and the course in the magazines, show to me that
it was not as bad a language as I had been led to believe by posts I had seen about
it.
 
Al l sue,
Bob