Print

Print


At 12:15 AM 6/5/98 +0200, B.Philip Jonsson wrote:
>At 15:37 -0700 on 31.5.1998, Donald J. HARLOW wrote:
>> (c) in some smaller societies, ability to use a "language of wider
>> dissemination" (English is not the only culprit) is a feature that
>> distinguishes the de facto aristocracy from the general hoi polloi.
>>  [  ...............  ]
>
>Kudos.  You have formulated very well the main reason why _I_ support the
>idea of IALs   [  .........  ]   For me there are however two things that
>seem to follow from this standpoint:
>
>1) A global IAL shouldn't be an Euroclone; that would only be a variation
>of the current situation.
*       If, or when, the IAL does eventuate, it will have had to have come from
somewhere: why not from a cleaned up, neutralised European source?
 
>    If and how an _a-posteriori_ lang could/should
>be constructed from a truly global base remains an open question.
*       There have been some good attempts.  Glosa, for example, calls on the
'global base' of scientific terminology: its "aposteriori"  badge comes
from the use of the Classical Greek and Latin roots that fund this
terminology.
 
>I imagine the sience of linguistic typology will have to advance a little
>further before being able to offer the necessary tools.
*       Sound good, but some European countries do not teach "spelling", EG
Croatia, because the spelling follows the sounds of the words, and there is
a direct relationship between typology and speech.  Likewise, Glosa has the
situation where each letter has only one pronunciation.  If it is back to
the drawing board to create a new typology, how much will this prolong our
wait for a solution to 'the babble of tongues'?
 
>2) In the meantime people around the world may be better served by a
>couple of IALs of more regional application.
>
*       This would be an additional stepping-stone on the way to the achievement
of "World Community": an additional hurdle.  If we have an Asian auxiliary,
an African one, a European one, and possibly a Cyrillic one as well as
Arabic, then we will have a patchwork of three to five major
linguo/cultural groups.  This would represent another battle: going from
five cultural groupings to one humanity.
        Alternatively, the one-shot idea of IAL adoption might be just too much
for humanity to take.  We may never achieve it using the frontal attack
method: the stepping stones of regional auxiliaries might be an essential
stage on the way to "one tongue."
 
        Much more thought ought to be put into this question.
 
Regards,
 Robin Gaskell