Print

Print


Subject:
           Re: Immediamente Comprehensibile -- por kiuj?
 
Please note: My mail is not going through from my regular account for
some reason, so I am posting from this account temporarily until I find
out what is happening. And, this is a test to see how messages look that
I have to copy and paste to resend to auxlang, and other lists. Bob, x+
 
Donald J. Harlow wrote:
 
> [kut]
>
> [There recently appeared an interesting quote in soc.culture.esperanto
as
> part of a thread on "Interlingua"; I think it worthwhile to reprint it
> here. The quote comes from a Mr. Bernard AUNIS of France, and first
> appeared in "Heraldo de Interlingua" #29. I found the first sentence
of the
> second paragraph especially interesting.]
> [kut]
>
> [Which raises another interesting question. A few months ago, Paul O.
> BARTLETT asked members of the Interlingua list whether any of them did
> _not_ know English, and apparently received no reaction. I'd like to
ask
> whether any of the Interlinguaists on this list do _not_ know
Esperanto.
> I've known (for a very long time, longer than this list has been in
> existence) that Kjell knows the language quite well, and from his
second
> reply to Mr. Mikhail ADIGEYEV yesterday, it became obvious that Ensjo
in
> Brazil, too, knows it to a degree that I can't determine from a
two-line
> paragraph. But I don't know about Jay and possible others.]
> [kut]"Io ha incontrate solo duo categorias de personas qui pote
comprender
> Interlingua sin previe initiation: illes qui ha facite seriose studios
> latin (illes deveni de plus in plus rar) e ... le esperantistas. Isto
> explica le attitude paradoxal de Ric Berger qui diceva, de un latere,
que
> le aspecto de esperanto es repugnante pro le publico neutre, le qual
recipe
> al contrario Interlingua con enthusiasmo, e qui, de un altere latere,
in
> vice de diriger su effortios verso iste publico neutre plen de
enthusiasmo
> pro Interlingua, se obstinava in convincer le esperantistas que illes
> debeva abandonar lor lingua.
>
> "Quando le coidealistas comprendera que un vocabulo non es
international
> pro le simple facto que illo es in IED? La internationalitate es un
facto
> que se constata e non se decreta."
>
 
I find your post interesting Don. For several reasons. One is that Paul
seems
to be a "closet" Interlinguist, but  doesn't seem to argue for the
language as
much as he argues against others. This is just my observation Paul, and
could
be totally wrong, but that is what it seems to be to me at the moment.
 
Secondly, almost all the great Occidentalists were former Esperantists
or
Idists, beginning with E. de Wahl, who while alive was considered the
oldest
living Esperantist who had actually published in Esperanto. Pigal was,
Matejka,
Berger, in fact, its hard to name one who wasn't. To me this speaks
volumes. I
would be curious as to how many Esperantists and Idists have gone over
to
Interlingua straight from Esp or Ido.
 
Thirdly, I do not know Esperanto or Ido or Novial, etc. Although I have
read
the introductory material about them and have tried to read the
languages as
posted on the web and in the books I have. None of them, including
Interlingua
gives me the ease of comprension that I get with Occidental. Actually, I
still
find Ila more difficult to decipher than Occ. Plus, I've begun to stop
reading
much of the Ila posts along with the others because I have found it
slows the
learning process down dramatically for me, since my prime goal is to
learn
Occidental thoroughly. And, even though I had four years of schooling in
Spanish I still find Occidental much easier to comprehend than Ila.
 
Fourthly, the Occidentalists, and probably Ila and Ido and Novial etc.
to some
degree or another looked to Esperanto to help fill their ranks. The
reason
being, Esperanto attracts people to the IAL idea, but Occ., Ila, Ido,
Novial
gives them hope that there is a better way to reach the world. And,
there is,
especially [close your eyes a moment] with Occidental. Today, I for one
want to
change that and look to the public to "fill the ranks" of
Occidentalists. It's
a much easier effort since all the baggage of former training does not
get in
the way. And, as I wrote recently to someone wanting to promote the
Occidental
sites, my emphasis has now changed and 90% of my now "full time" effort
is to
take Occidental and RLR directly to the public.
 
Anyway, I am one who does not know ANY other IAL, except RLR. My
language
background, formal and informal, is English [by birth], Spanish, Koine
Greek,
Russian, Hebrew, and the only IAL prior to Occidental [which I am now
learning,
as you know], Rap Lin Rie.
 
And, I also find a couple of things with Occidental. Those folks around
me who
do not know any IAL, period, have virtually no problem at all reading
and
understanding Occidental when shown to them. This flies in the face of
what is
said by those who are deeply involved with language studies. I find that
odd,
except for the fact, we sometimes create our point of view, or
subconsciously
take up the status quo "point of view" of the "experts" without
realizing we
have done that.
 
And, secondly, I find it the easiest of all the "at sight comprensibil"
languages to read and understand. And, in almost all cases, those
languages
from Esperanto to Novial have been influenced by de Wahl more than any
other
person. His hand is in an unbelievable number of IAL's and their
improvements.
My thought is, why keep "moving" in de Wahl's direction by constantly
trying to
improve the others in that direction, why not just take up Occidental
and let's
get on with going to the world publicly with the message of "an IAL is
needed,
valuable and extremely helpful to the world, and here it is,
Occidental."?
 
Al l sue,
Bob, x+
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com