Print

Print


Je 06:10 PM 18.08.98 +0200, Michael Farris skribis:
 
>> The saucey Robert Petry wrote (and I copy-edited):
>>
>>
>> Occidental can be understood by at least a half billion people,
>> without training.
>> Occidental is a totallly complete language ready for common, legal,
>> scientific, prose, poetry, song use. It is totally complete.
>>
>>
>
>To which, the lovely Kevin retorted (again, copy-editing, courtesy of moi):
 
Oh my!  Well, at least some unknown "Kevin" can get the credit for winning=
=20
this unannounced beauty contest.  (My name is Ken.)
 
>> .  To start a correspondence with someone who knows no Esperanto you can
send a letter and a short "Key" in his language.
>
>> The advantage of having a word-building system such as Esperanto's is
>>
>>   after a weekend, the new Esperantist will be able to write in the
language.
>>
>
>You might compare the originals to see exactly what my editing was.
 
If anyone does care to go back to the originals, it should be clear that my=
=20
answer directly refers to Bob Petry's claim that after a weekend of study a=
=20
new Occidentalist would be 150% ahead of a new Esperantist.  Whatever that=
=20
means.  Or words to that effect. =20
 
>I think we've pretty conclusively proven, that supporters of a given IAL
have *no* success in trying to convince others on this list to "come over"
to their language.
 
Quite true.  In general when responding to a message I like to point out=20
points I agree with, and give reasons for disagreeing with certain parts. =
=20
Recently I've found this somewhat discouraging:  When I've pointed out=20
the inaccuracies in certain "hype" messages, the responses have been more=20
hype instead of addressing the points raised.  Downright discouragin'!
 
So for a change in pace, I responded to blatant hype with blatant hype. =20
 
Not a happy experiment.  My apologies to all who misguidedly waded through=
=20
the thread.
 
>I'm not interested in figuring out why language X or Z attracts IAList B=20
>or D. (Although it is an interesting subject, probably a great dissertation=
=20
>topic). But I think after the few months I've been around, that=
 individually=20
>and collectively we have astonishingly little success when it comes to=20
>trying to persuade others on this list that X is great and Z is filth.
 
And noone seems taken with my statements that basically any of the above=20
(X, Y, B, D, Z, ...) would be much better than what we've go now.
 
Bonan tagon al c`iuj!
 
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 |
  *-----------------------------------------------------------------*