Print

Print


Ooooh, now this is cool stuff, Rev!
I like your suggestions, Charles,
specially the fact that you mention a
unified or a cooperative sort of effort
between the groups.
 
One problem though is that it would
maybe just simply create another
dialect of the existing languages.
Do you know what I mean? Because
the die-hards of the existing IALs
would not definitely want a compromise.
This would be regrettable but the only
way to overcome this would be to
have such big numbers of users and
of public acceptance that the voice of
the few resisters to change would not
really make that much of a noise.
 
I'm kind of happy that this sort of discussion
is possible within Auxlang forum. It is the
kind of progressive thinking that seems to
have died an early death between the great
wars, despite the voices of many great
IAL protagonists, Jespersen, de Wahl,
Peano, (those are my favorites).
 
But the scientific research by IALA cannot
be overlooked. Its simple and clear method
for word acquisition is outstanding. Any
real effort to seek a common thread in
IALs would do well to look at IALA's
vocab... I should also mention that I would
also expect a project to look into de Wahl's research,
and Ido/Novial's simplifications of vocabulary.
 
Again, I must say I did enjoy reading your
post and I feel we need more of this sort.
 
Since,
Jay B.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: charles <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list AUXLANG <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Esperanto what for?
 
 
>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, James Chandler wrote:
>
>> To my mind, although I don't say that it would
>> be wrong to use or promote a planned language before it has come under
>> close scrutiny and before experience has pointed up the most disturbing
>> faults, I think that once that process has taken place then the language
>> should be improved where possible, the defects (at _least_ the worst
ones)
>> removed, and the whole thing worked out properly and to the best of our
>> abilities at that time.
>
>That would be the way to progress ... If Ido was,
>in effect, Esperanto version 2, I think that
>after 90 years a version 3 is maybe a bit overdue.
>Looking again at the Ido vocabulary, it doesn't
>really look much less "international" than IALA's.
>Just a clean-up pass, not a major revision ...
>
>Maybe the thing to do is take Esperantist criticisms
>of Ido and fix those problems, thus establishing a good
>example for language revision and repairing political
>damage remaining from Couturat's attempted coup.
>And if not many Esperantists cooperate, then try
>for a sort of reunion with Novial or IALA.
>