Print

Print


Thanks, Mike, for letting me know. I'll go ahead
and post it. This message should have gone to
the list. Methinks the list is having trouble,
it's all too human! ;)
 
Gratias de novo,
Othermike
 
Pro nonanglophonos,
methinks = I think (io pensa)
 
A 20:26 11/27/98, tu ha scribite:
>I enjoyed your answer here. Is there any specific reason you sent it to me
>off-list? Would you mind posting it or mind if I do?
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> A 14:58 11/26/98, tu scribeva:
>>
>> [Extracto]
>>
>> >I think IAL's can help in solving some language problems (mostly as an
>> >interlanguage when people from different countries do not share a native
>> >language) and are useless for others (mediating language conflicts within
>> >single countries).
>> >
>> >I think finding specific cases in which an IAL can do good is a productive
>> >approach. Currently, I think the EU translating and contact language mess
>> >is a prime opportunity. I'm not sure what any IALists are doing about
it though.
>> >
>> >
>> >Amike,
>> >Mikefarris
>> >
>> You make a very important point. One attempt to address the lingual mess
>> is in International Languages: A Matter for Interlingua, a recent
(1990s) book
>> by F. Peter Gopsill. Panorama often hashes out these issues, and I believe
>> that the Interlinguists (mainly the UMI) make fairly regular petitions to
>> the EU.
>> The Tribuna de Europa actually began at the initiative of a very prolific
>> Brazilian when the United Nations requested an Interlingua translation of
>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration Universal del
>> Derectos Human).
>>
>> Yes, I think we should address specifics. A monolithic "language problem"
>> can't really be responded to. What exactly IS the problem? We can't
define such a
>> general concept, so we can't resolve it. Instead let's enumerate exactly
what
>> things are happening and evaluate which ones we can solve, and how.
>>
>> And yes, there will be problems that an IAL just isn't made for.
>>
>> Amicalmente,
>> MikeRamsay
>
>
>
>