On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Ken Caviness wrote: > Je 09:36 PM 11/23/98 +0100, Michael Farris skribis: > > >James Chandler wrote: > > > >> Basically, I belong to the Bruce Gilson school of thought on these matters: > >> that we should get together as much material as possible from anywhere and > >> everywhere, and make it publicly accessible. Only when we have all the > >> information in can we begin to weed out the disinformation, and finally > >> come to a decision on the best form of planned language to propose to the > >> world. > > > >You're making progress James, but you're still on the wrong track. The question > >is not "How can we create the ideal IAL?" it's "How can we get people to use an > >IAL, _any_ IAL?" > > Hear, hear! I think there is more than one question worth asking. The current IALs, all of them, are just plain not good enough by my estimate. Getting people involved now is good, using the langs is good, but freezing development now is not really an option. None of the IALs is both easy to speak and easy to parse by computers. None of them are as simple in phonology and syntax and morphology as most East Asian languages. "Weighed and found wanting."