Print

Print


On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Ken Caviness wrote (excerpted):
 
>                   The method used in Esperanto of drastically cutting down
> on the amount of needed memorization seems to be the best compromise.
 
    From time to time Ken has expressed his admiration of and
appreciation for Esperanto's word-building.  And I from time to time
have expressed my distaste for and lack of appreciation of same.  I
find the agglomerated portamanteau everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink
words of Esperanto to be a major stumbling block rather than a help,
puzzles to be figured out rather than effective means to communication.
I have repeatedly expressed my distaste for the E-o correlatives table
which, no matter how hard and how many times I try in different ways,
I just cannot master.
 
    My point is not merely to re-air old grievances.  My point is the
danger of generalizing from what one individually and personally finds
easy and likable to all of humanity.  What one person finds easy,
another may find damnably difficult.  What Ken likes and finds easy I
may not, and what I like and find easy Ken may not.  Neither Ken nor I
is the standard of worldwide "easiness" and comprehension.  That is why
conIAL design must (in my opinion) be based on a calculus of competing
values, and not merely a blind acceptance of a single principle such as
the Jespersen Criterion or Esperantic agglutinative word-building.
 
--
Paul                                  <[log in to unmask]>
..........................................................
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Keyserver (0xF383C8F9) or WWW for PGP public key
Home Page:  http://www.smart.net/~bartlett