Apologia pro verbis suis (wasR: Esperanto, flame-wars (was: Re: Unilang: the Morphology))
|From:||Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, April 22, 2001, 10:13|
I hesitate to reply - but if I have one weakness, it is that I do not like
being misrepresented. I know it's a human weakness, but the trouble is I'm
At 12:42 am +0100 22/4/01, Dan Jones wrote:
>Raymond Brown wrote:
>> At 1:38 pm -0400 20/4/01, David Peterson wrote:
>> >In a message dated 4/20/01 10:11:34 AM, ray.brown@FREEUK.COM writes:
>> ><< According to the conventional wisdom in Auxland, Esperanto should be
>> >least successful of those three languages. Pity facts upset theory :)
>> > Why does everyone seem to be so against Esperanto?
>> Eh?? WHO??
>I don't believe he was referring to anyone in particular.
Then why did he quote my email?
>> As far as I have seen in the last couple of years or so, at least, there
>> no-one on this present this is "so against Esperanto".
>Did he say there was?
What does "everyone" mean if it does not mean 'every person'? Certainly, as
I saw it, he seemed to imply that I was.
If, indeed, I have misunderstood David, then I'm truly sorry.
>IAL Klingon- it has my vote! I think the point David was trying to make is
>that although E-o was envisioned as an IAL, it doesn't really matter if it
>achieves this goal- it's just another conlang made good. I wish I could say
>the same for Cuole or Carashan!
Maybe you are right. But David did also write (and I did ignore it in my
"And while Esperanto has its faults, I say if you're going to have a
universal auxilliary language (a big "if" for many, I know), it might as
well be the front runner. If there were too many choices out there the
whole idea would be destroyed. Just let survival of the fittest take its
course and don't complain about the extinct trilobiters in our past."
...which does not seem to me to imply: "that although E-o was envisioned as
an IAL, it doesn't really matter if it achieves this goal- it's just
another conlang made good."
He seemed to me - and maybe I misunderstood David again - to imply I was
complaining that Volapük & Novial never made it. I was not!
I merely used those three languages as examples of constructed IALs which
had noun declensions, since that was the topic being discussed.
It is a tad insulting to call other IALs except one's favorite "trilobiter"
(and, of course, Volapük ain't extinct - some people still use it and, for
all you & I know, there may be some active Volapukists on this list).
Indeed, the whole paragraph is surely auxlang politics which, I thought, is
what Auxlang had been specifically set up to handle.
If we adopted the premise " I say if you're going to have a universal
auxilliary language ........ it might as well be the front runner.", then
why are we having emails about Uusisuom and Unilang?
No - let us discuss these and other projects as *constructed languages* and
leave the politicking to Auxlang.
>> I've heard all this stuff _AD NAUSEAM_ on Auxlang. I quitted that list
>> because I was fed up, among other things, at the petty peevishness of some
>> Esperantists, Glosa-pe & others. I hoped we could be spared it here.
>IMHO, this does sound rather petty-peevish itself. Why not just let the
You're maybe right - but I've heard this sort of stuff so often I'm just
fed up with it. I really, truly did hope not to meet it here again; and I
was trying to make the point that the Auxlang politicking is not welcome
I agree that maybe I could've put it across better.
If David's comment had been made in response to an email from you or,
indeed, another conlanger, I would have ignored it. But, as I said, I do
not like being misrepresented.
Also, as I said, if I have misunderstood what David said, I am sorry and am
more than happy to apologize to him.
>I don't want to sound like to seem like I'm setting myself up as judge and
>jury here, but it always seems to be the same people who start the flame
>wars. You know who you are, I don't need to name names (I've done it myself
>a couple of times, but I've behaved myself since the Easter before last
..and I've tried to behave myself since my little difference of opinion
with Bob Petry. (If you noticed, when Bob re-surfaced on this list again
not so long ago we were both very civil to one another :)
At 2:46 am +0200 22/4/01, Henrik Theiling wrote:
>Dan Jones <feuchard@...> writes:
>> Please, let's stop taking offence at implied corrections etc and talk about
>> conlanging- otherwise we could have a second AUXLANG on our hands.
>I never was on that list. And I feel like I shouldn't subscribe... :-)
Very wise IMO.
>Why I was not on auxlang: why ask for a purpose? Just make a funny
>language. It's like knitting. (Ok, knitting does have a purpose: the
>resulting socks might eventually be used.)
Unless the sock fairy gets them :)
I often compare my auxlanging efforts to solving crosswords - its the
intellectual challenge that appeals to me. Indeed, if a crossword has a
large money prize attached to it, that usually puts me off.
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]