> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jorg Rhiemeier
> > I agree that conlanging goals form a continuum and not discrete
> > points. The "Balkanization" you mention is only necessary to the
> > degree that auxlangers as a species are prone to proselytization
and
> > internecine squabbles that tend to spill over
> extranecinelly. Not by
> > any means a universal trait, and certainly one that can be
overcome,
> > but unfortunately common enough to have caused the split of
auxlang
> > from conlang in the first place.
>
> Yes. This is indeed the case. People who design new auxlangs are
> always aware that many, many other auxlangs have been proposed
before,
> and sooner or later are confronted with the question, "What's so
great
> about your proposal that we should adopt it rather than English or
> Esperanto?" This question gives an auxlanger only two options:
>
> 1. Abandon the proposal and shut up.
>
> 2. Tell the world that all other auxlang proposals (especially the
> major ones) are crap, and that a new proposal is necessary.
>
> Most auxlangers are too proud to choose option #1 and instead
> go for option #2.
The problem with this is that it's not that black or white. Designing
an auxlang is a form of problem solving, and there are often many
diffent approaches and solutions to achieve the same goal.
It's true that there are some auxlangers behave like religious
fanatics, but not all. I prefer to design auxlangs because of the
problem-solving aspects involved, and because it puts me in touch with
a variety of natangs while I conduct research for them. I have no
great expectations that any of my creations will ever become anything,
and would even be surprised if one of them got a small cult following.
Regardless, the design criteria used will still be based upon auxlang
usage. I also have a couple of engelangs. The closest I have to an
artlang would probably be the personal language I'm working on. It's
goal is simply to be anything I want it to be.
> And there we have that proselytization business that caused such
> heated debate in CONLANG before it was banned, and still does so in
> AUXLANG. The problem is simply that international auxiliary
languages
> are subject what I semi-humorously call the "Highlander condition":
> *There can be only one.* The point of an auxlang, after all, is
that
> the whole world adopts *one single language* for international
> communication. *One* language will be chosen (if at all), and *all
> others* go to the junkyard.
Yes, that's the idea. But that doesn't mean *we* (as a collective
group) have to choose one. We could (though that's not the reality
right now) conduct it like a friendly rivalry and see which one, if
any, ultimately prevails, but you are right that there is a warlike
approach to the situation where many choose a language and view the
others as "the enemy."