Re: artlangs/auxlangs/engelangs (was Re: LCC2: Meeting our Community)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

> Yes, and that is OK.  Actually, I also have spent some thoughts
> on auxlang design for the intellectual challenge of the problem
> (see http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html ),
> and one day, I will perhaps distill these thoughts into an actual
> auxlang - not to tell the rest of the world that all previous
> auxlangs suck, but to play with the challenge of designing a
> language which *could* serve as a means of international
> communication.  I guess, however, that my scheme will improve
> over Esperanto, Novial & co. only in details, if at all.
Interesting observation that _a priori_ auxlangs tend to be
philosophical languages. It seems that achieving one of the goals of
auxlangs (comparable ease of learning for speakers of any language)
would be easier with an a priori vocabulary. But it's certainly easier
to borrow words than to come up with a fitting word for each meaning.

There are aspects of IAL design which can be interesting to explore,
even without any serious intention of promoting the language. I might
try taking a break from Minza redesign for a while and see what I can
come up with. I don't think I've done an a priori con-auxlang yet....