Re: That's *so* MULAN!!

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Leo Caesius wrote:

>     While I'm not a Ural-Altaicist (where have all the good Ural-Altaicists
> gone?  Have they all unsubscribed?)
Gone to flowers, every one....When will they ever learn?

(Or do you just mean Altaicists?  The notion that the Uralic and Altaic
languages are *specially* related, as opposed to through some macro-phylum,
is pretty well exploded these days.)

>     I have to wonder how I will be judged, on the basis of my involvement in
> certain interlinguistic circles.  After all, a man is often judged by the
> company he keeps... I suppose it might be best for me to avoid the whole
> field of auxiliary languages in total, rather than risk my reputation
> through association with them.  Be warned.
Foo.  Nobody on this list, at least, thinks auxlangs are immoral --- maybe
a bit silly.  Nobody would tar you with any brush, auxlang or otherwise.
We few, we happy few, we band of siblings.....

As for the non-conlang mundanes, any conlang associations whatever may
be bad for you if you are going to become a Very Serious Peakfrean, er,
Person.

>     It makes me sad, because I've met so many fine folks in these circles,
> and I've had lots of fun.  I also think that the idea of an international
> auxiliary language is intrinsically worthwhile and can see myself lending my
> support to this idea.
Excellent.  In that case, investigate Lojban! :-)
(http://www.lojban.org)

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.               -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"