Re: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:52:03 +0100, Daniel44 <Daniel44@...>
wrote:

>This is what provoked my strong reaction. Whatever else you might say about
>the Uusisuom language, it is not inadequate.
[...]
>I agree to the point made that Uusisuom's grammar cannot be 100.00%
regular,
>that there has to be some very minor, very technical irregularities, but it
>is worth emphasising that Uusisuom is as regular as Esperanto.
[...]
>I want to say that I have found the vast majority of people on this list to
>be very pleasant, thoughtful and intelligent people. It has only been a
very
>small number that have annoyed me with their antics (I will not name
names).
[...]
>I'm sure, with hindsight, that Oskar could have worded his mail to me much
>more carefully and tactfully and I could have replied likewise. So, I
>apologise for any offence caused.
That's it.

I've read through all the past threads about Uusisuom, both on this list
and on AUXLANG, and I've generally been quite entertained, yet puzzled at
the same time. Now, I'm just stunned. Stunned by what I feel forced to
call "insolence", on Daniel's behalf. Daniel, I'm going to have to give
you "antics"...

It is our convention to warmly receive any conlang production by anyone
writing on this list; enthusiasm and constructive criticism is the normal
reaction, whatever the conlang or its author is like. Our reception of
Uusisuom has been no exception, IMHO.

However, it is likewise convention for the authors of the presented
conlangs to humbly receive comments and appreciate the positive criticism
awarded by fellow list members. It is *not* convention to repeatedly, and
unilaterally, state the quality and merit of the creation, in big words,
_as a fact_, without comprehensive reasoning of any sort. I am not
interested in hearing once more that Uusisuom is a "unique and distinctive
language in its own right". Not because I wouldn't want that to be truth;
on the contrary. But because I'd so much rather hear _why_ and _how_ it is
so distinctive.

And to "apologize" for offence by indirectly stating that it was the
other's fault in the first place...


>The only thing I would ever ask of anyone is to take a good objective look
>at Uusisuom and consider it on its actual merits.
Daniel, have _you_ actually stopped to take a good objective look at
_others'_ conlangs, and consider them on their actual merits? I haven't
noticed any comments from you on anything beside your own conlang; how can
you expect us to consider it so enthusiastically, let alone _learn_ it (an
unprecedented expectation from a conlanger)?

---

I arrive at the heart of the matter: reasoning and discussion cannot be
unilateral. In order to convince any but the most gullible persons, it is
useless to repeat what may seem obvious to you. We, being reasonably
intelligent persons, require at least rudimentary arguments to be convinced
of anything at all. Intercommunication is what this mailing list is for,
and for that matter, so is this internet technology, and of course all
these languages we love so much.

---

Finally, and most importantly: this reply is not intended to offend you,
Daniel, nor to belittle you or your efforts. I simply want to make clear my
opinions on recent writings, as honestly and fairly as possible :) I hope
that you will find the peace within you to receive my outstretched hand,
and consider my words and those of others here (and elsewhere).

Regards,
Óskar

Replies