Re: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG

Christophe Grandsire wrote:


> This I cannot let pass. I really have to correct this untruth. [...]
> [Zamenhof] was ready to change everything that he was said
> was not fit, and that includes a lot: [...] His only requirement was that the
> changes would have to
> be accepted by the majority of the Esperantists [...] a vote happened, where
> Esperantists had to choose [...].
Some, at least, hold that Z. proposed a package of changes which he knew
would not pass the vote, in order to squelch further change.  (This is not
intended to be unsympathetic to Z; the Lojban community has struggled
for many years between the desire for stability and the danger of stasis.)

> That's quite different from the attitude of Schleyer (or Schreyer? cannot
> remember his name),
Schleyer.  If the man had had an "r" in his name, his language probably
would have too.  :-)  (-gua!spi has /a E i I o u/ probably because Jim Carter
wanted to be [djIm] not [djim]).

> "Your" objectives. you just said it. It satisfies "your" objectives. the problem
> is that an auxlang is not there to satisfy one person but a whole community.
> Zamenhof had understood that, Schleyer hadn't. Esperanto had the biggest
> community of speakers of all IALs, Volapük one of the smallest.
At the present time, yes.  But in fact E. cannibalized the V. community:
many of the original Esperanto societies were former V. societies.

--
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein