Re: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG

En réponse à Daniel44 <Daniel44@...>:

>
> I have great difficulty finding any reference to these languages in most
> general dictionaries.
>
Then you don't look correctly. I took the nearest dictionary I could find (a
simple French "Petit Larousse Illustré" of 1994, the most basic general
dictionary you can find in France), and I found "espéranto", "espérantiste" and
"volapük" in the common nouns section as well as "Zamenhof" in the proper nouns
section. But nothing about Ido, Interlingua, Novial, etc...

>
> As I would understand it, Esperanto is what Zamenhof saw as his version
> of
> an IAL. It may well be that he spent years chopping off the odd 't' or
> adding the odd circumflex, but I think a large part of the language was
> crystallised in his mind very early on.
>
Before saying such nonsense you should at least try to know what you're talking
about. The notes of Zamenhof before and after the outcome of Esperanto have been
published and can be easily found or ordered. And in them you could see how much
evolution there was in his thinking about an IAl. For the little I saw, I could
even tell you that the primary form of what would become Esperanto resembled
your Uusisuom, as for grammar at least.

>
> This is what provoked my strong reaction. Whatever else you might say
> about
> the Uusisuom language, it is not inadequate.
>
If anyone can find it inadequate for any reason, then it is, since an auxlang is
supposed to be able to be used by *everyone* for international communication.
Personally I find Uusisuom completely inadequate for me: I can't pronounce
correctly half of the words of this language (I have no idea what is the
difference between your 'u' and your 'y', I never heard there was a difference,
and geminate stops are very hard for me - it took me ten years to pronounce
correctly a double 'tt', and I'm still not sure I'm doing it correctly, while
I'm considered by all my foreign language teachers as someone who learns
languages very easily -), while I can do for Esperanto, though it is already
quite difficult. Many of the word derivations escape me (purple associated with
anger? It doesn't even make sense, when you're angry your face gets red, not
purple. When your face gets purple it's when you're choking) so what's the point
of making such derivations if the meaning is not transparent. It makes the
language opaque and less regular. Of course, you're gonna wipe out my arguments
saying that it's not "constructive criticism" or that it's not "much of a
criticism". Well, to me it is, and you can say as much as you want that your
language is adequate as an auxlang, it's not gonna change any of my objective
arguments (yes, they are objective, whatever you may think).

>
> 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.
>
I did, and even then found more negative points about it than positive ones.
Having an objective look at Uusisuom doesn't mean that we will suddenly all
agree with you. For that, it would be necessary that *you* have an objective
look at Uusisuom, which is impossible since you are the creator of the language.

Still, I can see how you believe in what you say and the least thing I can do is
to wish you success. let's wait for ten years and we will see where is Uusisuom.
Only then we can really know whether it could succeed or not.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Replies