Re: WOT: auxlangs! (was Re: babel and english)

>In a message dated 20.08.2001 03:17:28 PM, scooter@BUSER.NET writes:
>
>>auxlangs have a more concrete and theoretically 'perfect' goal in mind of
>universal
>>communication, therefore the aim is more scientific.
>
>    *snarfle* "more scientific"?  ROTFFLMFAO
>    As a former Interlingua and Glosa IAList, I can say with some
>justification that the idea of one IAL or auxlang for the world is not a very
>scientific endeavor. It MAYBE possible to create an useable one for Western
>European nations and its former colonies, but an auxlang for the world seems
>to be impossible for many reasons besides linguistic ones...and pointless in
>the face of the mass appeal/seduction of the English language.
>    Perhaps there will be a day when a vastly different English is
>spoken/used world-wide as an auxlang.
I was speaking of auxlangs in comparison to conlangs, and what their differing
aims were.  Conlangs are, IMO, primarily an artistic exercise, if not entirely.
Auxlangs have a more precise theoretical goal in mind...I'll stand by that
characterization, "scientific".

Note that I'm speaking of theory, not reality.  In reality, what you describe
is much more probable, particularly the bit about a reform of English becoming
an IAL.

>>Alas, the features of such
>>a theoretically 'perfect' language are still very open to debate.
>
>SEE Richard Harrison's essay "Farewell to Auxilary languages" (I believe that
>is the title) at: http://www.invisiblelighthouse.com/langlab/
>
Again, the idea of a universal language is ambitious in the extreme.  I
wouldn't consider this bit of information to be news.  But, as well, I make it a
practice never to laugh at dreamers.  :->

--
Steve Kramer   -=oOo=-   scooter at buser dot net
Thought for today:
"To get as many goals as Wayne Gretzky got last week."
Hockey player Glenn Anderson, on what his goals were
for the rest of the season