Re: WOT: auxlangs! (was Re: babel and english)
|From:||Steve Kramer <scooter@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 21, 2001, 20:51|
>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
>>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
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
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
>>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/