Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Let's move on (was: Apologia pro verbis suis (wasR: Esperanto, flame-wars etc.....

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, April 23, 2001, 17:59
At 3:43 pm -0400 22/4/01, David Peterson wrote:
>In a message dated 4/22/01 3:14:07 AM, ray.brown@FREEUK.COM writes: > ><< He seemed to me - and maybe I misunderstood David again - to imply I was > >complaining that Volapük & Novial never made it. I was not! >> > > There was something very simple that I understood in your e-mail that >wasn't intended. I don't see why you guys made such a big deal about it.
Sadly, in my case I guess it's reaction after being flamed so often by Esperanto extremists on Auxlang. My reaction - which hopefully was wrong - was: "Oh no, not another one on this list as well!" I hastened to add that I have had useful & informative discussions with reasonable, moderate Esperantists. But as everywhere, fanatical extremists seem to shout the loudest. Sorry about my over-reaction.
> It >was the sentence at the end that said, "Pity history has proved them wrong". >Obviously (unless you put the word "sarchasm" in parentheses next to what you >say) you can't tell if someone's being serious or sarchastic or flippant or >anything through e-mail. I thought you were talking seriously,
Oh, I was being serious - but you misunderstood and, now you point it out, I see why. The serious point I was trying to make is that whether a conIAL does well has little or nothing to do with what theorists say makes for "ease of learning". I've come across phrases like "Pity history has proved them wrong" quite a few times where someone points out what a particular theory implies and where those implications simply doesn't match up to what actually happened, i.e. there must be something wrong with the theory. I'm sorry you misunderstood & that I was not more alert to the ambiguity of what I said. [snip]
>mistake, that's fine." Yet you guys are still dragging this out! What's the >deal?
To be fair, some of your language like "extreme trilobiters" (inter alia) did not help. It certainly sounded to me like the partisan ranting of that other list. I think we both over-reacted and I, for my part, am willing to apologize and draw a line under the episode.
><<No - let us discuss these and other projects as *constructed languages* and > >leave the politicking to Auxlang.>> > > So what's the hold up? Los!
Don't understand the last word. But Auxlang was set up specifically to handle the politics of international languages; indeed, it has been suggested here from time to time, that _all_ matters to do with auxlangs should be confined to that list (because of the flame-wars they seem to engender) and that Conlang concern itself only with artlangs (the majority interest) and loglangs. But the general opinion (with which I agree) is that this would impoverish the list and that auxlangs are fair discussion as _contructed languages_ but that the politics of auxlang do not belong here. I have tried to be neutral & objective when discussing Esperanto and other constructed IALs. Less I'm misunderstood again, may I assure you that I am not against Esperanto and I would object to anyone using this list for anti-Esperanto proganda. As I say, I am happy to apologize for over-recting and draw a line under the episode. Ray. ========================================= A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language. [J.G. Hamann 1760] =========================================