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.
>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.
>mistake, that's fine." Yet you guys are still dragging this out! What's the
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
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
As I say, I am happy to apologize for over-recting and draw a line under
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]