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

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]
=========================================