Re: Let's return to conlanging (was: Li Lingue Modern)

"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:

> At 2:27 pm +0000 31/10/98, Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> >Ray wrote :
> >
> >> Why do we need these competing forms of neo-Latin?
> .........
> >
> >I was warned not to discuss auxlangs here
>
> An excellent warning IMO!
Why does it have to be a "warning"? Is there a hit squad on this list? And, who
heads it, eh? And, are you backing the warning with your own form of threat? Why?

> >but I could not help this time and made the mistake to ask in a previous
> >post what neo-Latin conlang would most appeal to fellow conlangers
> >speaking a Latin language for the only sake of curiosity. So John Petry
> >was trying to convince me.
>
> Except, of course, that Bob's 1st lang. is English.
What's that got to do with anything. So is yours, and many if not most others on
this list. So why should that be a put down just for me?

>  I assume the point of
> the question is that it is often held that Romance speakers like
> 'Euroclones' less than others do because they look so often like parodies
> of their own language.
I don't understand this thinking.

> BUT IMHO this very valid question, which indeed I have asked some Romance
> speakers privately,  really does belong to AUXLANG.
What was the question?

> >I can understand that the friendly atmosphere on CONLANG makes AUXLANGers
> >feel like discussing auxlangs here.
>
> And at 10:52 am -0400 30/10/98, David G. Durand wrote:
> .......
> [kut]
> AMEN!!  I really do think we ought to try to stick with David's rules of
> thumb and keep this list a conlang-friendly place for all those who are
> genuine language constructors.
It appears to me that I didn't cross any forbidden barriers by asking if anyone had
SEEN before, or could READ this now. What's the big deal Ray? And David's rules he
just posted I can say AMEN to also, because from what he wrote, I see nothing wrong
in the post I did. AMEN!! and AMEN!!

> Otherwise we get this sort of personalized response, which I found all too
> often on AUXLANG:
What do you call your response, impersonal? Your first response was a seeming
attack and very personal to me.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> At 8:53 am -0700 31/10/98, Robert J. Petry wrote:
> >"Mathias M. Lassailly" wrote:
> .............
> >> Now I'd like to read in Interlingue :
> >>
> >> I'm scooping leek soup from my plate with a spoon and I'll take some
> >>more coq-au-vin from that pan.
> >> I watch deers in the clearing at dawn when dew still pearls on grass tufts.
> >
> >[kut]
> >
> >Sounds like fun to me.
>
> BUT at 9:31 am -0700 31/10/98, Robert J. Petry wrote:
> >"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:
> >
> >> At 8:49 am +0000 31/10/98, Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> .........
> >> >Now I'd like to read in Interlingue :
> >> >
> >> >I'm scooping leek soup from my plate with a spoon and I'll take some more
> >> >coq-au-vin from that pan.
> >> >I watch deers in the clearing at dawn when dew still pearls on grass tufts.
> >>
> >> So would I  :)
> >
> >Nice negative thinking here. Why? Why is this kind of response called for?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So which is it? 'Fun' or 'nice negative thinking'?
I was responding to Mathias' first post as fun, and to yours as negative thinking
after reading the seeming put down you posted. If that had not been said I would
not have responded.

> Sorry, but this sort of double-think & the rest of the response, with its
> distortion of my arguments & the seemingly inevitable Auxlanger's rant, to
> which I will _not_ reply here, is so typical of the sort of thing that
> drove me off AUXLANG.
Here is your post I was responding to, read the whole thing and you'll see why I
had the second response.
Ray scrit: Yep - and what does it prove other than that an educated person from an
Anglo-Romance culture can read it fairly readily.  Difficulty would likely
increase as one moved eastward across Europe; and when one moves into Asia
not only is education needed but a knowledge of Latin-based occidental
language(s).

Indeed, why even bother with a conlang?  I could read the above just as
readily in Italian.
[Are conlangs only good when you can't read them at first sight? Do they have to be
totally unrecognizeable to fit your criteria of a conlang?]

>
>Now I'd like to read in Interlingue :
>
>I'm scooping leek soup from my plate with a spoon and I'll take some more
>coq-au-vin from that pan.
>I watch deers in the clearing at dawn when dew still pearls on grass tufts.
So would I  :)

>Also prepositions are tricky in auxlangs : you must learn by heart the
>verbs and substantives with their different abstract prepositions :
>'es basat sur'
>'es per su construction'
>'derivation de'
>Most prepositions are like cases in the eyes of Chinese, Japanese and
>Eastern Asians who use nouns, verbs or adverbs as prepositons.
Yep - 'sur' is hardly a literal use in the above example.  But fortunately
the same metaphore exist in English   :)

[snip]
>So I value Interlingue is a good Latin auxlang. But I still prefer Latin
>Sin Flexion which took the stance to claim and accept its Latin filiation.
Yep - and I've certainly never found Interlingue more readily
comprehensible than Interlingua (of either variety  :)

Why do we need these competing forms of neo-Latin?
[again, a complete misdirection, It is not a newo-Latin. This is just an excuse.]

In any case what is this doing on CONLANG?  I thought we were concerned
with _constructing_ languages.  It seems to me inappropriate on this list
to be pushing the claims of an _auxlang_ constructed decades ago.  Isn't
that what the AUXLANG list is for?  Or have I misunderstood something.
[WHAT claim did I assert in that post? Absolutely none. I quoted what was already
written.]

I think a mirror is appropriate here. And, please don't respond to what you began,
and now blame me for. This has occurred often with your posts Ray, if one will read
the archives, and not just with me.

> As I've said once or twice recently:
> LET'S GET BACK TO CONLANGING, PLEASE!
Why are you the one always to make statements like this? You bait someone with your
responses, and when they reply, you then tell everyone let's get back to
conlanging. It happens over and over again. And, for harmony's sake, I won't reply
further to this thread, but I no longer feel obligated to keep quiet about certain
typical tactics that keep coming up over and over again from just one or two folks
on each list.

And, don't worry folks, relax, I promise, I won't reply on this again. But, I will
speak up when I see tactics like this pulled on other conlangers who have other
ideas that may not please certain individuals.

Al l sue,
Bob, x+