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

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!

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

>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:
.......
><ramblings types="listmanager multi-year-subscriber">
>It is, in principle, possible to discuss auxlangs as objects without the
>problems of advocacy, but in practice it's proved very difficult both here
>and on AUXLANG.
>
>The distinction that has seemed to work is that almost all linguistic
>issues are open game here (given some relevance to constructed languages or
>language construction) -- except for issues relating to suitability as an
>IAL. Those issues that involve value judgements on suitability as an IAL go
>to AUXLANG,
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.

Otherwise we get this sort of personalized response, which I found all too
often on AUXLANG:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'?

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.

As I've said once or twice recently:
LET'S GET BACK TO CONLANGING, PLEASE!

Ray.