Re: IAL Re: another new language to check out

Combined replies to David, Jim & Ray, so as not to exceed
posting limit.

David:
> Jim wrote:
[...]
> And And responded:
> <<Why would this make Aiola (or any IAL) *good*? You say that Aiolans
> shouldn't fret that Aiola does pretty much what the other twenty
> thousand IALs do. But it strikes me that the one and only decent
> reason for working on a new IAL is if its design is genuinely better
> than other IALs (and natlangs for that matter).>>
>
> I think Jim's point was that, in reality, no IAL's going to cut the
> mustard as far as design goes.
I don't know if that was his point, but it did seem to be his premise,
and I was disagreeing with it. I would argue that it is possible to
design a language that, by a set of reasonable criteria, is better
than other languages, and that the world benefits from a new IAL
design only if it is such a better language.

[...]
> <<Presumably IALs are created mainly for fun,>>
> I don't agree with that. Or, at least it's not true of most of
> the IAL's that I know of.
It strains my credulity to think that most IALs are created in
the sincere belief that they stand a chance of actually getting
used as IALs. So what is the motivation for creating them, then?
Fun, is my best guess, but I agree that that doesn't square
with the manner in which their authors tend to publish them.

Jim:
> My assumption is that a concerted effort to put Aiola into use
> would create the best opportunities for improving its grammar
> and vocabulary.
That is true for a language with a bogstandard IAL design.

> If ARG settles on its existing design features for the time being, and
> concentrates all its efforts on getting people to use Aiola, first
> ARG-internally and then in other environments, eventual design
> improvements will be dictated by the demands of actual discourse,
> rather than interminable a priori auxlang debates.
My involvement in the Lojban project proved to me that this is in
fact not possible. Either you let the design emerge organically
through usage, or you have to tinker away at getting the design
right. Actual discourse can serve as beta testing, but it doesn't
magically obviate the need for intensive tinkering.

> Why not just use an existing AIAL?  History.  Volapuek died at least
> partly from squabbles over how it should be used.   The Esperanto
> movement is mired in pointless disagreements about design and pie-in-
> the-sky visions of grass-roots promotion.
What little I know of Esperanto gives me the impression that it is
the least pie-in-the-skyey of IALs -- because it actually does have
a sizable international speech community.

Ray:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 01:15 , And Rosta wrote:
>
> > I went & had a look at Aiola.
> >
> > Nonrhetorically, I want to ask why people create IALs --
>
> Why do people create artlangs, loglangs, engelangs etc.?
Mainly because of the creative impulse that motivates art or
design. It's harder to believe that is the impulse for
creating IALs, though, because, as I said originally, it
is hard to understand what creative satisfaction is to
be had from creating something that is pretty indistinguishable
from innumerable other instances of the same genre. Hence my
bemusement & my question.

> > but I don't understand how come
> > it is fun to create something very similar to innumerable
> > existing members of the same category.
>
> Yes, they do have an almost predictable similarity, don't they. But when
> one considers what some people will do for fun & the trouble they'll go
> to, this seems relatively mild and harmless.
Certainly it's harmless.

> > ................. Nor do I understand why IALs are published
> > with the usual IAL message: "this IAL is the solution to
> > the usual problems IALs are touted as solutions to, and it
> > is better than other IALs".
>
> Ah, but that's practically mandatory in Auxland.
*Why*, though. Even if IALism is a kind of harmless lunacy, why is
it such a prevalent one, and why are the symptoms of the syndrome
so consistent across different manifestations?

> However, I promise (and
> flame me mercilessly, please, if I don't keep the promise) _not_ to do
> this if ever BrScA or BrScB (whatever their names turn out to be) are
> published.
Though ironically BrSc would likely offer something genuinely new
and worth taking an interest in.


> ================================================
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 06:49 , Adam Walker wrote:
>
> > --- And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote:
> >>  -- a kind of
> >> elective
> >> blindness to Reason, akin in nature to religious
> >> Faith?
> >>
> >> --And.
> >
> > And, I find this highly offensive.  Faith is not
> > "elective blindness to Reason".
>
> Offensive? Yes, indeed, if I could take it seriously. But I found it silly
> and, in view of the well-known religious allegiances of many members of
> this list (and And has been here longer than I and ought to be even more
> aware of them), very insensitive.
[...]
I feel I can't really address your discussion of faith, because it would
be so off topic. Let me just say that if I were to reply at length on
this point, I would defend what I said, argue that it is not
inconsistent with much of what you said, and argue that elective
blindness to Reason is not necessarily bad or immoral or something
to be disclaimed -- indeed it may often be the moral course. In
other words, I would reject the inference you appear to have drawn
that elective blindness to reason is necessarily some kind of
bigotry or stupidity.

I would also insist on the apparent similarities between IALism and
religious faith, while also insisting that the comparison is not
necessarily insulting to either IALists or those with religious
faith.

I do realize that the merest mention of religion on Conlang is
liable to cause offence somewhere or other (--oddly enough,
the same is true of IALs!), but I take that as a sad fact of
life that we must weather as amiably as our individual
capabilities allow.

--And.

Replies