Re: OT: auxlangers vs. artlangers (was OT: lingua fracas)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

>I ... am mildly sceptical about the whole idea of an artificial
>international auxiliary language; ...
>
Does anyone know if discussing English (Spanish, etc.) as an IAL be
off-topic on AUXLANG? (Not that I intend to do it, just wondering.)

>This is especially apparent in "philosophical" language schemes auch
>as Ygyde (to give a recent example that shows that philosophical languages
>are *not* a 17th-century matter that is now entirely discarded).
>The result are bizarre, unworkable proposals with a streak of madness
>running straight through them.
>
Yep, sounds like Pidse-as-an-IAL. Skip the 'unworkable' and you have
Pidse-as-a-conlang :)

>This of course raises the question, why is auxlanger linguistics so doggy?
>
My guess is it's different intentions. Artlangers, generally, are after
imitation or exploration. Auxlangers are after a language that everyone
will use and will put them into history books. You see it so often:
things designed to make its creator famous are often of a lower quality
than things made for the fun of it (though of course not always). How
many times have you heard it: people complaining about having so-and-so
as leader of such-and-such because they only want to *be* the leader.
Instead, you should put someone who *doesn't* want to have that position
in charge. (And again, as all broad generalisations, that has its share
of exceptions, but it's the idea that counts.) Well, that's my theory.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Replies