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

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:47, you wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:52:59 +0200
> > From: Jrg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
> >
> > This of course raises the question, why is auxlanger linguistics so
> > doggy? I don't know. Perhaps it is that someone who understands the
> > way languages work realizes that the whole enterprise of creating an
> > artificial international auxiliary language is a hunting of a snark,
> > so the good linguists abandon the auxlang quest (if they ever
> > embarked in it) and the bad linguists stay on.
>
> Or perhaps it is that people with a good feeling for language, skilled
> linguists or not, will realize that the little details don't really
> matter that much for learnability or usability. If they should want to
> further the cause of one common IAL, they will sit back and wait for
> the fanatics to agree on which one.
>
> Or they speak Esperanto and are done with the discussion already.
Or perhaps - i my case at least - I grew up speaking an IAL - a Pidgin - and
know how the whole thing works from simple observation.  So I don't have any
eggs to fry.

Because, people will do what people will do - with a minimum of outside
promting, and sometimes they even get it right.

Wesley Parish

>
> Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT
> marked)
--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."