Re: Auxlangs here (was: Tedious etc.)

At 1:55 pm -0400 6/5/01, John Cowan wrote:
>Raymond Brown scripsit:
>
>> ....and can't we keep auxlangs where they belong?  I mean, there was a
>> reason for setting up a separate Auxlang list.
>
>*defensively*
To be honest, I'd forgotten your JIAL, even tho indirectly it lead to the
exchange between the two Davids.

It was Wiz ~ Tuentimin exchange that prompted my remark above.  The
hall-marks - misundrstandings, lack of humor, ad_hominem attack - are the
very things that drove me off Auxlang.

>I only brought up my auxlang because 1) I had actually begun to think
>about it and 2) I *only* mean to discuss its technical details here.
Indeed, on one list that we both know so far we have been able to do
exactly that, viz. discuss the technical details of an IAL, without the
discussion becoming vituperative.  But this is an open list and I'm sure
both you & I can recall IAL discussions that have started off with the best
of intentions and then got heated & nasty.

[snip]
>
>I have *no* intention of getting involved in actually trying to
>push JIAL as a Primary World IAL.  Life is too short.
I know & I know you'd react positively to helpful criticism.  But IME
creators of conIALs actually do intend to promote their creations.  As Rick
Harrison observed, the auxlang world is by nature competitive and that
competitiveness too often leads to flames.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

At 4:13 pm -0400 6/5/01, Oskar Gudlaugsson wrote:
[snip]
>
>Funny that Raymond Brown should have said that; I didn't notice. Perhaps
>his words lack context;
The context was the Wiz ~ Tuentimin exchange.

>usually, he's defended the theoretical discussion of auxlangs here.
The theoretical discussion of any conlang should be possible here IMHO.  So
far no flaming has been generated AFAIK by discussions on artlangs or
loglangs.  It's the pesky auxlangs that one has too watch.

>Anyway, my auxlang designs are of the same nature as
>yours; I prefer to call it artlanging, because my intentions are simply
>personal pleasure and intellectual exercise.
If all auxlang designers had the same attitude as John & Oskar, there'd be
no problem.  What Oskar says here is precisely what I say about my
"briefscript" project.

>Auxlang design just happens to
>be such a wonderfully challenging subject, which is why I'm attracted to it.
It is- there are so many conflicting goals that one has to reconcile.

>Auxlang power-politics and campaigning are intolerable and should be well
>kept out of this otherwise highly productive list. I'm sure we all agree :)
Hear, hear!  As I've maybe mentioned once or twice, that's why Auxlang was
established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At 6:20 pm -0400 6/5/01, Padraic Brown wrote:
[snip]
>If it's just an artlang that you think might make a cool auxlang too;
>either make clear that the idea is not serious (Europanto) or just
>keep it in pectore.
Interestingly, altho Europanto started out as a huge joke, there is now a
serious vein to it.  It seems that there has been some use of Europanto for
more serious intra-European communication; there are signs that Europanto
could be developing a more stable form as more people use it and that this
is a far more likely way for an artificial IAL to _evolve_ than the
traditional blue-print of an individual (or, occassionally, committee).

Viva Europanto!    :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case......
At 2:09 pm -0400 6/5/01, David Peterson wrote:
[snip]

>    In my defense, my language is called "Wivojs", and I didn't want to
>present it as a serious IAl--not at all.  I said it COULD be, and in fact
>said I'd have to change a couple of things if I actually wanted it to be
>(which I don't).  Anyway, I've already apologized to David, and I certainly
>hope you all can forgive me.  I'm ready to get back to normal things.
Amen.

Let's move on.

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================

Reply