Re: LUNATIC again

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Robert J. Petry wrote:

> I, along with others, support specific auxlangs. However, I have never felt,
> nor do I now, that if mine were to "succeed" that it would place the others
> out of business or make them failures. In fact, if it were to gather millions
> of users, that would only help the others achieve their slot in the scheme of
> things. Why? Because the world would become familiar with the idea. So
> Esperanto would grow too. And the others. Or, if Esperanto took off like a
> rocket, then Occidental, etc. would grow also. Primarily two world wars coming
> so close together wiped out most of the progress these two languages made
> before our era. And, now maybe the time for a renewed interest, and a comeback
> of the strong ones.
I should actually reword my question:

                How do these various auxlangs perceive the option
                of working together or for each other?  As I peruse
                John's Lojban pages, I note that Lojban often uses
                Esperanto to spread news about itself.

> I believe the three most used languages of this kind, Volapu"k, Esperanto, and
> Occidental up to the second world war, are still basically the same today,
> although there have been attempts at reform. But no reform yet has attained
> even the size Volapu"k achieved at its height.
                Does Volapuk still have a big fan following?  BTW.
                I found the webpage...that is one of the webpages.
                I seemed to have forgotten Richard Kennaway's helpful
                pages.

At one time, in the late 1920's
> through the 1930's up to WWII, size wise there were two very active auxlangs,
> Esperanto and Occidental. The so-called "artificial" language and the
> "natural" language.

                Interesting!  The two world wars cutting into the
                middle, so to speak, of these attempts to unite
                the world.
>
> > I am sure all of this is completely old hat to you auxlangers, and
> > that's why few of you are jumping to answer my queries.
>
> You know, I think it might seem silly, but maybe we should call ourselves
> langer. Most all the "auslangs" I know of are "constructed" in some manner or
> other. So, maybe some of us are langers who construct, and others are langers
> who us auxiliary languages, etc.
>
Well, somebody else suggested that "conlang" is already the real header,
and the list was in use before the auxlang list formed its own.  I submit
we should all be conlangers, but that artlang be the term to be
distinguished from auxlang.  I've been intrigued before by its ambiguous
significance, as both "artificial language" and "artistic language."

Sally
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sally Caves

Li fetil'aiba, dam hoja-le uen.
volwin ly, vul inua aiba bronib.

This leaf, the wind takes her.
She's old, and born this year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++