LUNATIC again

Sally Caves wrote:

>         In other words, what's at stake?  Why does AUXLANG have
>         the reputation for flame wars, and CONLANG not?
I think Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach gives us a useful viewpoint:

        The philosophers have only interpreted the world
        in various ways; the point is to change it.

Auxlangers as a rule want to make such changes in the world:
specifically, they want an auxlang, either already existing or soon to
be created, to become a widely spoken second language.

Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there is at most
one slot for such a thing, so if "my" auxlang "succeeds", then
by definition "your" auxlang "fails".  So far all have "failed".

Artists, including conlang artists, don't typically take this particular
competitive attitude: their works are not meant to *refute*
or *supersede* the works of others.

>         Is it because people have to work together in AUXLANG
>         and disputes naturally arise, whereas
>         CONLANGERS can work in isolation...but they sacrifice
>         team effort and involvement?
No, I think not.  Lojban was preeminently a team effort, with the
membership of the team fluctuating from time to time, and there
were plenty of disputes, but rather few flamewars.  Advocacy *of*
a language seems to be different from technical disputes about the
details of the language itself.

Anyway, I object to the use of "conlang" to
exclude "auxlang"; there are auxlangs, artlangs, and some conlangs
which are neither.  For example, Loglan/Lojban and L=E1adan are
"experimental" conlangs, and there are also "pedagogical" conlangs,
etc.

-- =

John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)