Re: Futurese

 --- Jeff Jones wrote:

> >If I posted it
> >here it was precisely to try to get some help in developing
> >it, a help which up to this moment nobody here seems willing
> >to offer, since almost every reply to my post has been
> >definitely aggressive and destructive, as if my proposal was
> >a peril and I a wicked demon that had to be beaten down.
> The nasty behavior of some list members here lately (and not just on this
> thread) has been sickening -- it's they who've been demons. People put on a
> kind face until they see someone they think nobody cares about (on this
> list, IAL makers and "fruitcakes", I guess), then it's "Hooray, a helpless
> victim!"
I'm very sorry, but this kind of silly, childish reactions really make
me angry. What is the point of throwing mud at each other in this way?
An argument can be fierce, heated, sometimes it even should be, but
that may by no means be a reason for taking things so personally as to
accuse other people of being "demons".

I don't think the label "IAList" or "auxlanger" must a priori be
understood as an offense. There are definitely those, who think they can
create the world's future language, the Auxlang To End All Other Auxlangs,
from behind their own desk. But there are also auxlangers who create an
"international language" just for the fun of making a hybrid encompassing
as many languages as possible, and making it as easy as possible.

Javier make it perfectly clear that his language belongs to the latter
category; and as such, there is nothing wrong in discussing it in a
conlang forum, as long as discussions about the usefulness of an IAL
are being avoided.

It might be true, that some people are slightly over-sensitive at this
point, but let's not forget that auxlangers are conlangers too. Many of
us have been toying with the idea, and some of us still do. I don't see
anything wrong in that, let alone a reason to expel someone to the auxlang
list.

But then, I am a bit surprised by Javier's defensive reaction on the
replies on his post. Everybody will recall a recent thread initiated by
Jesse Bangs about constructive language criticism. It was agreed, that
if someone submits something for comment, reactions should go further
than: "Halleluja, great thing you made" or "Your language sucks", and
that instead helpful criticism would be greatly appreciated. Now, the
best way to achieve this, is to judge a language by its own standards.

In his initial post on Futurese, Javier defines those standards as
follows:
"The main goal of futurese is to be as culturally neutral, logical and
easy to use and learn as possible."

So, nothing strange if the discussion concentrates as a result on such
aspects as cultural neutrality and easiness to pronounce and learn.
That was the nature of the reactions that came; no reason at all for
being offended. If you can't cope with criticism, then don't ask for
it.

And about the "fruitcake" discussion: it started from a misunderstanding
that was cleared up quickly, and continued as a discussion about the
usage of words. I can't remember that during the whole thread anyone has
ever offended someone else on purpose.

Jan

=====
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought,
wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that
happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great
comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." --- J.
Michael Straczynski

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com