R: Re: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG

Daniel,

I don't particularly like auxlangs - you probably already know it, since I
and Yoon Ha have always said that if Uusisuom were a conlang, not an
auxlang, it would sound pretty good, it would even be a nicely shaped
language.

I think, anyway, that we all have a right to make up the language we want.
Therefore, I think Oskar should avoid saying your language is naive - a
statement which can even offend people. If you feel that your language
fullfils your tastes, go on that way.

Uusisuom probably won't get over the world (no auxlang will, IMO, given the
present conditions), but, if I had to choose a language to study between
Uusisuom and, say, Ido, I'd surely choose the former (I hate languages
looking too artificial - I prefer natural looking languages) :-)

Luca

> Dear Oskar,
>
> It was of course inevitable that I should feel obliged to write a reply to
> your curious comments.
>
> You call Uusisuom 'another obscure conlang'. It's worth mentioning here
that
> EVERY conlang, including Esperanto is obscure to the vast majority of
people
> in the world.
>
> Moving on, the language's homepage is extremely small and rough around the
> edges, so please don't take much from it.
>
> I think that Zamenhof's Esperanto was an excellent beginner's artlang. So,
I
> am not in bad company!
>
> 'While at best a naive auxlang'. Well, I'm not sure what to make of this
> comment.
>
> Auxiliary languages can be successful, depending on various things:
>
> - original and appealing design
> - exhaustive promotion
> - ease of use and fun to learn
> - community spirit among speakers
> - well run organisation
> - various publications etc.
>
> Just because Uusisuom does not stink of rehashed Latin does not mean it is
a
> 'naive' language or somehow bad or inadequate as you seem to imply. It has
> no accents or diacritical marks so can be automatically fed into a
computer,
> word processing system or the net, it has an 18-letter alphabet, simple
> totally regular grammar, no accusative case and no articles. Vocabulary is
> occasionally related to natural languages and is often related to other
> words and concepts.
>
> To be honest, I am not interested in studying more linguistics. I have
found
> many linguists to be tedious, back biting and pretentious and I know
enough
> of languages from my own study (as was the case with Zamenhof) that I have
> the confidence to create and promote my language.
>
> I am not interested in 'improving' Uusisuom for the same reasons that
> Zamenhof largely rejected demands to 'improve' Esperanto. The language is
> interesting, appealing and sufficiently easy and fun to learn and use to
> satisfy my objectives.
>
> I admit freely that Uusisuom is not a perfect language (show me one that
> is), but that does not make it 'naive' and I resent such a comment.
>
> From what I can gather, criticisms of Uusisuom come from those who are
quick
> to judge and even quicker to criticise. I have not simply picked at bits
> from other languages, nor have I attempted to copy an existing auxlang.
> Uusisuom is my own creation and design, and as its father I will be happy
to
> watch it take its first steps and stumbles along the path towards, I
> believe, significant success.
>
> More info, online Uusisuom lessons -
> http://pub56.ezboard.com/buusisuomanewworldlanguage
>
> Daniel
> daniel44@btinternet.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oskar Gudlaugsson" <hr_oskar@...>
> To: <CONLANG@...>
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:06 PM
> Subject: Uusisuom, Unilang, auxlang discussions in CONLANG
>
>
> Since I started reading the list again only a few weeks ago when the
> Uusisuom discussion was nearing an end, I totally missed that whole
> discussion. I presumed "Uusisuom" to be just another obscure conlang
(which
> it indeed is), so I never bothered to check out where the "Blandness (was:
> Uusisuom's Influences)" thread had started. But recently I gathered that
> this Uusisuom is some kind of auxlang, so I inquired on it.
>
> Having viewed the lang's homepage and read through all the threads about
it
> of late March - early April, I must honestly say that it's the most
> hilarious CONLANG thread I've ever seen; no offence to Daniel (Uusisuom's
> author) or anyone else involved :) As for my opinion on Uusisuom, I
> wholeheartedly agree with most that it would make an excellent beginner's
> artlang, while at best a naive auxlang. I hope the friendly comments and
> criticisms of this list will inspire Daniel to study more linguistics,
> especially phonology, to improve his designs; we all started this hobby
> somewhere :)
>
> I now realize, however, that my whole auxlang discussion may have entered
> the list at a bad time, when some were getting tired of the subject. I
> noticed iterations of this not being a list for auxlang design. I'm sorry,
> for example, that my threads spurred a brief flame-war between list
members
> about Esperanto, which would otherwise not have occurred.
>
> Though no-one has openly complained of my writing on the subject, I wish
to
> explain why I feel these writings belong here. One big reason is: they
> don't want them in AUXLANG! The difference between CONLANG and AUXLANG
> isn't necessarily, I think, in what can be discussed, but rather _how_ it
> is discussed. AUXLANG discusses auxlangs in a completely non-theoretical
> manner; the main subject is the political reality of such languages, and
> not design questions. If we see my auxlang design as design ponderings for
> a futuristic artlang named "Unilang", whose nature is that it is the
> intermedium of all humans in some ideal future, I think it is easier to
> accept its presence here.
>
> Again, nobody even criticized, but I felt obliged to explain why I've
taken
> up this somewhat flammable subject here. The discussions have generally
> been positive, and I am grateful for the attention the subject has had,
> after all :) May it remain so.
>
> Regards,
> Óskar
>