Re: The Great Sundering (was Re: basic morphemes of a loglang)

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:21:41 +0100, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Rhiemeier
<joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:

>Hallo!
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:38 -0500,
>John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
>
>> Jörg Rhiemeier scripsit:
>>
>> > Designing an auxlang means choosing features of a language
>> > guided by the opinion that the choice taken serves to advance the
>> > general design goals of an auxlang, namely [...].
>> > Whichever choice you make, people will
>> > judge your choice against the design goals mentioned above, and
>> > some of them *will* have a different opinion than you have.
>>
>> What of it?  On this list, you can freely design auxlangs (I have
>> done so) by stating the goals you want.  What is off-limits is
>> arguing about those goals.
>
>Absolutely.  However, stating the goals and presenting the features
>that are meant to fulfill the goals entails the risk of treading
>loose an argument about the goals, and whether the features meet
>the goals.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Engelang yet. That's a good place to
discuss determining if the design goals are met. Very low traffic too.

Jeff

>> > Voilà, auxlang advocacy has crept in, and the crowd will (justifiably)
>> > shout: "Take that to AUXLANG!"
>>
>> It's one thing to ask "Does feature X satisfy goal Y?" and another
>> to say "Feature X is a Good Thing" with respect to some expressed
>> or unexpressed goal Y.
>
>True.  It is two different things, but some people don't realize,
>and one thing may lead to the other.  I am NOT in favour of banning
>auxlang design issues from CONLANG; if I created that impression,
>I am very sorry!  All I wanted to say is that the line between
>auxlang design discussion and auxlang advocacy is easily crossed,
>and some people possibly keep their auxlang design issues out of
>CONLANG because they don't want to risk treading loose an auxlang
>advocacy thread in CONLANG. (snip)
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>Jörg.