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

Costentin Cornomorus scripsit:

> I'll leave it for auxlang designers to stage a
> coup over thonder and retake Auxlang for the
> language designers.
Not at all.  The whole point of having a place of exile is to
send others there, not to depart there voluntarily in hope of
cilivizing the barbarians.

> Correct. The notions of "ease of use",
> "simplicity to learn", "global impact and
> outreach". That sort of thing. This is why I'd
> consider BrSc et al to be artlangs, even if they
> could in principal be implemented as auxlangs.
But those are exactly the design goals of xuxuxi, and some
further typically auxlangy goals as well.  The only difference between
xuxuxi and Esperanto consists of the authors' intent (to overstate the
case rather wildly).  I am trying to design a proper auxlang on good
auxlang principles -- the fact that I don't believe in auxlangs as
necessary to salvation doesn't affect that.

(Of course, xuxuxi is a failure even on its own terms, but I'm talking
about it because I can be quite sure I know what I'm talking about.)

--
Values of beeta will give rise to dom!          John Cowan
(5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to rename '.' or '..' entries; see              jcowan@reutershealth.com
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html)

Reply