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

J?rg 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.

> 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.

> The logical conclusion is not to discuss the design in CONLANG
> in the first place, but to go to AUXLANG from the start.
Not at all.  Design issues are almost irrelevant to AUXLANG-ites.

> Not all auxlangers make that bold a claim, but all of them
> believe that their auxlang will solve at least *some* of the
> major problems of modern society, otherwise they wouldn't
> take the trouble of working out an auxlang...
Not at all.  Xuxuxi is an auxlang designed for artlang reasons;
so is BrSc.

--
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far     John Cowan
coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that      www.ccil.org/~cowan
O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word  www.reutershealth.com
to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All      jcowan@reutershealth.com
she there told him, ruing death for friend so young,
algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay.   _Ulysses_, "Oxen"