--- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
wrote:
> > > 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,
Yes. Intending to create an auxlang pretty much
sets one up as an auxlang advocate. I haven't yet
met an auxlang (with the possible exception of
Europanto) that hasn't had some level of
political advocacy behind it. Throwing your hat
into that ring is tantamount to saying aloud and
very clearly "My language is better than yours
and the following Manifesto will elucidate the 96
Critical Points upon which your pitiful 'project'
will be crucified." There are simply certain
fundamentals that auxlangers subscribe to by
definition.
> 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.
With any luck.
> Or they believe that the artlangers
> that make up the majority of CONLANG are a
> pesky lot of snobs who
> (1) don't care a heck of solving international
> communication problems
Certainly not in the way they advocate!
> and (2) want to keep out everyone who
> stirs them up from their game. Of course,
> that's not what CONLANG is like.
True.
> > > 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.
>
> This is indeed true. I occasionally look into
> the AUXLANG archive,
> and there are hardly ever any design issues
> discussed there.
> It is almost entirely about Esperanto vs. Ido
> vs. Interlingua
> vs. Acadon vs. ..., i.e. about auxlangs vs.
> auxlangs
> that are so similar to each other that they are
> probably mutually
> intelligible, which makes all that bickering
> especially pointless.
This is the sort of nonsense that I (at least)
don't want dragged into this place. Unhappily, it
is nonsense engrained in the whole activity.
> The typical AUXLANG list member is not an
> auxlang designer,
> but a follower of an auxlang designed by
> somebody else, who tries
> to convince others that the auxlang of his
> choice was superior
> to other auxlang designs. AUXLANG would indeed
> be a much more
> interesting place if it was about auxlang
> *design*
> (which was, as far as I know, the original
> purpose of CONLANG,
> before we evil artlangers took over ;-) ).
I'll leave it for auxlang designers to stage a
coup over thonder and retake Auxlang for the
language designers.
> > Not at all. Xuxuxi is an auxlang designed
> for artlang reasons;
> > so is BrSc.
>
> Yes, there are such cases, but the "typical"
> auxlang is designed to better the world.
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.
> I was thinking of the typical auxlanger,
> who tries to sell his work as a remedy for
> various social problems.
> There is no such thing as a well-defined line
> that reliably
> separates auxlangs from artlangs.
Of course not. The only real difference between
Esperanto and Kerno, or your Q is the politics
behind them. The one strives to serve specific
communications goals and may have political
asperations or connections; the others serve no
purpose other than to exist in beauty -
basically, they are art.
> Of course one can design
> an auxlang as an artlang, e.g. a fictional
> auxlang of a
> fictional world. (Are there auxlangs in Ill
> Bethisad, and if yes,
> has anyone actually designed one?)
Ha! You missed the psuedo-auxlang flame war we
held a while back. I foget who won - I think it
was the Wenedyk contender (a just vicotry as Dr.
Zamenhof was from that region of the world). I am
entertaining the idea of creating an IB auxlang.
But I think the idea is a nonstarter in IB, which
is a truly international and polyglot place. Even
the Americans *there* speak more than one
language.
> And then there are those
> who take an artlang and propose it as an
> auxlang. I have seen
> such proposals for Quenya and Klingon.
I did that for Kerno once. Can't recall if I did
so on Auxlang or on Usenet somewhere.
Padraic.
=====
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
--
Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>
Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>
.