Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Esperanto OUT!   
Message-ID: <elnaD4u0Bv.H5C@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <D4pzBx.MDK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:14:18 GMT
Lines: 49
Sender: elna@netcom7.netcom.com

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes in a recent posting (reference <D4pzBx.MDK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>):
>
>Dear sci.lang netters,
>
>Is there anyone who believes that sci.lang is in any way appropriate
>for discussing the European Union and its language policies?
>
I believe that it *was* appropriate, but as the conversation decayed
to a series of attacks and defenses, it lost any pretense of science.

>If there is, would he kindly consider explaining briefly what is
>scientific and/or linguistic about this subject *before* posting
>yet another article on it?
>
Briefly stated, there was a claim that the EU and other international
organizations currently have communication problems, in that multi-
lingualism requires interpreters and translators, whose contributions
to the communication process are costly and sometimes inaccurate.
Multi-lingual organizations also experience problems in regards to
informal face-to-face interaction outside of the official chambers. This
group of difficulties is describable and can be addressed by scientists
whose field is linguistic interaction. It was further suggested that a 
single language could be adopted by many of these organizations, but 
national languages are not likely to be accepted because of nationalist
pride. It was suggested that a neutral auxiliary language might someday
be applied in some international situations.
Up to this point, the subject is IMHO appropriate for this venerable
forum. I had expected rational discussion about the possibility or
desirability of "engineering" communication tools.
Yet what followed was an excretion of opinionated bombast which denied
the problem and ridiculed the proposed solution. This led to defense, 
counter-attack, etc. ad nauseum.  
This is not science.  
A priori dismissal of tools and techniques is not the normal practice
for scientific inquiry. Nor is dismissal of a problem the same as its
solution.  

>If there isn't, how about taking the whole thread somewhere else?
>I think it has long outstayed its welcome here.
>
I agree. The conversation (or rather, flame war) is ongoing at 
soc.culture.europe  and alt.politics.ec  But it has long since been
a battle between the doggedly ignorant and the already convinced. So
don't expect much enlightenment.

Miko.



