Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,sci.lang,alt.language.artificial
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!venus.sun.com!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!brg
From: brg@netcom.com (Bruce R. Gilson)
Subject: Re: Opinions on EU language(s)
Message-ID: <brgE18Mn6.FzD@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <327D25AB.7728@pp.inet.fi> <328B5AC0.4616@hildesheim.sgh-net.de> <elnaE130qD.Brt@netcom.com> <32948C72.7F0@hildesheim.sgh-net.de>
Distribution:  world
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:37:54 GMT
Lines: 66
Sender: brg@netcom2.netcom.com

In article <32948C72.7F0@hildesheim.sgh-net.de>,
John L Grantham  <jgrantha@hildesheim.sgh-net.de> wrote:
>Esperanto League N America wrote:

>> jgrantha@hildesheim.sgh-net.de writes in a recent posting (reference <328B5AC0.4616@hildesheim.sgh-net.de>):

>> >I also need to point out publicly that, while there are advantages to
>> >_each_ AL in existence, there is _no_ advantage that I can see to having
>> >so many or to have everyone debating one or the other. Wouldn't it be
>> >wiser for the AL community to unite behind one or two, and make an
>> >effort to promote it/them, before English runs them all over like a Mack
>> >truck?

>> There is no AL community.

>Then perhaps there ought to _be_ one.

While I find myself at odds with Mr. Grantham in most of what he's stated in
this debate, here I concur. Actually, to a small extent there is one. There is
an auxlang mailing list, for people who re interested in IALs. However, it does
get fragmented because people do get into arguments over their own favorites.

I would say this: while I have _my_own_ favorite, Novial, I could easily accept
Ido, Occidental, Interlingua, Eurolang, Glosa, or any of a number of others.
I have, for reasons I've expressed so frequently that I think it would bore
too many readers if I posted them, _rejected_ Esperanto as a possibility. On
the other hand, there are others who have already decided that it is Esperanto
or nothing. It is that attitude that makes the attainment of a compromise
impossible.

>> There is a large Esperanto community, which has already chosen an IAL,
>> and is busily applying it.

>Fine.


This is, in fact, the biggest obstacle, and I would never gloss over it with a
mere "Fine." As I stated, the E-o community has decided that it simply is
necessary to spread E-o. A decision made in 1905, to codify the "Fundamento"
(the official standard for E-o), reinforced by another decision, in 1907, to
reject a reform of Esperanto that had been adopted by an international commit-
tee which DID represent all the important rival languages of the day, has to
be, in the opinion of these Esperantists, the final be-all and end-all of IALs.

>> There are also some other inventors, tinkerers etc. who do not accept
>> Esperanto, and therefore work to improve or replace it. Is there an
>> "Interlingua community" or "Eurolang community" or "Ido-Komunumo"?

>This sounds a little arrogant to me...if Eo can be improved, why not try
>to improve it? After all, Eo did seek to improve on other languages that
>came before it...and besides, why not cooperate with the "Interlingua
>community" or "Ido-Kommuno community", rather than look down on them?
>Why not work together for the common goal of promoting IALs in general?

Because Esperantists' goal seems to be to promote Eo, and not IALs in general.
I have never seen any E-ist who took the attitude that the goal is promoting
IALs in general, while among advocates of other IALs there is usually this
spirit. Phil Hunt, the inventor of Eurolang, has already said that he could
accept Novial or some other language. I've returned the compliment.


                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: brg@netcom.com
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)
