Un error. :( Io intendeva expedir ad INTERLNG integre, e non solmente a
Stan ipse.
On Tuesday, 27 Jun 2013 17:27:09 -0400, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Martedi, le 27 junio 2013 15:02:34 -0400, Mulaik, Stanley A
> <[log in to unmask]> scribeva:
>
>> Interlingua jam es morte, Paul, in le forma del parve gruppo de
>> personas qui lo usa. Cata anno plus mori. Facer emphase super un
>> variante del lingua que usa formas contrari al rationamento e theoria
>> de su elaboration, solmente proque su usatores non esseva
>> sophisticate linguisticamente como su creatores non va
>> impressionar le autoritates politic e linguistic del meritos
>> del lingua. Interlingua non es un esperanto, ni un occidental.
>> Illo es un extraction e standardization objective del elementos commun
>> in le major linguas de Europa e le Hemisphero Occidental. A causa de
>> isto illo es un
>> lingua ric in vocabulario. E mesmo si nos mori, le mesme lingua
>> pote esser extracte de iste linguas parlate per centos de milliones.
>
> Per favor, vider mi essayo (in anglese) "Thoughts on IAL Success"
> http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/thoughts.html . Il ha duo factores
> critic: "Good Enough" (bastante bon) e "Stable Base" (fundamento
> stabile). Io scribeva (e continua asserer):
>
> "My point with this factor is that theoretical optimality is all well
> and good, but it is not at all sufficient by itself to ensure acceptance
> and use of an IAL, whereas another suboptimal but "good enough"
> language, taken together with other factors, may have relatively more
> success."
>
> e
>
> "Some conIAL designers fall into tinkering, ever striving for
> "perfection" as they see it. But as Andrew Large pointed out in his _The
> Artificial Language Movement_ ([Oxford]: Basil Blackwell, 1985; ISBN
> 0-631-14497-8; p. 154),
>
> 'Like the alchemists of old, artificial language projectors are not
> easily deterred by others' failures. They doggedly cling to the belief
> that success can be achieved if only the right mixture of ingredients
> can be blended in the correct proportions.'
>
> Sooner or later, people have to quit tinkering and _use_ something
> instead of dissipating the energy of the conIAL movement. Many people
> learn Esperanto in order to use it without getting deeply involved in
> metaconsiderations. Some people seem to get involved with conIALs for
> the sake of discussing them endlessly and never get around to trying to
> build a significant user community which will not spend its time talking
> about the language almost as if it were an end in itself rather than as
> a means to an end: improved human communication and understanding."
>
> Io renega tu assertion que "Interlingua jam es morte," sed io assere que
> essayos de facer que illo se conforma ad un puritate linguistic theoric
> lo occidera vermente. Io specula que "le autoritates politic e
> linguistic" non se interesa in re le characteristicas theoric del
> lingua. Lor question es, "Esque illo functiona ben como un lingua
> auxiliar?"
>
> Si, Stan, io es un "esperantisto" in re interlingua. Io lo dice
> fermente. Io cerca un ver lingua auxiliar. Interlingua pote esser (es)
> un tal, sed solmente si nos cessa persequer le sonio inutile de
> perfection theoric. A mi aviso, simplemente "un extraction e
> standardization objective del elementos commun in le major linguas de
> Europa e le Hemisphero Occidental" es un perdita del tempore e del
> effortio. Si, io es un "esperantisto." (E de novo, io non desira que
> interlingua deveni Ancora Un Altere Lingua Romanic.)
>
> Io non accepta tu propositiones theoric, e tu non accepta mi
> propositiones practic. Simplemente nos disaccorda, e probabilemente
> necun convincera le altere.
--
Paul Bartlett
--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html
|