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