Meddelelser: 30
Sprog: English
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 3. feb. 2013 19.15.15
Troyus23:Thanks EVERYONE for your responses! These all pretty much summed up how I feel too!I am not sure what the current status is, but at one point the Lojban community "baselined" the language, i.e., they declared it fixed for at least some number of years, somewhat in the way of the Fundamento. They realized (as some other conIAL proponents have not) that eventually the tinkering must stop and the using begin. The idea, as I understand it, is that no changes would be allowed during the baseline years, and that thereafter there would only be changes allowed if actual use revealed serious difficulties.
One more humorus(?) question: Does anyone here tinker with LOJBAN?
Endless tinkering is deadly, as we all know here. Unfortunately, the Idists and some Interlinguaists (I have long been in touch with the latter) seem not to realize that fact. They want to go on tinkering forever. "Well, my language has such and such feature, therefore any well behaved conIAL also has to have that feature." (I saw this in some Romance speakers complaining about the lack of a well developed irrealis mood in Interlingua, and some others fought for changes like that in Lingua Franca Nova.)
My question is, Does Auxiliary Language X work well enough as it is after an initial shakedown period? If it does, quit tinkering with it. (I have tangled with some well known Interlinguaists over this, who seem more interested in theoretical purism than half a century of actual use.) Z did the shakedown for E-o, and now it works very well. Design of a constructed auxiliary language is an engineering problem that entails inevitable trade-offs. There is no way around this. In the old saying, One man's meat is another man's poison.
No conIAL design will a priori satisfy everyone. OK, live with it. If it works and you like it, use it. If not, go somewhere else.
erinja (Vise profilen) 3. feb. 2013 21.48.28
bartlett22183:Endless tinkering is deadly, as we all know here. Unfortunately, the Idists and some Interlinguaists (I have long been in touch with the latter) seem not to realize that fact. They want to go on tinkering forever.I was given to understand that Ido at this point is essentially as fixed as Esperanto, but I have no contact with that community, unlike you. Is that actually not the case?
Tempodivalse (Vise profilen) 3. feb. 2013 22.45.46
erinja:As I understand it, Ido is as stable as Esperanto. The difference is that Ido has so few speakers that there is not often a broad consensus on what words to use to express new concepts (neologisms). But the grammar is "set".bartlett22183:Endless tinkering is deadly, as we all know here. Unfortunately, the Idists and some Interlinguaists (I have long been in touch with the latter) seem not to realize that fact. They want to go on tinkering forever.I was given to understand that Ido at this point is essentially as fixed as Esperanto, but I have no contact with that community, unlike you. Is that actually not the case?
Based on my studies, I'd say that Interlingua is also quite stable, although I've into some troubles with the dictionary, as there are frequently a lot of "alternate spellings" of words due to the flexibility of the 3-language rule.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 3. feb. 2013 22.49.57
Many Idists tend to pepper their writings with asterisks to indicate that this or that word is not "official." In my own opinion, what they ought to do is run it up the flagpole. If others salute, fine, then it becomes part of the language. If not, drop it. As far as I can tell, that is what many Esperantists do in advance of whether the Academy officially sanctions a word.
(EDIT: I was composing my response to erinja just as Tempodivalse was posting a comment.)
brw1 (Vise profilen) 3. feb. 2013 23.01.34
pdenisowski (Vise profilen) 4. feb. 2013 12.26.27
bartlett22183:Unfortunately, the Idists and some Interlinguaists (I have long been in touch with the latter) seem not to realize that fact. They want to go on tinkering forever.Which Interlinguists have you been in touch with? With one notable example, there are almost no
"tinkerers" in the Interlingua community, especially when compared with Esperantujo.
Amike,
Paul
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 4. feb. 2013 13.04.40
However it is not absolutely true. The language shows clear signs (IMHO) of still evolving. This either by actual changes, or by settling for a preferred way of expressing something when several alternatives had been in use.
But it seems impossible to imagine how the basic combinatorial mechanism of the language could ever change change. This mechanism is not confined to just building lexis but spills over into what might be termed grammar.
In a sense, there is only one rule in Esperanto and it is universal. Whatever you want to say, you do it by sticking unchanging elements together as you might string beads on a thread.
There are a few mechanical ordering restrictions, but only a few. There's also a principle of subkompreno - when you can leave an element out - but that's very commonsensical.
Learning Esperanto is just a matter of acquiring facility with its elements - understanding their meaning and function.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 4. feb. 2013 18.41.20
pdenisowski:In this situation I am not trying to name names specifically, as I suppose they do not frequent lernu! to respond if they would want. There was one Interlingua forum I joined for a while in which at least some participants seemed to want to pull I-gua into being Yet Another Romance Language.bartlett22183:Unfortunately, the Idists and some Interlinguaists (I have long been in touch with the latter) seem not to realize that fact. They want to go on tinkering forever.Which Interlinguists have you been in touch with? With one notable example, there are almost no
"tinkerers" in the Interlingua community, especially when compared with Esperantujo.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 4. feb. 2013 18.45.00
sudanglo:That the grammar of Esperanto is 'set' is a fairly non-controversial assertion.Certainly the notion of one way of expressing among alternatives becoming the most common makes sense, but what sort of actual changes might you be referring to?
However it is not absolutely true. The language shows clear signs (IMHO) of still evolving. This either by actual changes, or by settling for a preferred way of expressing something when several alternatives had been in use.
RiotNrrd (Vise profilen) 4. feb. 2013 19.45.43
sudanglo:That the grammar of Esperanto is 'set' is a fairly non-controversial assertion.Except amongst a certain subset of inexperienced beginners, of course.