Roy McCoy | Re: [LFN] Digest Number 344

• Autor: Roy McCoy (“Mr_Roy_McCoy”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Digest Number 344
• Data: 2005-06-30 16:40
• Mesaje: 1417 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Isaac Ben Harush wrote (June 9):

> Also, will there be a time when the grammar is freezed? I wonder what
> the opinions of the members here about it. Will there be some sort
> of "Fundamento" or will tinkering be allowed (albeit unofficially) to
> continue.

George Boeree replied:

> It is a difficult balancing act:  If there are good ideas that improve
> the language, we want to adopt them; on the other hand, we want some
> stability so that we can use it with confidence that our translations
> and original materials will not wind up being unrecognizable in a year!
>   We are still at the early stages, with only a few speakers/writers,
> so we can afford a little "tweaking."  What do you think?

With full appreciation of the difficulty, the demands, the advantages
of established stability, etc., I can still say that there is a very
strong case to be made for further tweaking, on the basis not only of
principle but also of the practical experience of Esperanto. There's
a little-known aspect of its history that I will briefly present here.
Many here will know that Zamenhof published his Unua Libro (First Book)
in 1887, and that the Dua Libro followed not long thereafter. What many
here probably don't know, however, is that Zamenhof's original plan for
the Dua Libro was drastically different from what finally happened with
it. Namely, Zamenhof proposed that it appear, not in a single volume,
but as a series of I believe six bi-monthly installments, each of these
to deal with and solve every specific problem that was to be pointed out
about the original form of the language. Zamenhof confidently guaranteed
that when the Dua Libro was finished, every objection would be successfully
answered, such that everyone thenceforth would be completely satisfied with
the language and there would be no further criticisms or calls for reform.

I'm not absolutely certain why this didn't work out according to
Zamenhof's plan, though I can guess with a certain degree of assurance
that it had to do with a lack of systematic formal response to his proposal.
This must have been disappointing and perturbing to him, as he recognized
that no international language would be generally accepted until it had
"passed the judgment of the world" as he put it, and the Dua Libro was
evidently his perceived means of attaining and passing this judgment.

The "super IL" - to adopt the Nietzschean concept of the Superman to this
context - will have this same obligation to pass the judgment of the world,
and thus needs to have the Dua Libro that Esperanto unfortunately never
received. All of us here, I suppose, like LFN and see possibilities in it,
but there apparently are a number of tweakers, myself included. Yes, just
as with Esperanto, for someone to propose changes when he doesn't even know
the language well seems presumptious and to a degree is - nonetheless, I
bring the Esperanto "g" to the table and continue to recommend it heartily.
That's the only contribution I have to LFN's Dua Libro right now, though
others may come if my familiarity with it increases.

I found the above-cited messages, by the way, while searching my mailboxes
for the "verduloj" messages relevant to the translation that George did
for myself and the members of that list. I'll copy my post(s) on that
(in Esperanto) to this list, hopefully today but if not then tomorrow.
I will say already that I found the LFN translation considerably lighter
and more pleasing than the Interlingua one, and that I will share this
opinion with the "verduloj".

Roy McCoy