Paul Bartlett | Re: [LFN] Re: [verduloj] Alternativoj por Eo-alternativemuloj EU-aj…

• Autor: Paul Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Re: [verduloj] Alternativoj por Eo-alternativemuloj EU-aj…
• Data: 2005-07-01 22:52
• Mesaje: 1427 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

     I'll just reply to two little points here.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Roy McCoy wrote:

> Martin Schaeffer wrote:
>
>> My opinion is that Interlingua is not so bad.
>
> My opinions is that it is essentially arrogant, in a way that is to me
> quite offensive. Esperanto is also arrogant, but I prefer its arrogance.

     I'm not quite sure what the reference is here.  Certainly a
language itself cannot be "arrogant" any more than a brick or a puddle
of water or a theorem of mathematics can be arrogant.  Is the reference
to users and advocates of Interlingua?  They might be arrogant, but a
language as a lifeless thing certainly cannot be.

>> Because of the evolution theory this means that Ido loss speakers though
>> (the german "obwohl?" in Esperanto "kvankam") it seems better?
>
> Though, or although. I don't know. It doesn't seem better to me.
> It doesn't have the diacritics, but it's still ugly. The LFN translation
> of the Prévert poem, on the other hand, is gorgeous!

     What does it mean for a language to be ugly?  The written form? The
spoken form?  Some people have called the written form of Esperanto
specifically with its diacritics to be something like charming.  What
little Esperanto I have heard spoken I myself would not call ugly in
any meaningful sense.  Does it even make sense to call a language ugly?
Of ethnic languages, I suspect that none of them are ugly to their
native speakers.

--
Paul Bartlett

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]