A couple of comments on Bruce R. Gilson's response to one of my 

recent posts:

 

brg: > although the first IAL whose name I'd heard was Esperanto, 

the first one which I actually saw any extensive text in was 

Interlingua. I became an enthusiast for Interlingua immediately 

because it seemed so good: <



kc: I can well understand this, Interlingua has a lot going for 

it.



brg: >I picked up a book in the language in my early college 

years, and read it at sight, something which was certainly not 

true the first time I saw a passage of any length in Esperanto.  

<



kc: Instant recognizability to a subset of the target population 

is certainly a good thing.  Esperanto's affixes make this 

impossible (in my opinion), but the minimal amount of effort 

required to master them then gives such freedom of expression!  

I think it is obvious by now that we do look for different things 

in an auxlang.



brg: > (I still can't, without a dictionary, read anything in 

that language, and this is 30 years later.) When I saw people 

actively pushing Esperanto after this, it seemed incredible to 

me, as incredible as it seems to you that there are still 

Volapu"k enthusiasts. <



kc: Now you do surprise me.  I can only assume that you never 

tried to learn the prefixes and suffixes, since 30 years is at 

least ten times longer than needed to become fluent.  Of course, 

I am in no way faulting you for this:  Interlingua had gained 

and kept your interest.  In my case I spent 1 hour a week on 

each of the lessons of ELNA's 10-lesson Esperanto postal course, 

and understood, began using and thoroughly enjoying each new 

feature immediately.  After the course I started reading books 

and magazines, and never seemed to need to look up words.  I use 

a dictionary to _write_ (to be sure of using an Esperanto word, 

not one from another language), but after mastering the affixes, 

I did have nearly 100% recognition of E-o words.  This thrilled 

me as your introduction to Interlingua did you.  And I'm certain 

that if you had seen any use for E-o, you would have picked it 

up with next to no effort.



brg: > I feel so strongly that the idea of an IAL to provide for 

better communication is so important. I don't think it will end 

all wars --- <



kc: You have a lot in common with many Esperantists I know.  I 

can't agree with your opinion of Esperanto, by I strongly concur 

with your wish for an IAL, and I think I dimly see why someone 

who thought that progress in this direction had been thwarted 

might hate the perceived obstruction.



kc>>My personal opinion is that almost any of the planned 

languages would work well as "the" international auxiliary 

language (assuming one were ever agreed upon). <<



brg: > Actually, I think that is a gracious comment coming from 

someone who has promoted E-o as vigorously as you. <



kc: Oh, I mustn't present myself under false colors!  I can't 

consider myself a vigorous promoter, but I do think Esperanto 

is our best hope for an IAL.  I also can't masquerade as an 

expert Esperantist:  I first read about it in 1970, but didn't 

decide to learn it until 3 years ago.  If I had had time, I'd 

be really fluent.  (Who was it that was fluent in a year, and 

publishing in two?)  But I can't spend more than a few minutes 

per day (sometimes per week).  In any case, I will be fluent 

someday soon, and in the meantime have had no trouble tutoring 

beginners in the Esperanto net-course.



brg: > I think that elimination of the obligatory -n and 

adjective-noun agreement would go so far to simplify E-o for 

learners that I'd almost be willing to give up the fight on 

everything else to get those 2 improvements.  (Note the 

"almost"!) <



kc: Amazing, isn't it?  The features that give the flexibility 

I so prize are the very things you most dislike!  



brg: > Nobody was using E-o in 1887. I see E-o now as in exactly 

the same position as Volapu"k was in in 1887. If Zamenhof had 

adopted that attitude in 1887, he never would have created E-o. <



>>3.  Some thirty thousand (30,000) books already published.

>>4.  About one hundred (100) periodicals currently in print.

>>5.  Organizations and clubs in many countries.

>>6.  Far more speakers world-wide than any other planned language.



brg: > These last 4 are really all aspects of the item numbered 

6. In 1887, however, as I said, Volapu"k enjoyed the same 

advantages. Zamenhof (rightly) ignored them. <



kc: "The same"?  Surely not by a couple orders of magnitude!



brg: > I would like to see your response to the one point that 

if Zamenhof had taken the same position in 1887 that you take 

now (with "Volapu"k" substituted for Esperanto") there would be 

no Esperanto today. <



kc:

1.  I don't agree that Novial, or Interlingua, etc., etc. is 

    much "better" than Esperanto, so the comparison is less than 

    perfect.



2.  If the Bevünetik Volapüka had remained faithful, and 

    Esperanto had been stillborn, I would now be using Volapük 

    daily and arguing for it instead of Esperanto, even if I 

    liked Esperanto's features better.  



3.  This doesn't mean Zamenhof should have taken this position 

    in 1887, however.  At that time there was no IAL candidate 

    so well-placed as Esperanto is today.  Notice he did all the 

    right things:  he immediately translated thousands of 

    proverbs and sayings, great authors of other language 

    traditions, the Old Testament, as well as working 

    prolifically in the new language itself.  No one had done 

    this in a conlang before, and it should be no surprise that 

    other authors & translaters followed suite, nor that many 

    people therefore found and find the language worthwhile.



Your question is indeed thought-provoking, and based on my 

(albeit limited) knowledge, you have my answer.  



^Cion bonan / All the best!



Ken