🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4eau60$lnh@balder.adm.ku.dk>,
Jens Stengaard Larsen <jens@rask> wrote:
>Jarmo Puntanen (ccjapu@uta.fi) wrote:
>[...]
 >: And, looking at the discussion here, can anyone please explain
 >: why people waste so much time on, say, pros & cons 
 >: of Esperanto vs Tungusian,
 >: when a FEDERATION IS IN THE MAKING, here just right behind our backs?
>
 >Oh simple. If you want to do something about the Federation, say
 >further it or hinder it, you'll have to do some international
 >cooperation, right?
 >How do you cooperate without a common language? 

So, I gather the _means_ of communicating about the EU seems to be of prime 
importance to a good share of the audience, rather that what is actually
communicated?

 >And if you choose a language more common to some of the
 >participants, won't some of the participants be more equal than the
 >rest?

I do not regard the language essential. What the French and Germans say
always matters the most, be it conveyed in Tungusian, South-Frisian, or 
even in Garbalowitchian.

 >Remember, this is going to be a permanent business. Nobody is going
 >to give up before either the Federation or some alternative has been
 >established.

I liked that 'or some alternative' part. 'A permanent business'
does not thrill me at all, there's a definite echo of iron boots
around when you say so.


 >/Jens Stengaard Larsen ( = jens@cphling.dk )




-- 

Jarmo Puntanen 
ccjapu@uta.fi    ccjapu@mailhost.great.fi  (liiketoimet/business)
@ Irjalankatu 54 D 22 33560 TRE & int + 358 +(9)31-3564242