ETMA | JPVP |
[a] One author: even if there is collaboration or a conscious desire for collective decision-making it is inevitable that the "vision holder" must have the final say on controversial points in order to maintain the unity of the language. | [a] Collaborative authorship possible because scientific linguistic research is the sole arbiter. The only criterion of acceptance should be that which has proved successful in completed JPVPs, and also in existing and new constructed languages including the processes of language acquisition. |
[b] Normally introduced at the second level with a developed grammar, so as to compare favourably with existing languages in the eyes of the arbiters of public policy. This can be a problem for learners at the first level, e.g. when grammar is bound into words via inflections, as in Esperanto. | [b] Introduced at the primary words-only "jargon" level, as in the normal process of childhood language acquisition, since the pitch is primarily to people rather than governments. Analytic grammar - minus inflections - permits a seamless transition with the second level. |
[c] Word-roots and grammar mostly a posteriori from existing languages, but chosen subjectively/empirically rather than objectively/scientifically, with some artifice re inflections etc. for the sake of consistency. | [c] Words and grammar entirely a posteriori - enabled by a much longer and more gradual time-scale and a scientific approach based on established precedent in previous JPVP instances, existing languages and infant linguistic development. |
[d] Language wholly auxiliary with no spontaneous internal development permitted for fear of splitting into dialects. | [d] Internal development allowed, and encouraged, by means of a linguistic hierarchy - again, according to established precedent. |
[e] "Two languages forever" | [e] A gradual progress to monolingualism |
