jjbowks | Re: Clarification: Why Not Just Use LFN?

• Autor: jjbowks
• Tema: Re: Clarification: Why Not Just Use LFN?
• Data: 2002-09-18 04:03
• Mesaje: 125 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Paul,
as I understand this
the issue is the
"pidginizing" ideal.

Let me summarize a bit...

LFN is a full-fledged
auxlang and not a
pidgin. The objective
of the Europidgin list
is to "discuss and even
change some details
[of LFN] in order to
find better and simpler
solutions to the differnt
linguistic problems. And
of course we should make
the language simple
and easy to beginners."

There's been a three
step process considered
where the language would
lead up to LFN. First a
Europidgin (a name of
pijin has been suggested).
Then a Creol version (and
suggested names are Criol,
and Kreol). And then the
full featured language being
LFN, as I said.

It has been quite a fast
moving list so far. And
I'm not sure why but the
idea of a "pidgin" language
for Europe seems to be
drawing a lot of folks
into the discussion. This
is good, I think.

w/regards,
Jay B.

--- In europidgin@y..., "Paul O. BARTLETT" <bartlett@s...> wrote:
>     Perhaps I missed the point in the blizzard of posts during
> the last few days, so perhaps someone could refresh my mind.
> Just what is undesirable about Lingua Franca Nova as a European
> auxiliary language?  Why and in what regards does it even need
> to be simplified at all?  Why not just use LFN as is?
>
> --
> Paul Bartlett
> bartlett@s...
> PGP key info in message headers