Roy McCoy | Re: Do we really need another eurolanguage?

• Autor: Roy McCoy (“Mr_Roy_McCoy”)
• Tema: Re: Do we really need another eurolanguage?
• Data: 2002-09-19 22:27
• Mesaje: 166 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

James Chandler scribin:

> It now seems that the idea is to either adopt LFN as is, a cut-down version
> of it with a limited vocab (Basic LFN?), or adopt it with minor changes.

Se la ideo estun adopti LFN en loa comensa stato, Bjorn ne estun renominta
lo antisipe al cambos. Semblan do ce li volan ias cambos, sed ne tro drastas.

If the idea were to adopti LFN in its original form, Bjorn wouldn't have
renamed it in anticipation of changes. It thus seems that he wants some
changes,
but none too drastic.

> This leads me to ask:
>
> Do we really need another eurolanguage?
>
> or what some would call 'euroclone'.  We seem to have the
> autonomistic-naturalistic spectrum (Jacob) fairly well covered, from Esp to
> Ia.  Do we really need to fill in another intermediate point on the
> spectrum?

Eble yes, eble ne. Se la resulto estun nedistingebla de alias plenlengos,
mi consentun pri la vaneso de la exerso. Sed frape mancan "c-lengos" je la
scemisma flanco de via spectro, e tiale hia LFN-proyecto interesan mi. La
esensa ideo lau mi omnacase estan ce habu planlengo pli sucsesa ol tias til
nun, e tio dependan ed de lengas, e de sosias factoros.

Maybe yes, maybe no. If the result were indistinguishable from other planned
languages, I would agree about the vanity of the exercise. But "c languages"
are markedly missing at the schematic end of your spectrum, and that's why
this LFN project interests me. The essential idea as I see it is in any event
that there be a planned language more successful than previous ones, and that
depends on both linguistic and social factors.

> "I come from a country which does not yet exist." - J. Craveirinha

Tre bone, dancos. That's very good, thanks.

Roy