George Boeree | Re: AW: [LFN] Probably a common question

• Autor: George Boeree (“cgboeree”)
• Tema: Re: AW: [LFN] Probably a common question
• Data: 2005-04-19 18:18
• Mesaje: 978 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Hello, Martin.

I agree with you that the usefulness of LFN for understanding romanic
languages is easy to exaggerate, but that it remains a bonus.

What I do not agree with (with due respect) is that an artificial
language is easier for speakers of non-romance languages than a more
natural one.  LFN looks natural but follows the same kind of simple but
consistent rules as the artificial ones do.

Best wishes,

George

On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Schaeffer, Martin wrote:

> ... In the theory of the conlangs there are different types of
> conlangs. Some conlangs are more natural and others are more
> artificial. If a conlang is a little more artificial it is easier for
> persons with any language as mother tongue. So you can realize the
> objective (as Jagques defined it) of easy and free communication among
> all people of universe in a more neutral way.
>
>  In the case of LFN it is much easier for persons which speak a
> neolatin language as mother tongue or for persons who knows already a
> neolatin language than for german, english, russian or japanese
> people.
>
>  The advantage of LFN is exactly that after learning LFN it is more
> easy to learn a neolatin language. And I agree with Aron, that exactly
> this advantage is a highlight, a bonus of LFN....
>
> "Some men dream of fortunes; others dream of cookies." -- actual
> fortune cookie, 3-9-2005

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]