Paul O. Bartlett | Re: [LFN] Solo de Stelas III

• Autor: Paul O. Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Solo de Stelas III
• Data: 2005-05-03 21:55
• Mesaje: 1129 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Antonio Carlos R. da Fonseca wrote:

> Hy Paul,
> (excuse for the English)
>
> This is one of the goals of this forum. The discussion.
> I am not the owner of the truth, neither you.

     I certainly am not. :-)

> We have to debate and get the better to LFN.
> But when I debate, and I hope you too, I will fight for my ideas.
> (From the Caos the Light arises).

     I will not say that I will "fight" for my ideas. :-)  I will make
suggestions, perhaps, and offer observations.  As it turns out, I have
not participated frequently because I have no particular commitment to
LFN at this time (nor any commitment to any other auxiliary language,
although I have used Interlingua most).  Perhaps when I have more
opportunity I will try to write in LFN.  I am using English only as a
matter of "weakness" :-) in that regard.  Certainly a constructed
language should be used as much as possible.

     My concern at this point is just what the small LFN community sees
to be the overall purpose of Lingua Franca Nova.  What is it for?  Why
does it exist?  Is it to be only a sort of inter-Romance for speakers
of the Romance languages?  If so, how does it differ from the Romanica
of Josu Lavin (who is making something of a nuisance of himself on the
Interlingua mailing list)?  If Lingua Franca Nova is only supposed to
be an inter-Romance language, then I have little interest.  If it is
supposed to be genuinely an auxiliary language for people outside the
Romance community as well, then I have some interest.

> If I was chinese, only particles will be enough for the majority of
> the situations and, if from the text the idea is clear, why to use
> them?
> But I´m not chinese, and is hard for me understand so compact
> language.

     But if LFN is to be genuinely an auxiliary language beyond just the
Romance speakers, then others may complain that LFN is far, far too
complicated for them.  Why all this long discussion about verb forms
when many languages get along without them?  My first interest in LFN
came when there was still consideration of it being more like creoles.
It seems to me that it has moved far beyond that.  Is it becoming too
complicated for use as a genuinely *international* auxiliary language?

     Design of an effective auxiliary language is an engineering problem
that involves many trade-offs and decisions.  Not everyone will be
happy with everything.  One man's "necessary feature" is another man's
"fatal flaw."  Unless we want our own language merely recoded with
different words (let alone with words similar to our own), then we have
to get used to the idea that some things will be unfamiliar.

> Portugese is a highly complex language.  [...]

     So is English.  In fact, it is a difficult language for many adult
learners.  My concern is that an auxiliary language should itself not
be too complex, or it will be rejected by the wider community.

> It has a lot of positive factors but, for sure, is not the only
> paradigma to be used for LFN.

     Every language has positive factors of some kind, otherwise people
would give it up.  The question is what particular mix of positive
factors should go into any particular auxiliary language.  And what
factors will other people actually consider to be negative?

--
Paul O. Bartlett

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