Stefan Fisahn | Re: [LFN] Re: [verduloj] Alternativoj por Eo-alternativemuloj EU-aj…

Alo Martin,

sin interede, no lingua desiniada sin Esperanto ia pote developa.
Sola Esperanto ave operante strutures organizal a estra de interede.

Ma, prede cual lingua ave un acaso futurente no es posable.
Multe casos, ce nos no pote conose oji.
Me pensa ce LFN ave la plu cualias per es un lingua franca per la
popla, Interlingua posable ave la plu bon cualias per asetada de un
orginiza grande internasional, e Esperanto ave la plu bon cualias como
un lingua usada vera.
Oposante la reputas mal: LFN con carater creol pote ave la mesma
problemas como linguas creol. Interlingua pote criticada como un latina
povre (alga persones ja dise ce lantina pote un bon lingua aidante
internasional.). E la reputa mal contra Esperanto tu ja sabe.

---

Hi Martin,

without Internet, no conlang without Esperanto had been developed.
Just Esperanto has operation structurs outside the Internet.

But, to forecast which language have a chance in future isn't possible.
So much factors which we don't know.
I think LFN has the best qualities to be a grassroot lingua franca for
the folks, Interlingua may has the best qualities to be accepted by an
international organisation, and Esperanto's best quality is to be the
quality as proofed concept.
On the other hand, the bad reputations out there: LFN may has the same
reputation problems as creol languages. Interlingua could be seen as
"poor latin" (some people see latin as a potential internationa auxilliary
language). And the bad reputation of Esperanto you already know.

sf.

> How you can solve this problem. The problem of Esperanto always was to reach the critic-mass. How LFN can reach it?
>
> Martin
>
> --
> *** LFN *** Lingua Franca Nova *** LFN ***
> Web site: http://www.lingua-franca-nova.net
> WikiWiki: http://lfn.esef.net
> Mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LinguaFrancaNova
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
--
http://esef.net