Mark Bailey | Re: [LFN] LinguaFrancaNova

Hi,

Thanks for the replies.

Maybe I have misunderstood the origins of LFN?

Maybe I am oversimplifying the creation of the vocabulary but isn't it a
"best fit" approach from the source languages?

Not wanting to be-little LFN in any way, I find it an attraction if I am
right in what I am saying.

I take Jorj's point that the grammar is different and I am aware that there
maybe "false cognates" existing in the source languages but isn't that where
Catalan comes in?

Quote:

"Catalan was included because of its centrality, both physically and
linguistically, which made it a useful "tie-breaker" when word forms were
split (as they often were) between a French-Italian version and a
Spanish-Portuguese version"

Although the ideal of a world language is a glorious one, I feel that for
some languages it is one step too far resulting in something that is
incomprehensible by anyone.

I am currently on a mission to communicate with as many people as possible
with as little as effort as possible. To achieve this goal I started my
linguistic journey by trying to find a 'simplified/pidgin or creole' of the
major 5 languages: English (my native language), Spanish (LFN), Arabic,
Russian (Slovio/Ruskio) and Mandarin.

I was hoping that LFN would fit the (Spanish) bill!

This was the reasoning behind my question, but as I said thanks for the
replies!

Regards

omarko

On 18/04/2008, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote:
>
>   On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, George Boeree wrote:
>
> > Hi, Mark.
> >
> > I wish I could say that lfn is the road to international
> > understanding... but I can't. Knowing lfn vocabulary might help -
> > many words are close to their Spanish counterparts -- but the grammar
> > is nothing like Spanish, and they are likely to look at you like you
> > are from outer space. The same would be true for any of the other
> > Romance languages. Someone who speaks one of them would pick up lfn
> > very quickly, but not so much the other way around!
>
> This is a serious problem with constructed international auxiliary
> languages (conIALs) whose vocabularies closely resemble Romance
> vocabularies: native Romance speakers persist in trying to pull the
> languages to make them more and more Romance and less and less globally
> international. I have witnessed the same phenomenon with IALA
> Interlingua. I for one do not want a supposedly "international
> language" which is Yet Another Romance Language. Why don't I just
> improve my rusty French and have done with it and forget Lingua Franca
> Nova if it is going to be Just Another Romance Language? (Or let us go
> with Latino sine Flexione, which is unashamedly a form of Latin before
> the uprising of the Romance tyranny. Or maybe Richardius Dominicus's
> Simplified Latin.)
>
> --
> Paul Bartlett
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]