Patrick Chevin | Re: [LFN] The future

• Autor: Patrick Chevin (“chevinpatrick”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] The future
• Data: 2010-08-05 21:36
• Mesaje: 3159 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Läbiko blibos obes volapük...

--- En date de : Jeu 5.8.10, Patrick Chevin <chevinpatrick@...> a écrit :

De: Patrick Chevin <chevinpatrick@...>
Objet: Re: [LFN] The future
À: LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com
Date: Jeudi 5 août 2010, 18h31

Läbiko bliblos obes volapük...

--- En date de : Jeu 5.8.10, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> a écrit :

De: Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...>
Objet: Re: [LFN] The future
À: LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com
Date: Jeudi 5 août 2010, 18h01

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, George Boeree wrote (excerpted for brevity):

> The second most likely option is English. I know all the arguments
> against English - irregular verbs, a multitude of idioms, and, of
> course, a ridiculous spelling system. English grammar is sufficiently
> simple that learning idioms and irregular verbs are not that great a
> barrier. [trim]

I would say that the idioms and irregular verbs are by no means trivial
for learners of English who do not already speak a west European
language, and sometimes even for them. Over the years I had some
instance of trying to teach English to monoglot speakers of some Asian
languages, and they found English **very** difficult. Moreover, a
number of years ago I read an internet post of a west European speaker
who claimed that he had almost native competence in English, except that
he found English's phrasal verbs almost harder to master than our
bizarre spelling. So, based on my personal experience, I would say
that the matter is not cut and dried. Apart from some west Europeans,
English is actually a rather difficult language.

> The third most likely option - and it is a very distant third - is
> Interlingua. Esperanto, to anyone other than an esperantist, looks
> alien, antiquated, artificial, and just plain ridiculous.

Sorry, George, but as time goes by I am coming more and more to favor
Esperanto. Antiquated, artificial, alien, ridiculous? I personally
would say most definitely NOT. Let us face facts. Of all of the
scores (hundreds?) of constructed international auxiliary languages
proposed since the 1870s, Esperanto is literally the ONLY one which has
developed anything like a real community of users, no matter how many
of us might complain, bitch, and whine. Esperanto works, antiquated,
artificial, alien, and ridiculous or not.

> Ido,
> Novial, and similar languages aren't that much better.

Certainly there are Idists and Novialistes who would disagree with
you. However, I would agree that Novial is moribund, and Ido barely
more than so.

> Occidental and
> LFN look too much like baby-talk pidgins. Interlingua, on the other
> hand, for all its faults from a IAL-lovers perspective, looks to a
> "naive" European like... European! (Don't get me wrong: My own
> favorite is LFN.)

An interesting notion. There have been those on the AUXLANG mailing
list who have touted Occidental PRECISELY because it does not seem
quite like an artificial language. On the other hand, there are those
who seem to take the position that Interlingua is a "smooth" and
pleasant language, at least for west-European speakers.

> One more possibility - one most likely to accompany the first
> possibility (status quo): Machine translation. It is a huge
> challenge, but inevitable. In fact, with a decent mainframe computer
> and a few gazillion man-hours of programming, we should be able to do
> it between two languages already.

However, so far machine translation has had an indifferent record, and
I am not optimistic.

> Just my thoughts. What do you think?

You have received them. :) I really do think well of Lingua Franca
Nova, and I wish it well, but, sadly, I am not optimistic for its
overall chances.

--
Paul Bartlett

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

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