George Boeree | Re: [LFN] The future
- Autor: George Boeree (“cgboeree”)
- Tema: Re: [LFN] The future
- Data: 2010-08-06 13:10
- Mesaje: 3161 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Paul Bartlett wrote: > 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. > And I have had exactly the opposite experience. In fact, the English learners I have come into contact with express their enjoyment of the language. They find it "fun"! > > > 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. > Of course, note that I said "to anyone other than an esperantist, (it) looks..." It has indeed developed a real community, and that is what makes it fun. It's moment of opportunity was over 100 years ago. It will never be accepted as an official IAL. > > > 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. > The speed of development of information processing - both the hardware and the software - has been incredible. I fully expect it to continue for some time to come! > > > 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 > Thanks, Paul. Always a pleasure! Jorj > The only difference between reality and fiction, is that fiction needs to be credible. Mark Twain [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]