Steven | Re: [LFN] The future
Having investigated a number of different conlangs in the past few weeks, I can honestly say that, despite its apparent lack of popularity, LFN is by far the easiest to speak, and I think that is absolutely vital in instigating the development of an international auxiliary language. I'm not expert, but LFN is certainly the one I choose to learn because of its ease of use, and I will continue to learn it, despite its apparent unpopularity.
--- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, George Boeree <cgboeree@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>