ravendon | Re: Fwd: Lingua Franca Nova Enthusiast
- Autor: ravendon
- Tema: Re: Fwd: Lingua Franca Nova Enthusiast
- Data: 2010-10-31 03:10
- Mesaje: 3199 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
The superior thing doesn't always win. Dvorak keyboard, BetaMax & Nintendo N64 come to mind. LFN, from what I've been learning so far, seems vastly superior to anything else out there. I thought for a while that Ido & Interlingua had potential, but as I studied them further, they drifted further away. I couldn't seem to get into them. They made strange decisions such as double letters, keeping the r trill mandatory, etc. But, no auxlang has any chance of being anything but a niche player, unless large, governmental organizations such as the Red Cross, the United Nations, the US State Dept and similar oganizations agree on using one common aux lang as the default standard. Things have to get bad enough for them to want change. The current de facto standard is English and it functions well enough i.e. business, science, that nothing else will be able to move in and displace it. Unfortunately, for those of us who wish for a simpler, more scientific & more universal answer. --- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Steven Lynch wrote: > > > Dear George,  In spite of what was said in that message, to me, of > > all the languages I have investigated, LFN is the only one that could > > possibly work as a Lingua Franca, precisely because of its > > simplicity. I certainly will use no other, and in fact I truly wish > > I could use it in my normal life as a first language! How much > > simpler life would be for everyone. > > I am not George, and he must speak for himself. However, I have been > around the constructed international auxiliary language (conIAL) field > for many years, and sadly, perhaps, it is not the linguistic > characteristics of a language that lead to its success. Several years > ago I addressed this matter in my online essay "Thoughts on IAL > Success" at http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/thoughts.html . I do not > claim that this is the last word (far from it), but I have pointed out > that it is not theoretical linguistic characteristics that have a lot > to do with whether any one conIAL succeeds or does not. I myself think > well of LFN (and I mean that sincerely), but if it is to succeed, it > has a long row to hoe. > > -- > Paul Bartlett >