Damned Esperantists... Bunch of fascists.

Goosestepping to the beat of my own drummer,

Fafa Floly

I spent more time reading your page. Are you from the US? Well, I think I never will write to a native english speaker without fearing. The bad thing about national language as "lingua franca". But what you wrote, "for better or for worse, the world has already found its Interlingua -- and you're reading it now." is totaly right (i wrote 'write' but i correct :P)! Sure, english needs more time to learn (look at me! I study english many years and i still can't write or talk). This is why i don't like english, i got fear of it.

The other point i want to talk is the "-ing" form. I mean, i don't realy use it in esperanto (remember that i started to speak esperanto a few weeks ago). When a person asks me: "What are you doing now?" I simple answer: "I study" or "I write an email". Even in portuguease: "O que você está fazendo agora?"; "Eu estudo" or "Eu escrevo um email". The meaning is the same (i think so. =P i just have this example, i'm just an equivalent to a high school student).I read someone writing about the "easier interlingua's grammar". I don't think so... I don't know how to pronounciate and spell (the worse). In the XX century the portuguease language had an reform. W, Y and K were banished and some words like "philosofia", "pharmácia" lost the 'ph' and were written with an 'f' (more simple in my personal opinion). The Gode's language don't seems to be so easier like people says. I preffer "one letter, one sound".

The acusative case is a trouble for everybody (except germans, russians etc), I know. I have trouble with it. But if we can make the things clear, why don't? With the acusative the object don't "hide" from our understanding. Yeah, that's true... "Parlar e scribar interlingua es quasi impossibile", I realy can't do it withou a dictionay. Esperanto I can give a try =] And I never had heard about interlingua out the internet. How study it without a book?

I keep with esperanto. Maybe when interlingua becomes more know i would realy give it a try. Untill that day i will keep with Doctor Z's one. Fafa, would you mind in puting online this text? My english is realy a trouble for me, If someone wants talk to me another arguments, this is my e-mail: alexandremsx@yahoo.com.cn. Sorry about anything wrong and thanks!

Alexandre

(For what it's worth, though, you write in English better than I can in any language I've studied in school.)

Apparently English is unique among European languages in its reliance on the "-ing" form, which languages like Spanish and Portuguese have but don't use as much. Which begs the question: How do you distinguish in Portuguese between actions that are happening right now and those that happen in general but not necessarily at this moment? For example, English distinguishes between "What are you eating?" (right now) and "What do you eat?" (habitually). In your example, one can reply to "O que você está fazendo agora?" ("What are you writing?") with "Eu escrevo" ("I write") and mean "at this moment", not "in general". But if one just comes out and says "Eu escrevo" without being askedĘ"O que você está fazendo agora?", doesĘ"Eu escrevo" mean that one is writing at that very moment, or habitually?

As for Interlingua, I agree that you're probably better off with Esperanto for the time being. Interlingua was conceived to be only a model of what was common in Romance languages, not to be a functioning language for everyday use, which is why it looks prettier than Esperanto but isn't nearly as easy to learn. And in any case, there's infinitely more books, CDs, etc. for learning Esperanto than there are for Interlingua ... or any other artificial language, for that matter.

Boa sorte!

Fafa

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on making that very nice page about International languages. The lay-out and the design of your page is simply terrific! And its contents are so nice as its 'face'. (I have to beg your pardon for future mistakes. English is not my native language. I'm a Brazilian, and although I have studied English for almost ten years, I still feel myself a 4-year-old boy when I have to talk to an American, or another one whose mother-language is English.) As you will easily see, I speak much better Esperanto, language I like more than my own (?) language, Portuguese. I speak also Spanish, Italian, and a little French, German and Arabic. So I think I can comment some of the information you put on your site properly. (I forgot to say I'm quite modest too! ;)

There are some facts I would love to share with you. If you had written the pages about Esperanto and Interlingua ten or fifteen years ago, I would say you would be absolutely right about the sad fate of Interlingua, that strange new Latin (strange not from the Portuguese point of view, but as I told you, my first language is becoming Esperanto as the time goes by - strange from Esperanto-speaker's point of view, as I speak a language without grammar and pronounciation irregularrities, as you sure know). About Esperanto, the future of the language is guaranteed since the twenties, but its ideological background, the idea of Esperanto as not one, but THE international language, was not just in crisis, but also 'stagnita' (sorry, don't know this world in English. I suspect you have an Esperanto-English dictionary, so i ask you to use it sometimes, my friend. Sorry!). WIth the 'advento' of the Internet, things changed for Interlingua and Esperanto.

After some years of 'stagnado', a young man from my country, Brazil, after many years dedicated to Esperanto, left the movement because of growing disagreements with the local Esperanto-group. And as you said, in a briliant resume of Interlinguists, this man came to the arms of Interlingua, not because he supported the language, but to offer his services to a concurrent of Esperanto. This story is well-known in my country. This man, this single man, is much responsible for the 'renesanco' of Interlingua not just in the net, but also 'ekster' it. He allowed Interlingua sites to multiply, as he is an internet specialist. The site of UMI (Union Mundial (?) pro Interlingua), many (OK, let's be honest, ..some) of the actual Interlingua sites were made by this man. He even tried to copy the successful trip organization 'Pasporta Servo' from Esperanto. Very funny. In the Pasporta Servo book, you can be a guest in more than 1.000 homes in 75 countries. In Interlingua's version, not more than 20 people in 3 countries. I'm telling you these facts in order to show you how powerfurl can be the net to raise the dead, speacially about languages.

About Esperanto, however, the future seems to smile to us again, thanks to the net. After the explosion of the net 'ekster' the US, in the earlies 90', the language started to be used not just by fanatics by Esperanto, as you said, but also by ordinary people who want to use Esperanto in a very practical way. Try to find musics in Esperanto in the site of MP3..You will be surprised. I think you know that we have plenty of CDs (I have 28 just in my house, all in Esperanto! :), groups, chats, and e-mail groups (more than 100, just in Esperanto..about it, more than 300!). The language is regaining the possibility to be the future second language of this planet, by a very simple conclusion: the more people use the language, the more people who don't speak it yet get in touch with it. This is a circle of virtú, because for an international language succeed, it doesn't have to be spoken nor loved by billions. The candidate must just: Don't die nor change too much before it had accumulated enough litterature and adherents from earlier times till the point it is not stoppable (sorry, may i say this way in English? I mean 'nehaltigebla'! :) And if Internet brought to life the 'komata lingvo' Interlingua, what the net is doing for Esperanto, already alive language?

If you want, ask me for sites in Esperanto to visit. I would love to show you this point of view in pratical way! :)

Your reader and admirer

Flavio, from Brasil

PS - It's funny to see in your page that in every single E-mail you received commenting your page, or in every e-mail or answer you gave, the name Esperanto ALWAYS appear..Very interesting, isn't it? It's really not just a language, but a milestone, some sort of 'Language Christ', in this sense..All the other projects can be resumed in B.E. (before Esperanto), and A.E. (after Esperanto), don't you agree?

Tamen, ankoraù devas esti ia motivo deviganta adopti tiun aù chi lingvon kiel interlingvon. Latino havis siajn ligojn al la scienco, la leg'o, la arto, kaj la religio; la angla havas siajn ligojn al la politike potenca Usono, la komerco, teknologio, kaj plurmilion-dolaraj filmoj; Klingon havas la popularan serion Star Trek; Kvenja havas La Sinjoro de la Ringoj; kiel la Macintosh en siaj tagoj fruaj, Esperanto bezonas trovi sian "killer app" -- sian PageMaker aù Photoshop -- kiu donus al pliaj homoj motivon lerni g'in. Malgraù sia popularo en Brazilo, Chinio, kaj aliaj nacioj, kaj malgraù sia popularo kontraste al aliaj lingvoj artefaritaj, Esperanto ankoraù estas lingvo de la periferio, kaj havas longan vojon antaù si por ig'i g'enerale uzata interlingvo.

Altestime,

Fafa Floly

Don't believe it? Try this experiment:

pronounce "X" for, say two seconds. Stop and freeze your mouth. Try starting back without moving your mouth. This is impossible as k's position is totally different from s's.

Instead, if you do the same for sx, gx, or others, you will succeed: there is only a single position for your mouth to keep. Actually the positions for sx-jx (and cx-gx) are the same because they only differ in the vocal chords vibrating or not.

And, about how strange the Esperanto letters look: there are no similar letters in Swedish (where you may see ö, ä, å), Norwegian or Danish (å, ø, æ), or Icelandic (þ, ð).

You should also mention that some people - including me - prefer not to esperantize their names, because of the problems connected; accusative and other things are tackled by resorting to different syntax, preposition or other tricks.

Congratulations for your site and keep up the good work!

-Federico

As for "x" being the only compound sound, linguistically that's not exactly accurate. Nor does the position of my mouth alone (and by that I assume you mean my lips) indicate where a sound begins and ends — ventriloquists, after all, can talk without moving their mouths much at all — the position of the tongue is just as important. In any case, the Esperanto letters "c" (/ts/), "ĉ" (/tsh/), and "ĝ" (/dzh/) are all compound sounds. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if "x" is going to be banned from the orthography, it shouldn't be on account of being a compound sound, since, as we see, the alphabet already has three other such letters.

Other, stranger alphabets. If I understand you right (and I'm not sure that I do), Esperanto may have some funky characters in its alphabet — especially when written with "x" instead of the circumflexes — but other languages, like Swedish, Dutch, and Norwegian, have unusual characters as well. Agreed. But then, that's why "å", "ø", et al. are seldom used in planned languages — they're too unfamiliar to most of the world.

Not everyone Esperantoizes their names. I know; I believe I mention that at the end of the second paragraph dealing with proper nouns on my Esperanto page.

Well, I guess that's it. ;)

Regards,

Fafa Floly

Do, ventroparolantoj povas ja paroli sen movi siajn lipojn, sed ili movas ja langon kaj voĉkordoj! Tenante unu pozicion oni povas elparoli c-sonon, kiu - se vi provas - estas, kvankam simila, nepre malegala al s-sonon. La sama afero estas je Ĉ kaj Ĝ kaj Ŝ.

Fakte en la itala ni uzas "c"-on sekvatan de i aŭ e por skribi ĉ-on, kaj skribas "sc"-on kun "i" aŭ "e" por ŝ. Do, en Italio ni "opinias" ke ŝ estas farita kiel "sĉ".

En Germanio, ili skribas ŝ-on per "sch", kaj ĉ-on per "tsch" - do ili tute malkunsentas kun italoj, ĉar germanoj faras ĉ-on per modifo de ŝ kaj ne male!

(fakte "sch" estas farita per s+ç (ç ne ekzistas nek en esperanto nek en la angla, ĉi elparolas kiel en "ich" /iç/), do ĉ = t + s + ç... kiu kompreneble ne pravas, ĉu? En la angla oni trovas ŝ-on kaj ĉ-on, sed nenio kiel "ç".

Mi sugestas al vi viziti PMEG <http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg> en ĝiaj unuaj ĉapitroj, tie estas pli detalita versio de esperanta fonetiko.

Ĝis, kaj feliĉan novan jaron,

-Federico

(Kompreneble, la kialo vera pro ke Zamenhof evitis la "x", lau mi, estas ke la plejpartaj slavaj lingvoj faras same — ili uzas du literojn reprezenti "x" kaj unu por "c", "ch", k.c.).

Mi ne scias, chu ni iam akordos che chi tiu temo, sed mi dankas vin pro la adreso al La Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko. Ghi pli-malpli samas al mia kopio de Plena Analiza Gramatiko, sed estas tre bone disponi tiajn informojn sur la Reto. :)

Fafa Floly

Sincerely,

Dr. Whoopee

I expect that most esperantists are used to what they're used to and they've probably already fixed their computers to make them work with the circumflexes. (Something I don't seem to be able to do for some reason. Using Dan Smith's fonts and macros, I find it extremely easy to work with Tolkien's scripts, but for some reason, I still can't find an easy way to put a stupid circumflex over my consonants.) And of course, like most folks, I suppose, esperantists aren't willing to take advice from an outsider. (Although, there is a certain irony there, I guess, since "la Movado" is supposed to be a panacea for eliminating barriers between esperantists and "foreigners" and what is a foreigner but a particular kind of outsider? So some barriers come down and others rise up... As a historian, I'm sensing a pattern here...)

Incidently, I do think the Riismo folks have a good point. Without going all ideological, I do think that the Riismo reforms (or your suggestion) would just simply make the language more clear. Personally, what fascinates me about the language is its logic and clarity (which is still remarkable, inspite of its faults.) Thus, the things that I don't like about it are where it falls short in these two areas.

I do find it more difficult to learn than I thought, though. Maybe that's the source of the naturalistic conlang advocates got their inspiration; I teach Latin to 4th and 5th graders, and while I'm no great shakes as a Latin scholar I figured it would be a breeze to learn the Esperanto vocab, but it just isn't as easy as I thought, partly because the words aren't as recognizable as I'd hoped. Then again, the problem with the more naturalistic options is that you have to invest more time in learning grammar and in really using the vocabulary to say things. I guess the bottom line is that learning languages is always tough and it can only be made so easy. Not that I've been able to invest lots of time into it, mind you, and I've only been at it for a bit more than a month, but I certainly did find that the claims made for its ease of learning are clearly exaggerated. I expect they were made by those who already know more than one language, as opposed to the mere one-and-a-half that I can claim.

Sincerely,

[Dr. Whoopee]

By the way, I find Romanico rather interesting, the concept for combining a more consistently romance vocabulary with the esperanto-esque schematic approach to grammar being an intriguing one, and have been wondering if you're familiar with Romanice? I noticed it on Richard Kennaway's site but haven't found any info on it. Are you familiar w/ it? He said it was some sort of take off from Romanico.

One other quick comment. Maybe this is my Latin teacher's bias, but I've been thinking that a case system, if it is VERY regular and consistent could actually be easier than using so many prepositions. For example, is it really better to have to use the preposition "de" 50 million times, rather than just having some sort of possessive or gentive case? The gentleman who talked about Volapuk on your site made a similar point. One approach would be to have a case which contains a sense of "of" like a Latin or Greek genitive and another approach would be to make it more of a "possessive/adjectival" sense like the English possesive. The first would replace more prepositions (it could even replace some "ablative-type" prepositions like "from") and the second would be simpler: simply add an adjective ending to the end of the noun. (e.g., an Esperanto-style possesive/adjectival case could simply add an "a" after the noun's "o"; de knabo could become knaboa.) Incidentally, I agree w/ you that Volapuk's verb system is hopelessly over-developed, but I find it's case system just about right in terms of complexity.

Just a few random musings while I procrastinate my work a while longer

Sincerely,

Dr. Whoopee

1. Recognizability. In practical use, an interlanguage would more often be read (in signs, notices, etc.) than spoken, so given a choice between recognizability and pronounceability, the conlang designer would be better off sticking to the former. After all, the phonetic system that everyone on the planet can pronounce with equal ease can never be designed, but as difficult to pronounce as Spanish and French are for non-Romance speakers around the globe, it hasn't stopped anyone with the desire or need from learning to speak and read either language.

   Geoff's spelling reform, while lambasting Zamenhof's haphazard commitment to recognizability on the one hand, throws the same principle out the window on the other. If charmaj shakistoj is freakish and unrecognizable, is tcarmay cakistoy really more familiar?

2. Pronunciation. The reason for the spelling reform is the objection to diacritical marks that can't easily be produced and the notion that letters should represent one, pure sound only and not combined sounds, as c, ch, and gh do in Esperanto. The first objection is reason enough to abandon diacritical marks, and Zamenhof's system of using "h", while it works well enough as ch and sh, doesn't make the same linguistic sense as gh and jh.

   But Geoff's reform, while it solves the cosmetic problem of gh and jh (with the questionable upgrade to dj and j), creates new homonyms where there were none before. Arĉata and artŝata, to use two of Geoff's examples, are now both spelled artcata, leaving nothing but context to tell them apart. (Before the change, the two were not only spelled differently, but in fact pronounced differently: ar-CHA-ta and art-SHA-ta.)

   Which brings up another point: "nachos" and "not shows" are not pronounced the same; having a digraph "ch" to assure that the sound [tsh] won't be broken up into [t'sh] is a useful thing for keeping words from both sounding and looking alike.

   All in all, then, I'd say that the spelling reform offered by Ido, even though it sacrifices the distinction between [zh] and [dzh], is a more agreeable fix for the problem of Esperanto's troublesome circumflexes.

Of course, if you'd rather use the circumflexes — and you're using a PC or a Mac with OS X — they're easy enough to create now by using Unicode. (If you're using a PC and don't already have Unicode or an "extended Latin" keyboard, you can get it through the Windows Update function and scrolling down to the "non-critical" updates.) I'm not sure how one actually makes the characters on a PC, but on a Mac they're no more difficult (anymore) than any of the more usual diacritical marks.

As for the general ease of Esperanto, it's certainly more difficult than it has to be: for a more or less Romance-based language, its grammar is more complex than that of most Romance languages, and, as you point out, its lexicon isn't always Romance. A quick fix might be to ignore the accusative case or reserve it for special or archaic speech like the word ci. Introducing more user-friendly words would help the lexicon — aperti, mava, men, and poka are all probably better choices than their official counterparts, although none of them really caught on.

But given that the accusative case gives us English speakers such grief, I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to add a genitive case into the mix — it'd be familiar to us, perhaps, but not to most Romance speakers. Since Esperanto is essentially a European language, it should probably avoid grammatical features not common to most of the major European languages unless they're something patently easy to use.

Oh, and yes, I'm familiar with Romanice, which is basically a dialect of Romanico. I used to have a separate page for the language, but now I think I'll just make a note of it on the Romanico page, as the main difference between the two languages is that Romanice ends both its nouns and adjectives in e.

And finally, thanks much for the tip on Interlingua dictionaries. I'm not sure I have much time anymore to put them to real use as far as my site goes, but I ordered a few just the same. :)

Fafa

Thanks for the time you spend in an extensive analysis of Eddy's proposal. I see what you mean about the homonym problem, though I guess I'm not convinced that recognizability is as important as regularity. Actually I happen to agree that the idea of the circumflexes is an elegant solution in the abstract, but the computer problem still seems to get me. (More on that later.) My first thought as I began working through "Teach Yourself Esperanto" was that they looked rather cool... and then I thought about how I would reproduce them on a computer and it still seems to be eluding me...

Perhaps the Ido approach with a clarification that a "soft g" is spelled "dj" would be the best solution yet. (I'm not quite reconciled to losing the "j"/"dj" distinction.) Aside from the c= sh, though, most of Eddy's ideas do seem to overlap w/ the Ido approach. Maybe it's just my logic teacher's passion for order, though, but I would like to see the nearest possible approach to one-letter/ one-sound that is possible w/o adding non-Roman characters. I would like to see qu become kw, etc. "qu" doesn't even have the virtue of allowing us to reduce the number of required letters to make the same sound! X to replace h^ does make some sense to me, perhaps because of my classicist leanings. If C doesn't become "sh" (which is admittedly a stretch), I guess "ts" is probably the best use for it that I can think of. I can't think of a good reason to lose "w" or "y" and maybe "ch" and "sh" are best left alone after all, as you persuasively argue.

I have, in fact, tried the "unicode" solutions, downloading the "Keyman" keyboard. After many hours of playing with it, I did, in fact, get it working on my screen... but my darned printer wouldn't notice them unless I actually keyed in the code on my keypad, which means that both my Latin-3 and my unicode fonts can be used to print the fonts... but requires me to type in a four-digit number (and have the code list handy because of my sieve-like memory) if I ever actually want to print out what I write. And there's still the problem of what to do in e-mail text. I'm still convinced that the special characters, while neat-looking, are more trouble than they're worth.

CASES AND GENDER

I'm sure that my love for cases likely stems from the early influence of Latin on my formative years. I find myself secretly agreeing with the curmudgeon of a classicist [DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS] that we have checking up on us for our Latin-primer project who describes Spanish as "bad Latin spoken fast." My brother once asked him whether Latin or Italian was the better language and his response was:

"It depends on for what sort of person you're talking about. If you want to be a lawyer, Latin is the better language, and Italian is the better languageif you want to be... a gardener."

Asked why, then, it was Italian that won out in the end, he responded "Well...the meek shall inherit the earth."

OK, enough with the jokes. I guess it really all comes down to taste and one's native language always comes into it. (And in my case, my first second language) I always found the lack of a possessive or genitive in the Romance languages VERY strange and the "de" constructions very awkward. And if we lose all the inflections for cases, why keep so many inflections for tenses? (At least the conlangs eliminate the inflections of person and number.)

So here's my theory: an extremely logical set of about 15-30 (absolute total) endings could express all of the genders, numbers and cases for nouns and tenses, voices and moods for verbs and actually make the language easier for most folks, even if those snobby Frenchmen would turn up their noses at it.

In general, I find myself in the minority position of wishing Esperanto were even more schematic. The two areas where I find myself wishing for more naturalism is in vocabulary selection and in using more "natural" gender endings for words that have gender naturally (i.e., people and animals) though I certainly don't wish for a return of arbitrary "grammatical gender" for inanimate objects.

But here I am procrastinating my work again talking about stillborn languages. Sometimes I completely fail to understand my own weird interests! I can't explain why I find this stuff interesting to my friends, but I just do.

Sincerely,

[Dr. Whoopee]

P.S. not much time to update the web-site, eh? Does this mean that you've recently landed a "real" job? Personally, one of the things I'm procrastinating is my work on finding one of my own. (Post-dissertation burnout's a killer, man!)

Regularity is certainly important, but a new international language also has to take into account that not everyone will be fluent in it, or care to be. For example, if I go on vacation to see the Great Wall of China and run into a sign that says "No entrance beyond this point -- trespassers will be shot" in Mandarin and Klingon, chances are I'm going to get pumped full of lead. It wouldn't matter if Mandarin and Klingon were the most regular, logical languages ever devised by man -- I'm not familiar with either, and have no hope of guessing any of the words. But if the sign were in Mandarin and, say, French, I might live to make it home, since, while I don't speak French, there's enough French and Latin in English that I might figure out the gist of the sign. Regularity's good if I'm studying to learn a language, but if I'm not, or if I simply don't know this or that word in the language, then it's recognizability that'll save the situation.

I'm not sure what to tell you about Unicode on a PC, though. Sounds like what you're using is the Mac equivalent of "Unicode Hex Input", where you have to key in 4-character alphanumeric codes to get the letter you want -- assuming the font you're using can handle it. The other Mac Unicode option is "Extended Roman (U)", with which I can type option-6 for a circumflex and then "c" to get "c" with a circumflex over it.

CASES AND GENDER

Here, too, common practice wins out over logic and/or simplicity in a lot of conlangs, most of which avoid cumbersome noun declensions but retain all sorts of verb conjugations. The original Interlingua (the one invented by Peano) did away with these as well, but he isn't widely imitated. Speakers of Western languages can afford to give up noun declensions, after all, since they have prepositions to fall back on, but a common substitute for verb conjugations has yet to be devised.

I'm with you on the naturalistic lexicon/gender endings bandwagon, though, the lexicon for the sake of not getting shot at the Great Wall of China, the gender endings for the sake of economy. (Adding an extra syllable to mark gender can be a little clumsy sometimes.)

Well, that's it for now. Back to work with me.

Fafa

Presumably not so mysterious to an Italian: veduta a volo d'uccello = bird's eye view.

-M

Fafa Floly

There is just no substitute for experience with actually using another language, in a natural, fluent way. I think it has something to do with the internal symbols of you brain; to learn to associate a second language with the same meanings, you have to somehow seperate them from the original tongue. After you've done it once, it's not a problem when you go on to your third and later languages. For your first language, you should be free to concentrate on achieving this break, without multiplying the effort with complex grammar.

Ido strikes me as better for this purpose because it puts you within spittin' distance of a half-dozen world-class languages, most notably English, while being probably the easiest such language to learn. (if you know of an easier one, please let me know!)

It's closeness to English is key. English is, after all, the defacto international language. Most students have had some exposure to it, and most who don't know it, want to. Ido is a huge leap toward English.

As for English speakers (and speakers of Romance languages), they get Ido extra cheap, with the similar vocabulary (though IMHO the grammar, while mercifully simple, is freakish enough that I don't imagine anyone finds it immediately familiar). Ido is a quick leap away from English.

While it might be better for those who speak languages not related to Ido to learn something related to their own language, it also may be well worth the extra effort to learn something closer to English. I am thinking in particular of Japanese students; I've been banging my head against Japanese long enough to have an appreciation of the painful differences between the two.

As a person learning Ido to learn Japanese faster (and French, Spanish, Italian, etc. when/if I get the time), I don't give a damn about old grudges and compromising for the sake of having the largest userbase: I just want the simplest language with the easiest vocabulary, a certain minimum level of alienness (a baby-talk English pidgin might have benefits as an auxiliary, but it just wouldn't teach me much about other languages), and a certain minimum audience so I have books to read and people to talk to.

BTW, nice page, the history makes interesting reading. Any comments or advice?

Cheers,

Darrell

As for the claim that learning a simplified, artificial language can help one learn a natural language faster, I know that grasping the more foreign aspects of Russian became a lot easier for me after seeing their Esperanto equivalents (particularly the accusative case). Actually, studying Esperanto's simplified grammar made understanding grammar in general a lot easier. But if I had been studying an uninflected language like French or Spanish, as you were, then perhaps Ido would have been a better match, since Ido, too, is mostly uninflected and features fewer non-Romance words than Esperanto.

However, since the birth of Esperanto, there have been a number of other "improved" Esperantos that offer the same sort of ease of use while ditching its less popular aspects (eg., the accusative case, the circumflexes, the final "j"s, the made-up words). Some, like Ido and Románico, kept Esperanto's iron-clad but artificial-looking regularity; others, like Interlingua and Latino Sine Flexione, tossed regularity to the wind and made languages so natural-looking that many have praised (or condemned) them as re-invented national tongues. You might actually prefer these latter languages to even Ido since, while they're not as consistent as Ido or Esperanto, they're within droolin' distance (as opposed to Ido's spittin' distance) of their parent languages.

Which is the easiest conlang to use, though, is a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer consistency of grammar and derivation -- the first for ease of use, the second for ease of learning and expanding the lexicon. (If a conlang is based on Romance, then the word for "ship", for example, had better be something like navo, not something unpredictable like shipo.) Esperanto's grammar, while easy enough, could be a lot easier, and its derivation is notoriously quirky. Ido's grammar is easy (although it could dispense with some of its subtler affixes), but I have a problem with its derivation; there's a lot of duplication in roots, and modeling Ido after Italian instead of Latin (and spoken Italian at that) was probably not the best way to go. Románico seems to solve that problem, but I'm not sure I care for the stress marks, and I miss Esperanto-Ido's use of "s" to distinguish verbs from other parts of speech.

Apart from consistency, though, I suppose a minimum user base might be nice, but since my interest in constructed languages is purely academic, the size (or existence) of the user base isn't terribly important. (Hell, if I cared about user bases, I'd throw away my Mac and get a PC like everybody else.) ;)

On the other hand, if you'd like to get more practical use out of a conlang and know that there's someone else out there who can speak it as well, for the most part you're stuck with Esperanto. Esperanto's also the only language where you'll have a chance of finding a book outside of the library that's written in the language. There are one or two Idist sites out there on the net that I'm aware of, and one or two Interlingua sites, but while representatives for both languages claim to know of large groups of fellow Idists and Interlinguists, you pretty much have to take that on faith. (Certainly you'll never find them in the U.S.) Other languages, like Románico, Volapük, Latino Sine Flexione, and Novial have pages here and there on the net, but you're more likely to find the resurrected Zamenhof himself break-dancing on the head of a pin than to find someone other than the pages' webmasters who can speak any of those lesser known languages.

Anyway, if you don't mind having nothing to read but the several grammar books and dictionaries left over from its heyday -- and the several web pages out there that more or less summarize the books -- then Ido sounds like a good match for you, although you should probably look into Interlingua as well (it being closer to French, if not to Japanese). Otherwise, just as I may have to someday come to terms with Windows, sooner or later you're going to have to take the plunge into Esperanto, for which there is no shortage of books, records, tapes, magazines, and even an awful film called Incubus starring, of all people, William Shatner. (I'm not kidding.) It's not just that the Esperanto user base is larger than Ido's or Interlingua's -- it's that it's the only one you're likely to ever find.

Regards,

Fafa Floly

P.S.: I had always heard that Japanese grammar was fairly easy to learn, that it's the script that's the real headache. From the sound of your email, I take it that I was misinformed...

Con un certe aviditate io ha comenciate a leger alicun partes de vostre sito "Back to Babel", que un amico interlinguista me ha indicate in le Internet. Lo que ha mi interesse special es naturalmente le capitulos dedicate a Interlingua.

Io opina que le facto que un organisation esperantista se pronuncia super un concurrente, non debe significar que illo lo face de un maniera si tendentiose e con un mixtura de misinformationes.

Inter le misinformationes in vostre sito io mentiona le assertion que post le morte de Alexander Gode anque le lingua haberea disparite. Il me pare que, si vos crede que vos como esperantistas es capabile de informar le publico non solmente super le lingua de Zamenhof, ma anque super interlingua, vos es obligate de scriber le veritate. Alora vos non debe crear le false impression que solmente in le ultime annos il haberea un renascentia de interlingua. Io me demanda proque vos non scribe in vostre texto que jam alicun annos post le publication del IED e del GRAMMAR in 1951 on ha fundate le Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI), que reuni interlinguistas in le mundo integre e que existe jam quasi un medie seculo. Sin interruption le UMI ha publicate usque al anno 1989 su revista "Currero", sequite de su successor actual "Panorama".

Legente vostre texto "Conclusion", un persona neutral e incognite in le mundo del linguas auxiliar, pensarea que interlingua debe esser un lingua sin valor, concipite per personas con cerebros confuse. Cata phrase in iste capitulo es involvite in negativismo, que culmina in le grande nonsens: "interlingua is easy to read, nearly impossible to write or speak."

Il es ver, interlingua es facile a leger. Ma le lingua es anque facile a scriber e a parlar. Mi experientia de multe annos me monstra que interlingua es plus facile que esperanto, un lingua que io ha usate intensivemente in mi juventute e que dunque io pote comparar con interlingua. Io ha mi experientia de interlingua per mi multiple contactos scripte con interlinguistas in multe paises, e mi participation a incontros de interlingua (p.e. le conferentias biennal del UMI). In interlingua manca le grande difficultates de esperanto, p.ex. le obstaculo insurmontabile del uso correcte del accusativo. E que pensa vos del problemas que presenta le uso correcte del participios in -ita e -ata? Io vos recommenda de leger le libro super le itismo e le atismo, scribite per Ebbe Vilborg. E vos sape naturalmente que il ha ancora un massa de altere subtilitates in esperanto que rende difficile (io non dice impossibile!) su uso active, de sorta que multe esperantistas resta comenciantes eterne.

Io vos invita a revider le textos in vostre sito e a conformar los alveritate.

Salutes de
Piet

A few things I should clear up:

1. "Blueprints for Babel" is my own site, based on my own observations about the various artificial languages I've come across. Neither I nor it are associated with any organization, Esperantist or otherwise.
2. While there may yet be people or even groups who carry the torch for Interlingua to this day, that language's zenith is long past. Latin is considered a dead language, even though Latin enthusiasts still endure. And there are groups that publish in Klingon and Quenya, but these languages, too, are moribund at best. So to say that Interlingua died with Gode is hardly an exaggeration. And how can anyone deny that the web has helped Interlingua -- and other less famous constructed languages -- enjoy something of a renaissance? Had it not been for the exposure afforded by the internet, many people in this day and age would never have heard of Interlingua.
3. Le grande nonsens: "interlingua is easy to read, nearly impossible to write or speak." Having studied Spanish in school, I can more or less read simple sentences in other Romance languages. But ask me to write an original sentence in French and I wouldn't know how. I'm not familiar enough with the language and its irregularities to do it. So it is with Interlingua. It's easy to read because it looks like a natural Romance language. But because its word-derrivation is irregular, even if I speak every Romance language there is, I have no sure way to guess what the form of a word in Interlingua will be. (I'd have a much better chance with Latino Sine Flexione, as long as I know Latin.)
4. Yes, Esperanto has its share of problems -- you're preaching to the choir on that point. Perhaps you didn't see it, but I gave a rather critical review of the language in my Esperanto page. (Although I must say that the -ita/-ata question seems moot at this point -- it was a question back in the early days of Esperanto, but has long since been worked out and clarified.)
5. I don't actually dislike Interlingua; I just feel that, like Esperanto, it falls far short of what it set out to do. And even that might be a bit harsh -- Esperanto was admittedly a work in progress before it was canonized, and I read somewhere that Gode developed Interlingua only as a theoretical model, never intending it to be used as a practical inter-language. So to judge it as one might be unfair.
6. While I can understand the mistake, the pseudonym "Fafa Floly" is actually masculine; it's an epithet taken from a popular radio show here in the U.S.

Regards,

Fafa Floly

Io continua a scriber in interlingua. Io suppone que vos, qui ha le pretention de judicar interlingua, dispone del "Interlingua-English Dictionary". In illo vos pote trovar le explication del parolas de mi littera que vos non comprende. Io es certe que vos non besoniara consultar lo multe vices.

1. Io es multo contente del facto que le misinformation in vostre sito super interlingua non es le producto de un organisation official del movimento de esperanto, que se haberea rendite ridicule per un tal publication..
2. Il es absurde de comparar le movimento de interlingua con le parve gruppos de individuos qui se occupa de Klingon e de Quenya. Il existe a pena textos publicate in iste duo productos de phantasia.

   Diverse casas de edition, personas private e super toto le Servicio de Libros (Zonnegloren 30, 7361 TL, Beekbergen, Nederland) ha publicate alicun CENTENAS de libros in le curso del annos. On pote trovar un grande numero de titulos in le "Bibliographia de Interlingua" que le Servicio de Libros invia gratuitemente a cata interessato. Cetero iste bibliographia pote esser consultate anque in le paginas del sito official del UMI: interlingua.com. Le absurditate de comparar le movimento de interlingua con le duo joculos de alicun personas debe esser evidente!

   Il es importante pro interlingua que le Internet, iste medio moderne de communication, ha create nove chances pro le promotion de interlingua. Ma asserer que interlingua ha morite al momento del morte de Alexander Gode e que illo ha renascite solmente per le popularitate del Internet in le ultime annos, monstra que on non es al currente del historia. Il es ver que le movimento de interlingua es ancora relativemente parve, ma illo ha crescite post le morte de Gode. Nove societates national se ha formate, p.ex. in Brasil, in Nederland, in Norvegia, in Ukraina.

   E le crescentia continua, nam ante un septimana, durante le 14-te Conferentia International de Interlingua in Focsani, Romania, duo nove associationes national, un association romanian pro interlingua e un association bulgare pro interlingua se ha constituite.

   Post le morte de Gode anque le numero de publicationes in interlingua ha crescite continuemente como p.ex. per le grande libro scientific super maladias de plantas, publicate in le Statos Unite de America. Tote un serie de obras litterari traducite e original ha essite publicate non ante ma post le morte de Gode.

   Vostre assertion relative al supponite morte de interlingua es dunque completemente incorrecte e besonia, si vos es un amico del veritate, un forte correction in vostre sito.

3. In le parte tres de vostre littera io retrova le eterne prejudicios del esperantistas, qui ha le illusion que post le apprension de un numero limitate de parolas basic plus le systema de affixos un esperantista es capabile de formar ipse le resto del vocabulario del lingua. Un grande illusion e un misconception del character e del functionamento de un lingua!

   Un esperantista ordinari non forma ipse su parolas. Le realitate es que ille imita lo que ille ha audite e legite, lo que dunque altere esperantistas ha fabricate. Ergo le tradition e le imitation es le factores decisive. Nostre studiante sape que ille non debe dicer "predikejo", un parola logic que forsan ille poterea crear in su capite, ma que le parola acceptate e normal es "preghejo", le parola que ille ha trovate in su manual o in su lectura.

   Un "director de schola" es "lernejestro" in esperanto. Ma proque non "instruejestro"? Le responsa es simple: necuno usa iste parola! Le tradition ha determinate que le concepto debe esser exprimite per le parola traditional "lernejestro".

   On pote concluder que esperantistas normal qui vole esser comprendite per altere esperantistas non forma ipse le parolas que illes usa, ma que illes los prende toto complete del stock jam prefabricate traditional. Si non, le publicationes e conversationes in esperanto esserea invadite de parolas deviante del formas usual. Le ultime consequentia esserea un fragmentation in dialectos multiple.

   Le grande avantage de interlingua es que le studiante apprende le vocabulario international existente. E iste vocabulario es plus regulari que le esperantistas assere. Iste studiante non apprende un systema artificial como illo de esperanto que nos ha date monstros como "terpomsensheliga tranchilo, eksedz(in)igho, vortshutemo, elpetegi, malmilistigi" e milles de altere enigmas.

   Le studiante de interlingua non va esser confrontate con un arbitrarietate in le selection del forma del parolas como in esperanto. Io va illustrar isto per un exemplo. In le linguas francese, anglese e german existe parolas como "nation, condition, donation", cata vice con le mesme "-tion". In italiano iste parolas ha uniformemente "-zione", in espaniol uniformemente -cion", in portugese sempre -çao", in nederlandese "-tie". In interlingua nos ha " nation, condition, donation", parolas conforme a centenas de altere parolas in "-tion". Ma que vide nos in esperanto? In le lingua de Zamenhof iste parolas varia sin motivo, nam le maestro ha prendite "nacio, kondi^co, donaco", con tres formas diverse: "-cio, -^co, -co. Proque? Io non sape. Tal arbitrarietates e multe alteres rende difficile le uso active de esperanto.

   Io poterea dar un longe exposition re iste thema, al qual io renuncia nunc a causa de su longor.

   Il es ver naturalmente que leger interlingua es plus facile que scriber e parlar lo. Leger textos in interlingua e comprender le interlingua parlate per un altere persona exige a pena effortias pro milliones de personas in le mundo, proque on lege e audi lo que on recognosce.

   Scriber e parlar, le uso active del lingua, exige un certe effortia, nam on debe apprender le grammatica de interlingua. Ma felicemente iste grammatica es minimal e pote esser apprendite in breve tempore. E il es necessari que durante un certe tempore on face exercitios, como ha facite le gruppos de juvene romanianos e bulgaros in nostre conferentia recente in Romania.

   Cetero le lectura de iste littera que io scribe nunc monstra le absurditate de vostre remarca que dice que interlingua es "impossible to write". E si vos habeva essite presente in nostre conferentia in Romania, vos haberea constatate que anque vostre altere remarca que dice que interlingua es "impossible to speak" es prendite del aere.

4. Mi opinion es que le problema de -ita e -ata in esperanto nunquam va esser solvite, nam illo ha essite causate per duo conceptiones linguistic, a un latere illo de Gaston Waringhien e su adeptos e al altere latere illo de Teo Jung e su adherentes. Ambe esperantistas que io cita hic ha morite, ma le problema resta e illo va viver tanto longe que esperanto va exister. Le ver origine de iste problema debe esser cercate in le facto que Zamenhof ha create un lingua con sex participios.
5. Sub le direction del ultime directores de I.A.L.A., Clark Stillman, Martinet (associato distinguite del UMI, morite ante 14 dies) e Gode on ha disveloppate interlingua como un lingua complete pro uso, non como un modello theoretic como le esperantistes assere jam desde multe annos. Io debe protestar con fortia contra le phrase in vostre littera ubi vos scribe: "interlingua........never intending it to be used as a practical inter-language." Le practica de multe annos demonstra clarmente que interlingua pote haber iste function.
6. Pardona me mi supposition que io vos ha credite un femina.

A few comments regarding your comments about my comments:

1. "Io suppone que vos, qui ha le pretention de judicar interlingua, dispone del "Interlingua-English Dictionary."

   Actually I don't, for the simple reason that I've never been able to find an Interlingua dictionary except at the research library at the University of California in Los Angeles. In fact, I probably never would have even heard of Interlingua had it not been for the autopsies offered in books about the artificial language movement. My knowledge of the language comes primarily from the sample texts offered in these books, Gode's "Interlingua a Prima Vista", and the various Interlingua sites on the web. As for my "pretention" to judge the language, my criticism is aimed primarily at the "naturalist" philosophy on which the language is based and at its method of word-derivation. For that I don't really require an extensive dictionary.

2. "Il es absurde de comparar le movimento de interlingua con le parve gruppos de individuos qui se occupa de Klingon e de Quenya."

   Believe it or not, those parve gruppos claim more adherents in the U.S. alone than Interlingua does worldwide. Silly as it is, the Klingon dictionary sold some quarter of a million copies as of 1996 -- just four years after it was published. And that's not mentioning all the other Klingon-language books and tapes (eg. "Conversational Klingon", "Power Klingon"). Or the fact that Klingon is heard in motion pictures and every day on TV. If it's absurd to compare the Klingon craze with the Interlingua movement, it's only in that the former is so far and away more successful.

3. "Nove societates national se ha formate, p.ex. in Brasil, in Nederland, in Norvegia, in Ukraina."

   I'm sure these societies exist, just as Latin clubs exist at most major schools in the U.S. As I said before, if Latin is considered a dead language, then these groups, fervent about Interlingua though they may be, would hardly make a case that Interlingua is alive and well. In any event, that there are allegedly several hundred Interlinguists at large on the globe was nonetheless enough for me to change my Interlingua page and acknowledge their existence.

4. "esperantistas ... ha le illusion que post le apprension de un numero limitate de parolas basic plus le systema de affixos un esperantista es capabile de formar ipse le resto del vocabulario del lingua."

   One of the ongoing controversies in the American school system revolves around an approach to teaching called "Whole Language", which involves teaching kids to read by recognizing the shapes of whole words rather than by sounding out the individual letters and letter-clusters. The result is that kids taught under this system know how to read the words they've encountered so far, but have no idea how to read or pronounce ones that they haven't encountered before. Asked to spell "fish", one student offered something like "ghyti" ("gh" as in "cough", "y" as in "yttric", "ti" as in "nation").

   Proponents of the "Whole Language" approach to teaching often use the same arguments that you do for Interlingua: that people learn words as autonomous units which are dictated by tradition and have no reliance on logic or consistency. If what you say is true, languages would never grow, since new words could not easily be invented. There was a comedy a while back in which a casting director was looking to hire someone who would have the same comic appeal as the then-famous comedian Eddie Murphy. She explained that she needed someone who was "Murphy-like", "Murphesque", "Murphonious", "Murphonic", and a buch of other silly ad hoc adjectives to describe the Eddie Murphy clone she needed. If people didn't use affixes to create other words, none of those words would have been comprehensible (to say nothing of George Orwell's Newspeak). In fact, no one would know how to say much of anything -- knowing how to conjugate the verb "talk" would offer me no clue as to how to conjugate "walk", "toss", "etch", or any other verb that follows the exact same pattern of conjugation. I would have to learn each form of each of those words as if they all had their own set of rules.

   As for your example of "predikejo" and "preg'ejo", while one is certainly the prefered form, both are easily enough comprehended, just as if I told someone in English that went to New York from San Francisco via "flying machine" instead of the usual "airplane" or "jet".

5. "Le grande avantage de interlingua es que le studiante apprende le vocabulario international existente."

   First of all, the student can learn "le vocabulario international existente" from other language schemes, not just Interlingua. Moreover, he can learn them in a less adulterated form. Interlingua often drops the final letter of Latin words (eg. "bon") or changes it to "e", both rather arbitrarily. Sometimes it will borrow straight from French, other times from Italian, and still others a strange mixture of the two (as I show on my site). At least with Latino Sine Flexione, you know how a word will be formed as long as you have a Latin dictionary, since all word-derivation (with one or two noted exceptions) follows the same formula. Esperantists know all forms of a word whether they've seen it or not.

   Secondly, just what is the "vocabulario international"? "Salir" is certainly an international, pan-romance word, but in French it means "to soil" and in Spanish it means "to leave". "Subir" means "to undergo" in French, "to go up" in Spanish. To claim a "scientifically" derived lexicon, as Interlingua does, is as legitimate as Scientology's "scientifically" derived "religion".

6. "In le lingua de Zamenhof iste parolas varia sin motivo ..."

   You seem quite obsessed with Esperanto. What does it matter how good or bad Esperanto is? Even if Esperanto is the worst language ever invented, how does that make Interlingua any better? How does that make Interlingua any easier to learn?

7. "Ma felicemente iste grammatica es minimal e pote esser apprendite in breve tempore."

   This is true only if one already speaks one or more Romance languages, in which case one wouldn't need Interlingua in the first place. And even if one does already speak a Romance language, why should an artificial one imitate the complications of the natural ones? Interlingua's pronouns have three separate cases (nominative, accusative, and prepositional), the possessives have two separate forms, depending on whether they appear before or after the words they modify, verbs have different conjugations depending on the last vowel of the stem, and many verbs have two stems. There's no consistent pronunciation of anything, and, as already mentioned, no way to predict the form of a word without looking it up in a dictionary. Is it any wonder that a language as goofy as Klingon has more enthusiasts than Interlingua does?

8. Cetero le lectura de iste littera que io scribe nunc monstra le absurditate de vostre remarca que dice que interlingua es "impossible to write".

   My remarca was that it was NEARLY impossible to write; obviously, if I had a dicitionary and a lot of free time, I could write something in Interlingua. That there are people who speak and write Interlingua does not prove that it's an easy task. I've heard people speak Hungarian, but that doesn't make Hungarian an easy language to learn if it's not your first language.

9. "... on ha disveloppate interlingua como un lingua complete pro uso, non como un modello theoretic ..."

   According to every quote I've read by Gode, at most Interlingua was to be used in a passive role by the scientific community and little else. Interlingua activists who clamored for Interlingua's use as a practical, everyday interlanguage were disparagingly referred to as "Esperantists" by Gode. Just because people have used Interlingua beyond its original design doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Fafa Floly

Ma non es generes in Interlingua, solmente pro les pronomines personal si le cosa designate es un persona.

... easy to read, nearly impossible to write or speak.

Si, illo es facil a leger ! ma io opina que es facil a sciber perque io scribe a tu e io ha aprendete Interlingua solmente le septimana passate (non multo que plus de 3 horas de exercer). Con un dictionario electronic, Interlingua es multo facil.

Et si illo non es universal, es un ben candidato pro un lingua del Europa del sud.

... On the other hand, the language has pairs like filio/filia and marito/marita, which suggest that at least some of its words do still carry grammatical gender.

Io non opina con tu. Isto non es un grammatical genere, isto es un genere semantico. Non es grammatical perque isto non involver in les conjugationes de les verbos e de les adjectivos.

Emmanuel

Si tu non comprede, tu pote demandar me un traduction englese.
If you can't understand, you can ask me for an english translation.

Meilleurs souvenirs,

Fafa Floly

Lo que me irrita in alte mesura es le assertiones gratuite in le texto, p.e. "Interlingua: easy to read, nearly impossibile to write or speak". Pro me, qui usa interlingua quotidianmente, le ultime parte de vostre phrase sona como un pur nonsenso, un mentita evitabile. Certemente vostre assertion non es basate super un recerca conscientiose del uso practic de interlingua.

Io suppone que vos ha nulle experientia de iste uso PRACTIC de interlingua. Totevia, si vos ha le pretention de scriber in le internet numerose paginas super interlingua, presentante vos como un experto del subjecto, vos deberea saper anque que cata die multe personas scribe in interlingua, in litteras a lor amicos e amicas e in messages destinate al gruppos de discussion in le internet. E vos osa asserer que isto es a pena possibile? Ridicule, ridicule!!

Le practica que io vide e a que io participa, monstra clarmente que scriber in interlingua non es difficile. Isto es le consequentia del facto que interlingua se compone non solmente de familias de vivente parolas international (sin le bizarre productos del formation de parolas in esperanto), ma anque del facto que le lingua de IALA ha un grammatica extrememente simple, multo plus simple que le grammatica complicate de esperanto. Pensa al -n del accusativo, un -n que es obligatori anque in un serie de complementos adverbial. E pensa vos que le systema verbal de esperanto con le sex participios facilisa scriber e parlar le lingua? Le uso correcte del participios in -ita e -ata es mesmo un problema insolubile pro le melior esperantistas. Vide, si vos non jam lo ha facite, le litte ratura extense in le mundo esperantistic super iste thema!

Vos scribe que parlar interlingua es quasi impossibile. Ubi prende vos iste idea folle e idiotic? Esque vos ipse ha essayate de parlar interlingua con alteres? Esque forsan vos ha participate al conferentias international del interlinguistas, ubi on parla interlingua con altere interlinguistas e ubi on discute in interlingua durante le sessiones official? Nunquam io, qui ha participate a plure incontros international con interlingua como le sol lingua usate, ha potite constatar que le capacitate del interlinguistas de parlar interlingua es inferior al capacitate del esperantistas de parlar le lingua de Zamenhof. Io ipse, habente un experientia de multe annos del uso practic de ambe linguas, esperanto e interlingua, es convincite del facto que scriber e parlar correctemente interlingua es plus facile que scriber e parlar correctemente esperanto. E io vole accentuar hic le facto que mi judicio, ben que appoiate fortemente per considerationes theoric, se basa in prime loco super le PRACTICA CONCRETE!

Salutes de
Piet

Regards,

Fafa Floly

I wish to congratulate you for your site. Too sad, I did'nt read all this information 2 years ago, I will save a lot of time! I enjoys your point of view, even if I disagree sometimes.

I am especially impressed by Romanico, they have a lot of work their, is it your project? If yes, you should put your goals first. Like Interlingua is very easy to read for me as I'm french speaking with knowledge of english. But as a 2nd or 3rd language for the world, it could be more regular. Even Italian seems to have a easier (and more artificial) spelling that Interlingua. (exemple it filosofia vs interlingua philosophia).

If your goal for Romanico is recognizability, I thinks to looks more the daughter latin languages is useful, as hundreds millions of speakers use it. Lingua Franca nova use this way very well + using Catalan (often intersection of Italian, Spanish and French). About the diacritical that you use, I think it is too much trouble for what it deserve. I just thinking of all the bad words i said when I was on a english keyboard looking for my french accent.

Bye

[Jacques]

Jacques

Anyway, I'm not familiar with Lingua Franca Nova, so hopefully I'll find a web page on it somewhere. Sounds interesting, though.

I agree that the diacritical marks in Románico are a pain in the ass — no matter what computer you or I might be using — even if they're not mandatory in handwriting. Fortunately, I think, one can probably get by ignoring the marks altogether and pronouncing Románico as if it were Esperanto. More drastically, I was recently told about a site at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/esp-novo/> that, among other things, has a pdf file on Adjuvilo, a language developed in 1910 that might be described as "Románico Sine Signos Diacriticos". The languages have one or two philosophical differences, and Adjuvilo is not quite as rigidly Latin in its derivation as Románico, but it's certainly worth having a look at.

About recognizability: I do tend to be pretty pro-Latin when it comes to conlangs, but only insofar as Latin tends to be more internationally recognizable than other languages. And by Latin I don't necessarily mean the musty Latin of Caesar, lawyers, and doctors — Latin is part of many other languages, too. (Most of the English lexicon is in fact Latin.) Moreover, Latin offers the advantage of being more or less spelled like it sounds (at least more so than English or French), something that should be paramount in any planned language. But certainly if a word is better known around the world by something other than Latin (or by a particular form of Latin), then I'm all for adopting that word and not the Latin one.

For example, the word for "light" (as opposed to "heavy") in most Romance languages doesn't come directly from Latin, but from French, so any conlang aiming for recognizability should use some form of léger and not levis. The most well-traveled word for "gangster" is, as it happens, gangster, so English would be the best source there. Many internet terms, too, while a Latin equivalent could be invented, are probably more recognizable in English — at least for the time being. Still, for all these exceptions, the vast majority of words most likely to be recognized by people around the world are rooted in Latin.

Well, sermon's over — you can close your bible now. ;)

Thanks again for the LFN tip — when I get some time, I'll try to include an analysis of it on my site. (Other languages slated to someday appear on my site are Europanto (subtitled "Surely you jest") and Lojban ("What the...?").)

Fafa Floly

You might like the next site too, I know I did : )

There are some more languages analyses on there, but I like the NO-ESPERANTO one best:

http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto.html

Enough chit-chat.. Like I said, I like Ido, but after reading about Romanico

[At this point Lionello's email is accidentally sent off before he finished it.]

* the extra word for the accusative. Way more 'portable' than any ending. I was thinking of a way to do this in Ido and was looking at Russian (they have something similar, or so I've heard). "je" is perfect and it sounds natural too!

* the accents. Make many words sound so similar, at hardly any cost. I don't like Esperanto's way of translating every country name.

Unfortunately, there's no other info on the net on Romanico, so I'd think it's your personal project. If this is the case, I'm offering my help. I want to put info on Romanico on my site as well, maybe even a lexicon, if one is available??

Please let me know how you feel about taking over the world..

Sincerely,

Lionello

To my knowledge, the closest thing to a dictionary of Románico ever published is the one on my site. But any info you need on the language I'll certainly be happy to provide.

For what it's worth, I think Romanal also marked the accusative with a preposition (I think the word for it was em). And some people (me included) have toyed with using na in Esperanto.

Regards,

Fafa Floly

Sincerely,

Dr. Whoopee

Of course, sometimes the present stem is as productive a root as the supine, but not nearly as much, and it's almost never more productive.

Happy to be the answer man whether I know what I'm talking about or not,

Fafa

i found your web site absolutly great. it's one of the rare about auxlangs i read with pleasure.

but i would to give you some informations about volapük i am very interested in. everything you said is true but you should take care when you write that one the greatest difficulties of this language was the 500000 and more forms of the volapük verb. indeed, it is true that it's possible in theory but, as you pointed out, it's not always the case. there are natlangs which display such a lot of forms for one word and i can say that this great number is not a difficulty in itself when it's coupled with regularity (the case in volapük). for example, finnish has got a tremendous and quite impressive declension system but it's very regular so not that hard to learn. it's always our europe, i should say, english-centred view that makes us say that an easy language should'nt have any declension or any complicated verb system. the use at the place of prepositions is something as difficult as declension. and for the verbe, the regularity is the most important thing, i think.

one question, i found very interesting the samples with magazines first pages for esperanto, etc. why not in volapük ?

valikosi gudikün sedom ole !

gerald (paris, france)

(If the eurocentricism seems unfair, remember that most of the inhabited world at the time was owned one way or another by Europe, and that the only people with any supposed need for an artificial language were European intellectuals -- the same people who were developing the languages in the first place.)

As for why I don't have Volapük versions of the magazine covers, well, it's the same reason I don't have a Volapük glossary on the site: I no longer have access to a Volapük dictionary. Someday I'll make the voyage back to my old college, the only place I know of that still has such a dictionary, but until then the magazine rack on my Volapük page will have to remain empty.

Warm regards,

FafaFloly