>>> Naturalistic Westlangs are different. Their main source languages are
>>> members of the Standard Average European (SAE) sprachbund. So their
>>> grammar predictably conforms to typical SAE features. Also their
>>> vocabularies are predictable for the most part. So naturalistic westlangs
>>> form a verifiable class of related languages.
>>
>> This is why Volapük and Lingua Franca Nova are so hard to tell apart.
> ...
>> But yes, westlangs are essentially identical, yes, yes, yes.
>
> Very sarcastic. I don't know who you are trying to fool. There is a long
> list of grammatical features that most eurolangs share. There are always
> some deviations, but on the whole they have many things in common in deed.
>
> Does Esperanto really resemble more an agglutinating language like Turkish
> than a typical SAE language like French on the whole? That remains to be
> proven. I have my doubts. It sounds like an urban myth...

Speaking as a fairly good but not fluent Turkish speaker, Esperanto
doesn't feel like Turkish. It does feel a bit like a western
Indo-European language that was reformed in the direction of /
inspired by Turkish and Lithuanian though. And independent words like
eta and ilo and the rest certainly don't resemble any language at all.
In terms of derivation, Ido actually feels more like Turkish:
http://www.pagef30.com/2008/06/comparison-of-ido-japanese-korean-and.html
But not grammar: verbs would need to conjugate by person and you'd
need to be able to affix a lot more on the end of a noun in order to
do that.

>
>>>> Do you want to know why I consider Pandunia a true worldlang? It's
>>>> nothing to do with the vocabulary; Risto could use all Latin or Arabic
>>>> or Japanese roots. It wouldn't matter. This is why it's a worldlang:
>>>>
>>>> http://pandunia.info/makala/index.php?title=Lesson6
>>>>
>>>> Compare LdP, Sambahsa, etc. They don't differ markedly from Eo or Occ
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> This sounds like Pandunia is a worldlang because it's not a eurolang.
>>> That's not the idea. :)
>>
>> That's what I hear on worldlang...
>
> Oh dear...
>
>>> lowest common denominator. For example, every natural language has
>>> analytic structures, whereas the opposite is not true, every natural
>>> language doesn't have agglutinating or flexional structures. That's why
>>> Pandunia is an analytic language.
>>
>> Except where it isn't. There are ways that Eo is (or may be analyzed
>> as) a more analytic system than Pandunia: its morphemes tend to be
>> more semantically invariable than Pandunia's, for example.
>
> I meant "analytic language" in the sense of "isolating language". See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language
> Quote: "An analytic language is a language that conveys grammatical
> relationships syntactically — that is, via the use of unbound morphemes,
> which are separate words, rather than via bound morphemes, which are
> inflectional prefixes, suffixes or infixes. If a language is isolating,
> with only a single morpheme per word, then by necessity it must convey
> grammatical relationships analytically."
>
>>> Another tendency is that every language learner from a baby to an adult
>>> tries to generalize the stuctures he/she has learned as much as possible.
>>> That's why Pandunia reuses the same patterns over and over again. Words
>>> and content change but the structures remain the same. For example the
>>> structures for making a polite request, making a command and making a
>>> question are identical:
>>>
>>> peti bula pandunija. = Please speak Pandunia. = Bonvolu paroli la
>>> pandunian.
>>> koman bula pandunija. = Speak Pandunia! = Parolu la pandunian!
>>> ven (ti) bula pandunija? = Do you speak Pandunia? = Cxu vi parolas la
>>> pandunian?
>>
>> It is the fact that such structures really are foreign to "western"
>> usage that leads me to consider them evidence of a worldlang rather
>> than a relexed westlang.
>
> That's good enough for me. The conclusion is the same, anyway: Pandunia is
> a pure worldlang.
>
> -- Rsito



-- 
http://www.pagef30.com