Thomas Alexander wrote:
> Kjell Rehnstrom wrote:
> > [Occam's] razor, perhaps?
> Perhaps. What is the most parsimonious explanation?
> But the question shouldn't just be about people like you, but
> also about the people who hear about it and don't bother to
> even learn one word, or who send a request for a tutor in
> the Free Esperanto Course and never bother to send in lesson
> one. I agree with what you seem to be saying - that many
> (should I say "most") of the differences between Ido and
> Esperanto (such as "vi" versus "vu") do not interest the
> general public.
One could make two points to that: It is not certain that the
person who has asked for Esperanto tutoring and then doesn't answer
wouldn't take up his interest in the language later on. Both with
Esperanto and Interlingua people I have heard the same story: they
heard about the language and then didn't do anything about it till
a year later when they heard about it again. If that's what you
were thinking of.
> What interests the general public is "what can I
> do with it now?"
Right! One must be able to answer the question. Why is your
language good for me? What does it give me?
> > As for understanding Interlingua there must exist quite
> > a large number of persons who, like me, can understand
> > a general text in it at first reading.
> This is undoubtably true. In fact, in preparing
> my reply to Hugon's "Is Esperanto Really So Easy", I had
> help from a friend who has studied neither Interlingua nor
> Esperanto, but because he has a masters in French, has
> studied some Latin, Spanish, and is generally interested
> in English etymology, I was confident that she could read
> the notes you and Martin wrote on that topic.
> For the most part, she could, but it was interesting
> to see where her understanding broke down.
Nonththeless this is interesting. Where. Was it where I did sloppy
> But if you want to talk about Occam's razor, there
> is another thing to consider. This friend of mine did not
> leave this experience with a great desire to learn Interlingua.
This was up on this list before. I think it was Mike Farris who
wrote something like "Interlingua is not interesting enough". There
can naturally be a strong attraction in a language which has some
very peculiar forms, even though it is easy to understand.
> Many of the non-Interlinguan's I've talked with about
> Interlingua don't see the point and say "why not just learn
> French"? (I know Interlinguans have an answer to this, but
> I wonder if it's the kind of answer that appeals to the
> general public.)
Good question. I can make myself understood in French. I can read
it too (and understand what I am reading) but as far as writing is
concerned I am a dyslectic in French, and if my English spelling at
times is questionable, this is nothing in comparison to my French
ditto. (I do try to spellcheck my messages before sending them :-).
But I have on some occation used interlingua with French people and
filled in the words in French that I know will be difficult for
If they cannot read my interlingua much communication is no benefit
for any of us, I'm afraid.
> > Mi povis nesciante pri la artikolo vidi komparan
> > esperanto-interlinguan vortaron, kiun mi tiakaze
> > trovas pli interesa,
> Tio ne neas la fakton, ke la artikolo estas
> facile trovebla. Vi mem diris, ke estas "contra-
> productive", ke UMI publikigu tiun artikolon, kaj
> gxi ankoraux estas publika sub la nomo de UMI.
Mi ne estas la UMI kaj se iuj opinias ke ghi ludas ian rolon tie,
mi certe ne malemigos ilin pri tio. Persone mi kredas ke la
personoj kiuj volas povas mem informigi sin pri la du lingvoj kaj
fari la konkludojn.
Se oni volas "vendi" interlingua-n al tiu parto de la publiko kiu
ne havas la lingvan fonon por kompreni ghin, pli-malpli je la unua
rigardo, oni devas akcenti ghiajn propedeutikajn avantaghojn, kaj
se la alparolatoj ne komprenos tion, domaghe al la propagandisto!!!
Ma propagar interlingua a un gruppo de humanos que non ha le fundo
in le linguas occidental postula un enorme labor, e on debe facer
iste labor multo accuratemente, sinon il es un perdita de energia.