In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Surely, if a Swedish girl who has learned Interlingua can readily
> recognize corresponding verb forms ...
I think the problem is that BRG et al. insist on total, instant,
read-at-sight recognizability and on unsullied naturalness. They seem
to convert the criteria of Interlingua into extreme parodies where
everything is all or nothing. This is why I constantly find myself
writing things like "yes, _a_ criterion, but not _the_ criterion" etc..
They do not seem willing to accept that Interlingua might be easy
because after something has been explained, after something has been
learned once, it may stick more easily in the mind, because it fits in
with unconsciously learned patterns etc.. (See, to them the only
knowledge of Latin that counts is that gained from explicit study.)
Everything must be total and instant. If the connection between
"eligible" and "elect" isn't apparent to me before I come across the
words in Interlingua then the fact that after I have seen them I might
start making connections and that these connections might help me
remember the words doesn't count for anything in the Brucean view.
Likewise the fact that after I have seen some words with -lig-, -lect-
I might start recognizing others and be able to analyse their rough
meaning counts for nothing. For the all-or-nothing school of thought I
have to be able to recognize 'seliger' at sight, with no other knowledge
of Interlingua and with no context. I'm probably not even allowed to
think about what it might mean or try to puzzle it out. Anything less
than everything seems to count as nothing.
I think that it is because they take this extremist approach that they
appear to the rest of us to sometimes be indulging in "terminological
-- jP --