Print

Print


[log in to unmask] skribis:

> I may - just *may* - be prejudiced, but I think IALA Interlingua is about
> optimal for that purpose. For one thing, the usual objection to Ia ("too
> Anglo-Romanic") dissolves when all the prospective users can leverage
> knowledge of English or a Romance language.

I had a general sense of not wanting to reinvent the wheel, but now that
you mention it I'm surprised I didn't give more thought to Interlingua
specifically as an "inter-American" IAL. It's not too surprising, though,
since the idea sprung from the current notoriety of Europanto and the
chance of maybe copping some publicity from that - the notable difference
of Americanto being that it would be serious where Europanto was a joke.

> But secondly, if we put aside Finvenko-ish expectations as something for
> the distant future at best,...

I'm really not ready to do that, however insane it may be to persist.
My interest in IALs has always been fueled pretty much only by such hopes
and expectations, so I tend to want to keep them directly in front of me.
Certain Esperantists are preaching the "propedeutika valoro de Esperanto"
themselves, and I certainly agree that it (or Interlingua, etc.) can be
a good language-learning tool. But if the goal is to help kids in Europe
and elsewhere learn English, then I think an equally strong case could
probably be made for forgetting about IALs in that regard and just
starting kids with English at an early age. I know it's not that simple,
but I just don't have much inclination to adopt a second-fiddle position.
However sensible it might be from a practical viewpoint, it just seems
too contradictory to me.

> I think we have to consider three factors in making an IAL useful.
> First is the standard IAL model, initiates talking with initiates.
> Second is the prime-vista model, initiates talking with (more frequently,
> writing to) non-initiates. Third is the propaedeutic model, initiates
> obtaining an intellectual entree into the source languages (and improving
> their general linguistic competence).

I don't understand the utility of the second model. Could you explain?

> pseudo-generes grammaticos

Ugh. You lost me there. Both the idea and the spelling.

> I don't see any resolution except perhaps by looking at learners and
> eternaj komenciantoj.

I don't see any resolution at all. And aside from the specific issue of
the accusative, on which opinions are bound to differ, I've been concerned
over the last couple of months with the problem of personal tastes and
preferences in general as regarding the IAL issue. I don't think I've been
back in Auxlang long enough to have said this before (sorry if I have),
but it hit me at one point that this was a problem that major natural
languages simple did not have - and that this in itself constituted a
telling advantage for them, not to mention the other highly formidable
factors working in their favor. There isn't anything I would love more
than to see a clearly superior approach to the accusative that I could
see a large majority of all sorts of IAL people approving and getting
enthused about, so I'm naturally sorry that your JE/AL/NA thing didn't
do it for me. Your comments in Interlingua on the moral obligation of
the UEA leadership, on the other hand, did.

Roy