On Tue, 9 May 2000 10:38:04 -0400, Ken Caviness <[log in to unmask]>

>Thanks, Paul, for summarizing the Interlingua Collateral Orthography for
>us.  A couple of these I wasn't aware of.
>I think regularized spelling is an excellent thing in a planlingvo --
>one of the most important things that _should_ be planned rather than
>"natural" (*) in a planned language.
>But I really can't get excited about offering the _option_ of
>regularized orthography -- this merely adds to the complications,
>exceptions, and memory burden which, laí©¬ planned auxiliary languages
>should avoid like the plague.
>If Interlingua didn't already have far too many of these for my personal
>taste, I would certainly be in there using the collateral orthography,
>and (hopefully) swaying others by my example.  I do encourage proponents
>of Interlingua to seriously consider using it.

Yes, Ia is bursting at the seams with alternative forms, and no sooner does
Darwinian competition drive out "potius" or "igitur" than someone is
proposing "aqueste" or "unde". Like many things in Interlingua, this
diversity drives mainline IAL theorists crazy, but works better in practice
than it should. Once you fall under the spell of Godean theory, as I do
from time to time, it all makes perfect sense. :-) Practically speaking, if
Gode & Co. had laid down the law back in 1951, we'd probably be writing a
very Latinate Interlingua today, which, experience suggests, most people
don't really like. Gode's "liberalismo irresponsibile" (to quote one
prominant Interlinguist) allowed Interlingua itself to the decline of Latin
instruction, in a way that would be impossible for a more regulated

I believe the UMI published a book in the simplified orthography last year,
and there seems to be some interest in Brazil. But it's pretty marginal at
this point. Currently, the only widely used alternative is the substitution
of C, F, I, R, and T for CH, PH, Y, RH, and TH in Greek-derived words. Oh
yes, and -IZAR for -ISAR, which Ensjo sneaked into the banner at

Chris Burd