Risto Kupsala wrote:

> >> I wrote:
> >> All in all the most scientific method would be to give every word some procentual emphasis based on its real usage throughout the world, rather than the arbitrary decision of accepting every word that appears in at least three languages. That would be really the greatest benefit to the most.
> > Donald Harlow replied:
> > I wish people would stop using "science" and "scientific" as buzzwords for ad hoc engineering procedures; there is nothing particularly scientific about any of them. "Science" is the process of investigating natural or human phenomena and determining relationships (usually cause-effect) between those phenomena. It has nothing whatsoever to do with deciding to "give every word some procentual emphasis" or "accepting every word that appears in at least three languages" any more than it has to do with selecting words from languages that the author happens to know because they fit well within the pattern he has defined (Esperanto). All three systems will work equally well, and none of them has anything to do with "science".
> > Mike Farris replied:
> > Well life is a series of tradeoffs between the ideal 'the greatest benefit for the most' and the real 'this is what we can do'. In the IAL field (as in so many others) the elusive dream of the former crushes the life right out of the latter. Which is why you're gonna be stuck with English for the time being. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Holding out for the ideally culturally and linguistically neutral language is at present just another way of supporting World English (again, fine if that's what you want, if it's not, then you should rethink your priorities cause it's what you're working for). -amike
> I reply:
> Thank you for your critics.
> Originally I only wanted to point out, that we the Western people so often forget all about the people on the other side of the globe. There happens to be far more people there than here, and we cannot simply leave it without consideration, if we really want the greatest benefit to the most (in contrast to Ido's greatest benefit to the one continent).
> I suppose that Sanskrit has left a similar mark to the languages in India that Latin left in Europe -not only in Romance languages but also to the languages that are not closely related, such as German, Russian and Hungarian. It would be too easy to say, that Bengali or Hindi/Urdu is not important, because it is spoken only in one country. To your information, India happens to have more population than Europe. Probably some of it's languages are closely related, some not so closely, some not at all, as in Europe. But for sure there is many loan words in every one of them, and that would make difference in the project I will introduce next:
> Because mr. Harlow so insists, let us call the 'scientific method' that I introduced rather 'rightfully weighed word selection method'. That would mean making a database dictionary of every single language on Earth and then giving the dictionary a weight or numerical value based on the population (nation's populatin/world's total population).
> For example the value of the Finnish dictionaty would be thus: 5,5million : 6 milliard = 0,09% whereas the value for chinese dictionary would be 1,2 : 6 = 20%
> A smart enough computer program would find the similarities between the words, adapt them suitable for the chosen grammar and choose the most widely used words. The product would be a rightful world dictionary.
> I know that this is an utopistic idea that will never come true. To make it clear to you, I don't really care if the vocabulary of the ultimate international auxiliary language will be taken from Latin or some other language, or maybe by combining them randomly. I agree with mr. Harlow. The origin of the words doesn't play any significant role here. What is significant is the shared international will to have a common auxiliary language. The barriers that need to be broken are mental, not linguistical.

The origin of the words in an International Language are indeed important. To suggest an international language based on Hindi or Bengali, Arabic or Persion you will just guarrantee the hegomony of English. Nobody really cares if English is difficult or not, its pronunciation is difficult. If you cannot learn it, the worce for you!

Therefore, as I see it, an international languages must contain a kind of vocabulary which is similar to the Western languages, and it is good if it can explain the Western vocabulary to the student of that languages. Interlingua of the IALA (International Auxiliary Language Association) does that.

A language that is maximally Western will also be easier to propagate. You don't have to teach every one newbiz the language. Some will understand very much Interlingua because they already know Latin, English, French, Spanish, Italian. Even for me, a speaker of Swedish Interlingua was easy.

What is the best thing? A languages that everyone has to learn, or a language that some already understand.

The problem will then be to do what an IAL is there for. To communicate in it.

All other methods will only strengthen English as a world language.

And alternatives are always good.