Just a few miscellaneous points.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Thomas Alexander wrote:

>> But then I thought, why did I join the LIST in the
>> first place - to put my point of view and hopefully
>> help with a World communication language;
> One lesson I'm trying to learn myself is that while
> Auxlang may serve well as a sounding board, it is not
> a place to actually accomplish anything as far as
> promoting a specific idea.

     Except for a few months' absence, I have been on AUXLANG since it
was created (and CONLANG before that).  I tend to agree.  AUXLANG is a
lot of fun (at least for me), but to be bluntly honest, I really don't
know what it has accomplished beyond disseminating specific tidbits of
information.  (That in itself is useful, however.)

> Learning a second language is not an impossible task.
> It's not a trivial one either, but it can be done.

     True.  However, individuals' aptitudes for learning after puberty
seem to vary.

> You might be interested, however, in "Dutton Speed
> Words".  (I think that's the title.)  As a side note,
> I just realizd that when I first started learning
> Esperanto, I had the impression that Speed Words had
> a lot of support.  I don't recall off hand that it
> has even been mentioned here.

     You just weren't around during the Bob Petry wars. :-)  He was an
advocate of Speedwords before he took off with Occidental.  It was not
so much that he jumped on the Occidental bandwagon as that he grabbed
the harness poles and started pulling.  How far that particular wagon
ever got I don't know, because he renounced all of us and said that he
would have nothing further to do with AUXLANG.

> My approach to learning languages is to remember that
> our brains are wired to learn spoken language.  Even
> if I do not intend to ever speak a language out loud,
> I will pronounce the words as I learn them because
> that helps our brains retain them.  (My Irish friend
> Paul O'Bartlett

    Not an Irish bone in my body, so far as I know.  (To be honest, I
don't find it funny.)

>                 might say at this point that he does
> not do this and that what I'm describing is my own
> personal learning style

     Quite likely.  I was thirteen when I first tried to learn a
language (French, in my case), and I was always better with the written
form than the spoken.  That remains so for me.  In fact, apart from my
own reading aloud, which I don't do much of, I have heard precisely one
(count 'em) sentence ever spoken in Interlingua, but I can read and
write it.  In fact, I suspect that part of the reason I prefer the
classical orthography of Interlingua is that I am a visual sort of
person, and the etymological forms are clearer to me than the
supposedly more phonemic forms.

>                         - and we could debate that
> for hours and only succeed in robbing ourselves of
> more time to learn).

     A perfectly legitimate point. :-)

>                       On the other hand, the more
> "hooks" you have to learn something, the faster you
> can learn it and the better you can retain it.  When
> teaching/inventing a language intended to be learned
> by people who know how to read, why not use writing
> as one of these hooks?


Paul Bartlett