Print

Print


Dear Jim V,

> Shouldn't that be "pli malrapide".

Well, I could write more slowly, or I could avoid
writing so fast, or I could even write less quickly.
There may be subtle shades of difference, but they
all mean the same thing.  I think "malpli rapide" is
fine.

> And if that is what you meant then No,
> writing more slowly will not help. :-(

Domagxe.  EBLE MI PROVU SKRIBI PLI LAUTE!!

> Mi skribos pli rapide
> - Cxu vi povi legas ke rapido? :-)
*   Cxu vi povas legi tiel rapide?

> Not proper grammer I'm afraid, I did warn you.

I'm pleased to see that you have the same spelling
issues in English which I do.  :-)

> Where to begin. Well linguistically, speaking or
> writing, you are so far above me as to be at the
> other-side of our universe; which initially prompted
> me to run away FAST - so as not to make a complete
> fool of myself.

Oh there are plenty of fools (and room for more of
them) here on the Auxlang list.  In fact, the
percentage of people here on Auxlang who actually know
what's going on rather than just spout whatever sounds
good at the time is not as high as it might seem at
first glance.  I'll let you take the time to decide
for yourself which slot you'd put me in, although I
suspect I waver somewhere between spouting and
knowing.

> 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.

> "You've lost the plot"! Before you can grammatically
> analyse a language you must first have one.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, or how it relates
to "that very subject" which we discussed before.

> Esperanto boasts as having the greatest following -
> but less than 1% of the worlds population is NOT
> very much!

Even though the specific number (1%) was pulled out
of thin air, you have a good point here.  It is this
same point which encourages the Idists today -- and
especially those who are starting new projects from
scratch.  I advocate Esperanto over the other projects
- both as an end to itself, and as the best vehicle to
promote the IAL idea in general - based largely on the
fact that it has more speakers than the others.  It is
very easy to come back and say that in comparison to
the *potential* speaker base, all the projects have
more or less zero speakers, so it's okay to start
over.

I don't buy that argument, however.  There are a few
reasons, perhaps interrelated.  First, I suspect that
numbers beget numbers.  That is, if the various
movements could succeed in doubling their numbers
every few years, Esperanto would be the first to have
the kind of numbers where the outside world would sit
up and take notice.  Also, Esperanto is just large
enough that it can start to have some interesting
things going on - such as Pasporta Servo, regional
conventions and cultural events, and even gatherings
of families who use Esperanto every day in the home.
The other movements have to content themselves with
only one comparable event each year.  The Idists and
Interlinguans are capable of publishing some nice-
looking books (I know, I have some), but these appear
to be exceptions.

Along these same lines, but worthy of its own
paragraph, is what I like to think of as the "weenie
factor."  There are plenty of weenies in the Esperanto
movement, but if Don Harlow thinks that Tomaso
Alexander is a weenie, he can pretty much avoid me
if he wants to.  (I don't think he wants to, but I'll
let him confirm or deny that.)  If I decided to drop
Esperanto and speak Intal instead, those one or two
other speakers of Intal (if that many) would have a
very hard time avoiding me.  The weenie avoidance
factor for Interlingua and Ido are closer to that of
Intal than to Esperanto.

> Human beings, a very long time ago, first
> communicated with each other in sound by a series
> of GRUNTS. ( The very first Universal language).
> The language was simple, and probably went something
> like this 1 grunt = water; 2 grunts = food; etc

That's the way it is portrayed in the movies, but
considering that even squirrels have a more complex
communication system than that, I suspect that this
is *not* how it happened.

> This is the language of the TRIBE and is very
> important to the tribe, so important that OUR
> brain made a special part, on the brain-stem,
> central within the brain - it communicates with
> the left & right hemisheres - but it stands alone,
> independent of any other part. Its sole purpose is
> to learn ONE language, the SPOKEN language of the
> tribe.

While I do not consider myself to be an expert on
brain structures, I believe you are mistaken here.
From what I understand, people who have been bilingual
from a young age will show brain activity in the
"language center" part of their brain regardless of
which language they are using.  I also have a vague
recollection that there is some evidence that as a
person becomes more fluent in a language (even if it
is one learned later in life) more of the brain
activity can be found in the "language center" part
of the brain.

> Now do another anagram in a learnt language and you
> will see the difference for yourself - it takes much
> longer to do.

Anagramming is a skill which can be developed.
Inspired by a book on the best Scrabble players in
the world, I decided to learn to play Scrabble in
German.  After a very short time, I was able to play
against native German speakers and win about half the
time.  It's all a matter of practice.

Deos anonye rbemmeer the txet whcih wnet aronud
wchih dsnemoetartd taht it is esey to raed a txet
wtih miexd up ltertes as lnog as the fsirt and
lsat letetr of the wrod are in the rhigt plcae?

Mi sopzuas ke etsas smae en Epsenarto -- sed elbe
en Esntperao ni dveas angxrai cxoin teil ke la
garmtkaiaj fnaijxoj (-as, -is, -on, -ajn) aankux
etsas en la gxsuta lkoo.  Cxu iu kiu pvoas lgei
Etnarepson hvaas ecx manlgadran pbromelon lgei
toin cxi?

At any rate, what you seem to be suggesting (in part
of your message which I am not quoting) is generally
known as "relexification" (assuming I understand
everything correctly.)  That is, rather than try to
learn a new language, just learn some new words and
speak your old language with new words.  You just need
to look at the output of some machine translations
from a language you don't know to see that this idea
has only limited application.

Learning a second language is not an impossible task.
It's not a trivial one either, but it can be done.
With a little bit of time, you can start to think in
another language too.  I suspect that intentionally
short-circuiting this process will not make learning
a vocabulary that much easier and will only lead to
confusion.

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 also might enjoy looking into LangX -- the global
pig-din (whoops, I mean pidgin) by Anthony Alexander
and Company (no relation to yours truly, except in
my tiny little fantasy world.)

After you've had a chance to dig into those two ideas,
it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to
how your idea is similar or different from them.

> Dont forget this is a SPOKEN language NOT a written
> one and remember speech came first in our evolution,
> written words next and LAST of all grammer.

I suspect that grammar, that is, unwritten rules for
the way we combine words to make meaning, came very
early in our evolution, since that ability is common
to all homo sapiens.

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 might say at this point that he does
not do this and that what I'm describing is my own
personal learning style - and we could debate that
for hours and only succeed in robbing ourselves of
more time to learn).  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?

> It's the grammatical accuracy that is stopping
> Esperanto & Ido from becoming a World language.

I'd love to hear more about this point.

One last thought.  I can't help but notice the
following contrast.  You seem to be advocating
the elaboration of a language without its own
grammar, but Intal (which I just read about)
seems to be a language without its own vocabulary.
Both claim that this is the simplification necessary
to ensure success.  They can't both be right, can
they?

Amike salutas,
Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
www.NightinGael.Net
---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs