From: "Via_Acadon" <[log in to unmask]> >Before responding to this, I wish to test that my e-mails do go through. I > have not written >anything recently, since my last attempts did not go > through. It's a waste to devise long >messages and have them go nowhere. So > if anyone out ther gets this, let me know. Your message went through this time. >>The reason, as Don Harlow stated later in his message, can be traced to >> thefact that "'cultural' neutrality is a relatively recent fashion; prior >> to the middle sixties, nobody would have cared." >No, not the case. I was there. Seems like you are negating both mine and Don Harlow's claim. >>It's just like the apartheid policy in South Africa. Prior to certain moment >> nobody cared (at least in the West). > No, not at all the case. Read your history. Let's put it this way, prior to a certain moment there was no sufficiently large and organized anti-apartheid movement that cared and was able to make the difference. There is always somebody who cares. That's why some of you should have the decency to take my point of view seriously though my comparisons might not be to best possible sometimes. There's three basic reasons why, in my opinion, larger number of non-western words would attract more non-western learners for an IAL: 1. Increased ease of learning for non-westerners because there would be less new words to memorize. On the other hand they could grasp the language faster because they would know some words already. It is one of the main selling points of Interlingua, Ido, Esperanto, etc. in the West. So why wouldn't it apply in the global scale as well?* 2. People would be more motivated to learn an IAL that shows appreciation to their culture (by borrowing words from their language) than a language that arguably deprecates their culture. A multicultural IAL could not possibly have any serious historical (or colonial) burden.** 3. Due to decreased learning time (if you accept the claims 1. and 2.) teaching resources would be saved, which could be important in poor areas. This is particularly important, because IAL is more important for poor countries. For the time being, rich countries do not need an IAL because they have enough resources to spend for long term education. R.K. * Maybe some of you do not believe that such a language can be done. But I believe that it can be done and several such languages will appear in the next five years. ** This is the optimistic view. If you are a pessimist, you could argue that a multicultural auxiliary language would have the most historical burden because every culture has grudge against each other. Indeed, some idists and interlinguanists have deprecated Esperanto for having borrowed some Slavic words (that were nicely cleaned away in Ido).