Your experience, or feeling, etc. is different than most. You have experience now with Esp. 
and others.

I am talking about people who have never looked at these languages before.
So, I'm sorry, but your experience is not mine, nor the folks I have shown the material to.
For example, when I approached the publisher about Occ. he was skeptical. So, 
unbeknownst to me he had a gal read what I wrote as a sample article for him in Occidental. 
He wanted the advice of someone who knew languages. His comment about her reaction 
was very interesting, "go with it". And, because of that, he published two or three issues with 
Occidental articles in it.

On the other hand, I also showed the language to high school students who did not even 
know such an idea of an IAL existed. Once they got the hang of what they were seeing, they 
went ballistic.

Besides that, there are other factors involved. Such as my background and training and life 
experience. I do NOT like seeing "k's" for instance in place of an obvious "c" as in catholic, 
call, etc. To some of us it is obvious you would not say satholic.

You are prejudiced towards Esp. I am not.
I am prejudiced towards Occ. you are not.

My experience in actually dealing with people who don't know a thing about these languages 
tells me you are wrong. Your experience tells you I am wrong.

Yet, in my experience I have shown people samples of Esp., Ido, Occ. and Ila. My 
experience and reactions from total newbies tells me Occ is easiest to read, unless a person 
has had Spanish over a period of time. Then, Ila comes out about equal.

The people I personally deal with are from a particular part of the world, Tucson, AZ. From 
professors, to publishers, to the average person here. They all respond favorably to Occ 
over the others. YET, in spite of that, there is the same resistance from these people to Occ 
as to Esp, or the others. They just simply don't want to take the time to do what they feel 
English does.

The proving point for me is that I show and tell Occ to actual people who are not on 
language lists, etc. Their real life reaction is not what I read on these lists. Also, I am not in 
Europe where my results might be totally different.

My personal belief is this. After my own experience with the language and watching IAL 
strangers react here in this particular city, my conclusion is Occidental does better than any 
other IAL what is desired by the IAL community. I see no comments, proof, or experience 
from anyone else, that has so far changed my belief.

I also believe from personal experience with the public here that Esperanto stops people in 
their tracts from pursuing Occ, or any other IAL. If someone doesn't know of these 
languages, then they react superbly to Occ. But, if they are one that knows of Esp. their 
reaction is, "Oh, that's like that language Esperanto that was popular years ago and went 
nowhere." I'm not making that up, except in that I am paraphrasing the reaction.

I cannot transfer my personal experience to others. They can only read my words, and if 
they disagree with their IAL preference, then I am persona no grata, or, I don't know what 
I'm talking about, or whatever.

My personal experience does not lead me to believe a lot of the comments on auxlang and 
other IAL specific lists because they seem, notice I said seem, to me to be speaking from 
the writers "speculation" and "preferential" point of view. This is where I differ, perhaps.

That is, I want the feedback from people who don't know a thing about these languages, so I 
can see if they work with them or not. I couldn't care less about whether an Esperantist, 
Idoist, Ilaist, Occidentalist, Intalist, etc. can communicate with, or carry on a conversation 
with another aficionado in that IAL. To me that is not the point of an IAL. So, right or wrong, 
except for posting on auxlang, I am not interested in the standard idea of an IAL. And, that 
standard idea to me is the downfall of all of them. That is, you have to learn it to be able to 
speak or write to others who have learned it. If that is the solution, then stick with one's own 
native language for millions can understand you.

Having said the above, I'm not saying I am right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying that 
because of my persona, preferences, experience, and prejudices, I don't see learning a 
language to speak with other persons in that language as a worthwhile pursuit. I can already 
reach millions and millions with English.

I also don't see Occidental as a language at all. I see it as something different. And, that 
difference, to me, and maybe only to me, makes it stand out as unique. It does something I 
have never heard or read that any other IAL does. What it does is this, that is if your 
personal native language is within a certain group of languages. It gives one the clues, and 
keys, and techniques to turn your own national language into an international language. 
Therefore, you don't really have to learn another language. You just learn and practice 
some simple keys, and viola, national to international. That's why it worked with the fellow 
from Morocco. And, that is why, when others begin to see what de Wahl actually did, will 
cause Occ to become more widely used. I don't know of any IAL that does this exactly as 
Occ does. And, as far as I can tell, for any of them used right now to try and change to these 
Occ keys and principles would destroy them and turn them all into a form of Occ.

After learning the above, I believe I have made some major progress in being able to 
explain Occ to folks who will listen. Or should I say, want to listen and learn and use.

Is Occ better? Only at what it does. Is Esperanto better? Only at what it does. How about 
Ido, Ila, etc? Only at what they do.

If a person wants to learn a language, then learn and use the others. If one wants to learn 
and use a simple and unique _method_ then learn Occ. But, not in the way the others are 

It depends on what the person wants who is learning.

My experience is mine, not yours or others. Each must respond to their own experience to 
be true to themselves.

All the best,

On 28 Jun 2006 at 19:26, Donald J. HARLOW wrote:

> Je 11.12 atm 2006.06.28, Bob PETRY skribis
> >I have never studied Intal, nor been involved in it in any way. What 
> >I wrote was Occidental
> >was easier to read. And, I might add, with less effort.
> I'm sorry, Bob, but as far as Intal, Interlingua, Occidental and a 
> few others are concerned, I can't see any difference in facility of reading.
> -- Don HARLOW
> Opinions (in English):
> Esperanto (in English):
> Literaturo (Esperante):
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/373 - Release Date: 6/22/2006