On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Rex May wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:22:27 -0700, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> --- MacLeod Dave <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I do have to admit, BTW, that LFN is the Euroclone
>> that I personally find most attractive. [...]

> I have to admit the same thing.  There's something awesomely
> attractive about a page of it.  The single thing that puts me off in
> LFN is the tense marking.  I like the analytical method, but the
> choice of ia and va seem to be not nearly redundant enough.  I think
> they're trying too hard to adhere to some kind of Romance roots and
> avoid a priori stuff.  I'd replace them with pa and fu.

Which seem to come straight out of Glosa's relexification of English.
(In my opinion, Clark and Ashby went further away from Hogben's
Interglossa than is sometimes realized.)  However, I personally have
never yet met a conIAL I did not personally have *any* issues with. 
Unless I were to concoct my own, and then somebody else would have
issues with what *I* choose.  One man's essential feature is another
man's fatal flaw, and vice versa.  No language is going to satisfy
everybody on everything.  It just won't happen.  If one truly believes
in the IAL ideal, then sooner or later it becomes necessary just to
pick *something* and go with it, disliked features and all.  In the
conIAL field, the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

Paul Bartlett