Print

Print


The reason why Japanese isn't a good candidate is because Japan
unified their language too early and there really isn't any need for a
language based on theirs. If Japan had stayed divided and Korea as
three or four countries, we'd have maybe up to a dozen separate
countries today and a language based on their common attributes would
have been a good idea. That's what they get for unifying their
countries so quickly.

2007/1/8, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>:
> li [Kjell Rehnström] mi tulis la
>
> > It is much better to let the languages show what they can do
> > than having
> > some political body to decide which of them to use. It
> > doesn't take much
> > imagination to realize what would happen if the UN took the
> > question to
> > the Security Council. Some countries would most certainly
> > oppose to Our
> > Language if it were accepted by certain other countries, not
> > on merits but
> > just becaus "these countries" are the enemy!
>
> I recently had a discussion with someone promoting Japanese as an IAL.
> He hadn't heard of Esperanto, and when I brought it to his attention he
> replied:
>
>         "Sorry, but as a European based language, I believe it is a dead
> duck.
>         Too many people with money are sick of another whitey language.
> It would
>         be okay if it were genuinely international."
>
>         http://www.eigodaigaku.com/archives/en/000158.html
>
>
> So, yes, resentment is an issue, and one that should be addressed in new
> IAL designs.
>



-- 
http://wiki.galbijim.com