Andrew Nowicki wrote:

> Isaac Penzev wrote:
> This thread is about a well defined test, and yet
> nobody has posted complete test results.

Now, again you hurry to insult a person who in this case would support you.
Yes, the test is poorly defined.
But yes, I agree with you: there is no such thing as "international
vocabulary". Maximum of what we have, is regional translingual word sets,
mostly unknow outside of their regions: I mean latinisms, arabisms and
chinisms first of all.

> You are running your mouths for the same reason that
> religious fundamentalists are running their mouths.

Well, I *am* religious, and pretty fundamentalistic, but it has nothing to
do with linguistics. I don't believe in languages, neither worship them.
"Glossolatry" indeed is a kind of idolatry.

-- Yitzik