Je 12.42 ptm 2007.05.26, Kjell REHNSTROM skribis
>Donald J. HARLOW skrev:
>>Hence, despite the fact that IALA as an organization was well aware 
>>of certain advantages of other, particularly schematic, planned 
>>languages (e.g. the advantage of having a standard adjective ending 
>>that could be applied to all nouns rather than having a couple of 
>>dozen different adjective endings whose use was etymologically 
>>determined, thus requiring, at least for _active_ use, memorization 
>>of adjectives derived from nouns along with the nouns themselves; 
>>(**) or the advantage, especially for _active_ use, of having a 
>>regular set of correlatives rather than a defective or even 
>>irregular set), none of these results, shown both by practice and 
>>by experiment (for instance, Thorndyke's famous experiment with the 
>>correlatives, sponsored by IALA) was taken into account in devising Inte
>We have seen examples on this list that quite a few people have had 
>problems with the Esperanto correlatives. I think this is mainly 
>caused by the way how they were taught.  And what happened to 
>Thorndyke's pupils. Did they become fullfledged Esperanto speakers afterwards?

Not necessary, as long as they learned the correlatives and 
demonstrated (quite conclusively) that for active use a regular table 
is statistically superior to a defective table (which they did).

>And why on earth should "-a" be a viable adjective ending when the 
>most spread ending for adjectives is -i (as in Communicando) and 
>Occidental! (and English and Spanish and Slavic languages).

Why one earth shouldn't it? (Esperanto shows that it is.) But this 
doesn't address my argument, which is not that -a should be the 
adjective ending, but that, from the point of view of learning a 
language for active use, an adjective ending applicable to all nouns 
(whatever it is) is superior to a group of endings whose association 
with the nouns must be memorized along with the nouns themselves.

>The idea with all auxiliary languages is that you try to work with 
>analogies more than you can do in etnic languages, and who has any 
>use for knowing "redakcio" and "redaktoro" and "redakti" (which 
>incidentally is good Interlingua if not somewhat faked Esperanto!)
>One has to judge Esperanto by Esperanto criteria and Interlingua by 
>Interlingua criteria!

I once argued this myself, but then I started to think: if a language 
is created with a purpose, then should it not be judged not by the 
criteria of its creation but by the purpose for which it was created?

The only way in which you can make different arguments for Esperanto 
and Interlingua is if you decide that they were created for different 
purposes. This, in fact, was Gode's argument -- that Esperanto and 
Interlingua had different purposes. He may well have been justified 
in making the statement you just made. It's not clear to me that the 
current crop of Interlingua speakers and proponents can make such a 
statement, since they seem to claim that the purpose of Interlingua 
is much the same as that of Esperanto -- and it's pretty obvious to 
me (just on the basis of, for instance, adjective endings and 
correlatives) that Interlingua doesn't fulfill that purpose as well 
as Esperanto does.

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):