Print

Print


> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Antonielly
Garcia Rodrigues

> On 5/26/07, Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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; (**)
> > (**) This is, IMHO, the moral equivalent of reintroducing 
> grammatical
> > gender into a planned language, since it puts a similar 
> burden on the
> > student who wants to learn to _use_ the language rather than
simply
> > _recognizing_ it.
> 
> Unless, of course, the intention is to adopt this language as
a
> regional IAL for the Angloromance world. (This was not the
agenda of
> IALA, I believe, but I think it would be a good potential
application
> for Interlingua, given its overall design.)  Then the
existence of
> many adjective endings is more sensible than just one ending,
as it is
> very similar to the endings that exist in the native languages
of the
> target group of users. (At least if we consider comfort as a
desirable
> quality attribute. This attribute was not considered in the
design of
> Interlingua, but I believe the resulting language fits it well
for the
> target group I mentioned.)

The learning problem isn't with grammatical gender itself, but
it's arbitrary use in European languages.   Some African
languages have more than the two or three genders europhones are
used to, but the gender classes are for things like people,
animals, plants, inanimate objects, etc. therefore the system
may actually help the learner rather than provide an obstacle.

> ....

> In summary, the objectivity in the design of Interlingua was a
> reaction to the lack of consensus in defining the priority of
the
> desirable quality attributes for a conauxlang. Without a
well-defined
> benchmark of priorities, it is not possible to design a
language to
> satisfy that benchmark, and it is not possible for an
independent
> external group (e.g. an official UNO committee) to assess
whether the
> language satisfies that benchmark. So, the language creators
thought,
> let's be extreme and consider only translingual features that
can be
> objectively verified, no matter if they improve or hurt
learnability,
> usability, regularity, cuteness, etc.

"Cuteness" is subjective anyway so it's pointless to make that a
design goal, but the others are very important for an IAL.  The
whole idea is to make something that can be learned easily and
learned quickly, otherwise we may as well just have everyone
learn English or some other natural language.