> [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.