> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Rice > >> > That's just the point. They aren't "common sense". Your view of > >> > "common sense" is going to differ from someone with different > >> > linguistic habits, so you can expect confusion. You still need a > >> > certain level of standarization for the sake of clarity. > >> > >> Every new language causes confusion for its learners. The > grammar of > >> Sasxsek will certainly confuse people too and lead to misuse and > >> misunderstandings. At least with Pandunia you can always > find your way > out > >> by applying common sense instead of consulting the > authoritative grammar > >> book, chapter fifteen, section four, exception B. > >> > > > >I have to agree with Dana here. I can navigate through a > language that > >largely lacks markers and cues only if I am fluent in it. Lacking > >fluency, either in grammar or lexicon, I need signposts and rest > >areas. Even a touch or redundancy is welcome. > > This is why L1 natlang arguments are irrelevant. How well would barely > bilingual speakers of Japanese and Indonesian do if their second language was > Chinese? How well would their common sense work? Right! Just the point I've been trying to make. > This is also why the argument that Eo is too complicated > isn't quite accurate. > As a regular natlang, it could be a lot simpler. Even as an > interlanguage for > closely related languages (Ia, Occ), it could be simpler. But > it's overmarked for > two reasons: > > 1. Because you can't foresee all the possible background > noise from the L1s, > more redundancy and hinting are needed, and Some argue that E-o isn't marked enough, yet I've not seen any real world examples of confusion between "mi", "vi", etc. even though verbs aren't marked for person as with most European languages. Likewise, I don't see any point to adjective-verb agreement. > 2. Eo was designed for poetry and literature, so it needs systems to handle > the more ambitious works. If these features were normally optional, users > wouldn't bother learning them, and they might as well not exist. > > The question of whether Eo is more complicated than it needs to be with this > in mind is another matter. I suspect that it could be simplified--eliminating > tenses, for example--but would the improvement be worth the trouble? Actually I will say E-o is more complicated than it needs to be. I think Ido addressed some of the basic redundancies by eliminating things like adjective-noun agreement, and providing clearer sex markers.