> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Rice

> >> > That's just the point. They aren't "common sense". Your view
> >> > "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
> >> 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
> 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
> tenses, for example--but would the improvement be worth the

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