> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of steve rice

> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of steve rice
> > Worldlangs are only harder for the one group that's> already
> > by the existing glut of Euroclones.  For the> majority it will
> > things easier because they now have find a least a few
> > familiarities.  Euroclone supporters are just afraid to leave
> > own comfort zone.
> I'm not talking about ease of learning. As the context
> shows, I mean the ease of propagation. With a standard
> auxlang, your initial demographics are good: not only
> do you have a large-enough group of potential users to
> work with, most of those active internationally know
> at least one of your source languages.

Most "know" one of the source languages.  They may have familiarity,
but may not have true understanding to appreciate things like
preserving spellings for etymological benefits.  And if it makes
propogation so easy, why aren't these languages propogating.  So far
none of them has really made it beyond a small cult of language

> With a worldlang, your demographic, though
> theoretically large overall, is scattered both
> globally and lexically: the incentive and ease for
> individuals is much lower than it is for a traditional
> auxlang's target audience. So someone from Africa may
> get 30% help from the lexicon (unlikely, though),
> while anyone with even a smattering of English or
> Spanish can get well over 50% (good odds). You aren't
> helping your target group as much as the traditional
> auxlangs help theirs.

I think 30% may be exaggerating things, but even 5% is better than
0%.  FWIW: Sasxsek's only real "African" influences are from Arabic,
which is a major language.  The other languages of Africa just don't
have very large numbers so they don't see much representation.

The issue is to alleviate the favoritism (="neutrality"), something
the other languages try to falsely claim.

> > > However evil it may be to draw vocabulary in
> > > particular from a few privileged (and very widely
> > > spoken) languages, at least it provides leverage.
> > To
> > > diffuse support is to defuse support.
> >
> > Then why bother at all?  We already have English.
> > It's already
> > established a strong base, and is growing very
> > quickly.  If we can't
> > have an element of neutrality, then let's just stick
> > with the status
> > quo.
> But it's a difficult status quo. That's why it makes
> sense to use English vocabulary, which is widely known
> at least for common concepts, but not the spelling or
> grammar.

I don't think it's all that difficult.  As I've outlined before,
there's already enough of an established base to make it quicker to
deploy globally than anything new.  For any new language, just
getting enough users to have a good pool of teachers would take at
least a couple of generations.  By then, I'd expect that English
will already have deep roots in just about every major metropolitan
area of the world.

> >
> > > Now, this leads to the question, "Why has a
> > > focused-leverage method not done any better?" But
> > the
> > > answer is not a priori, "Because it doesn't work."
> > If
> > > focused leverage doesn't work, diffuse leverage
> > > certainly won't.
> > >
> > > This is where Dave, Don, and many others say,
> > "What if
> > > the obstacle isn't the language as such? What if
> > it's
> > > popular bias and resistance to novelty?" Have you
> > > answered that question? Can you answer it in such
> > a
> > > way that the greater novelty and lesser track
> > record
> > > of your approach does not become a liability?
> >
> > So far, worldlangs have no track record at all so
> > it's far too early
> > to judge.  Eurolangs have had 120 years and really
> > haven't seen any
> > significant market penetration.  Insanity is doing
> > the same thing
> > over and over and expecting a different result.
> > Let's try something
> > a little different.
> You could bang your head with a rock and hope the
> vibrations would usher in a golden era of peace. That
> would be different, I bet. "Different" alone isn't
> enough. Different and smarter might be. For the
> reasons I've given above, I don't see that the
> worldlang approach is smarter. There are at least two
> unanswered questions here:
> 1. Again, what if the problem is not truly linguistic?
> In that case, changing the language is precisely doing
> the same thing over and over while expecting a
> different result. The fact that Eo has been used in
> practically every conceivable way for well over a
> hundred years argues that it would work as a WAL. That
> strongly suggests a non-linguistic problem.
> 2. What about the incremental approach? A simpler
> grammar might prove helpful, especially if the
> language is designed to add non-Western roots later.
> But start with Western roots, which will give you the
> initial traction of the traditional method, and adopt
> non-Western roots as the language spreads. That is
> both different and rational. Starting out as though
> you were a century in the future is not.
> Steve
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around