2007/11/7, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>:
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kjell Rehnström
> > Dana thinks that the Euroclones have had their day. A more
> > neutral is in > his taste, as I understand.
> >
> > The theory that a mix of languages is isier to learn than a
> language
> > with a more coherent vocabulary can be good to test in > reality.
> A 40-ish
> > Latvian may have problemes with the Occidental propaganda text "Li
> > international congress" even if I, the first time I read it, could
> > understand everything, not the least by guessing from context. So
> the
> > ideal had been that my Latvian had understood every word in the
> text.
> It's not that a mix of languages is in any way *easier*.  It's that
> the mixed vocabulary is more balanced so the learning curve is
> balanced.  A Euroclone will be easier to learn than a worldlang for
> someone that already speaks a European language, especially Romance
> languages because of the heavy influence of Latin in the existing
> Euroclones.  The issue is than while Euroglots can easily learn
> these languages, they are still European in structure and vocabulary
> which requires a lot of effort from non-Euroglots.

Similarity to one's native language has little to do with ease of learning a
language though, only simplicity and logic. That's why the average English
speaker, given two months of training, will be able to create mostly
grammatically perfect sentences in Indonesian while still struggling with
German. And that's why I have no problem with the Turkish bilimsel for
scientific but can't recall at the moment whether it's written with an
accent in French or not.

It's because of this that I'd venture to say that without a really good
derivational system, Esperanto and Ido will still be easier for
non-Europeans to learn than worldlangs I've seen so far.

(and by learn I mean being able to discuss something like what we've
discussing now, not just getting simple points across like "I live Japan.
And you?")