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?")

--
http://wiki.galbijim.com