Print

Print


2008/3/5, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>:
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>
> > I'd also like to add.
>  >
>  > (8)  The language will be fully expressive.  Capable
>  > of not just
>  > common daily speech, but useful in commerce,
>  > science, technology,
>  > philosophy, law, etc...
>
>
> I don't know, I'd be careful about this one. One
>  point, I suppose philosophically, is that no language
>  can be fully expressive. In English people are
>  constantly making up new words or expressions because
>  they are not satisfied with what we have, or there is
>  a need to distinguish some fine point, or they have
>  forgotten the proper word. The more important point,
>  though, is, don't you think it scares people off if
>  you have a huge dictionary? I know you can have simple
>  ones for travel use, etc., but still.
>
>
>  Jens Wilkinson
>  Neo Patwa language: http://patwa.pbwiki.com
>
I don't agree with you on this point because of the following reasons:
1) Very simple communication at airports etc. is already served
perfectly well by English. When in an airport you can always see
people ordering things with a "one coffee and hot...and big cup".
There's no need for an IAL in this area.
2) Making a few hundred words in an IAL and pretty much saying "now
you all take it from here" is a bit like not making a language in the
first place. Look to Folkspraak for an example of the chaos that
happens when you don't have a clear enough structure in the first
place.
3) People aren't scared of a huge dictionary; they're scared of a huge
number of words to use in daily life and a complex grammar. That means
that three words for dog (dog, hound, cur), and not remembering
whether the plural of child is childs or children is scary, whereas
perigee and apogee are not, because almost nobody needs those words in
daily life, and so there's no shame in not knowing them.

-- 
http://idistaro.com