Print

Print


2008/3/5, Risto Kupsala <[log in to unmask]>:
> I consider language neutrality a key issue for constructed international
>  auxiliary languages. It is the main reason why I turned down Eurolangs in
>  the first place and strove for worldlangs.
>
>  In my opinion language neutrality means that in general:
>  (1) Everybody can learn the language in approximately the same length of time
>  (2) Everybody has an equal standing for learning the language
>  (2a) Everybody will be previously familiar with approximately the same
>  amount of useful words, expressions and grammar
>  (2b) Nobody is compelled to learn idiomatic expressions and irregularities
>  that others are previously familiar with
>  (3) Everybody will find the language simple
>  (4) Everybody will find the language logical
>  (5) Everybody can express themselves comfortably in the language
>  (6) Everybody will understand each other equally well in the language
>  after the same amount of study
>  (7) Everybody feels that their language and culture has given a
>  significant input to the world language
>

I like most of those except 2a and 7. 2a seems to be an impossible
goal, and 7 is liable to create conflict if it's set up as a primary
goal. What if the language has Estonian words but none from Vőro,
words from Seoul-standard Korean but none from Jeju-do even though
they even have their own language textbooks now on the island? Why
give the people from Tallinn and Seoul an unfair advantage?  If the
argument is that they know standard Estonian and Korean anyway, can't
you use the same argument to exclude Basque or Occitan? And so on.

-- 
http://idistaro.com