I'm glad that some of you agree with my definitions of language neutrality.

Dana Nutter wrote:
> The items listed of course are just an ideal situation. It's a goal
> to strive for. Realistically, there are a lot of tradeoffs to be
> made. The result is that there will be a few people who fall
> through the cracks, but we should try and keep that number as small
> as possible.

Exactly! I have nothing to add to that.

> 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...

This is a good goal for world language too, but it is not a criterion of
neutrality. I wish that I will see the day when some worldlang, LdP, Neo
Patwa, Sasxsek, Ceqli or even Pandunia, will fulfill this requirement. It
will take a community of people to make it happen.

-- Risto Kupsala