Print

Print


MacLeod Dave skrev:
> 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.
>
>   
For a practical example I find Occidental "flicca" for "girl" and 
"clocca ot" for 8 o'clock to be strange and a little off-putting. It 
should be legitimate to take words from any language. Does an English 
speaker feel the same thing about "boy" and "yes"?

Kjell R