Print

Print


[log in to unmask] skrev:
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacLeod Dave
>>     
>
>   
>>> I'm not sure what "grandiose claims" we've made.
>>>       
>> Here are a few:
>> Languages based on European languages are somehow imperialist 
>> and racist
>> Only wordlangs have a chance of succeeding, in spite of zero
>>     
> evidence
>   
>> thus far to the contrary
>>     
>
> I've never seen that claim made.  The claim is that European (or any
> other culturally specific) languages give favoritism to a particular
> group, therefore they are not neutral on a global scale.  Neutrality
> is one of the most important features of an auxlang.  An auxlang
> that is not neutral isn't much better than thrusting an existing
> natural language onto people.  We already have English for that.
>
>   
>> ...
>> Taking words from everywhere results in a situation like you see
>>     
> in
>   
>> Japanese where you have just enough loanwords to mix things up,
>>     
> but
>   
>> not enough that people understand how to derive new terms. Ever
>>     
> heard
>   
>> from a person learning Japanese that the English loanwords
>>     
> actually
>   
>> make things more complicated? That's what a worldlang would
>>     
> probably
>   
>> feel like. Sometimes your native language is there, sometimes it
>> isn't. And when you have certain words (let's say ulus for nation
>>     
> from
>   
>> Turkish), you have a totally different term (let's say nashonal
>>     
> for
>   
>> national instead of ulusal from ulus) that makes the language feel
>> like a bit of a hodgepodge.
>>     
>
> An auxlang will have its own derivational or compounding system
> regardless of origin.  The component parts will still be apparent
> even if from different sources.  The student must learn the new
> language as a *new* language.  The diversity of labels attached to
> words or ideas is only to balance out the burden rather than giving
> one particular group a step up on everyone else.  
>
>   
One should not only consider native speakers. Second language speakers 
are also to be considered, as they also have acquired the regular - in 
the sense of "ruleful" - use of a certain language.

The great asset of the auxiliary language is regularity.

I suppose this would holde even for a Semitic language, even though I 
don't dare to warrant that, as my knowledge of e.g. Arabic are very 
superficial.

The neutrality buusiness seems to concern English but not Chinese, even 
though I suppose there are those who would not consider it to be very 
Neutral and who would rather view English as a neutral language!

Kjell R