--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

> > [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.  

I have, though I'd have to wade through the archive to
get the exact quote. I think it was Risto.

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.

How neutrality is defined is the other point. I'm not
only a native speaker of English, I'm a writer and an
editor with an unusually good grasp of the language
(GRE verbal score of 800/800). So I can not only pound
non-native speakers in a usage contest, I can whip
most native speakers as well.

But if we were doing this in some other language, that
advantage would diminish or outright disappear. If we
picked a language none of us knew natively--Eo, Ido,
Occ, Ia, whatever--we could have exchanges, but no one
could dominate based on native ability. That sounds
neutral to me, so long as overall learning time isn't
too long.


Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.