> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of steve rice

> > So we'll take some guy in China who has beens stuggling
> > with
> > English, and give him yet another language loaded with the
> > same
> > Western features that he is already having trouble with,
> > while a guy
> > in Spain gets to benefit from a language so familiar to his
> > own that
> > he can practically learn it overnight.
> The prase "loaded with the same Western features" is itself 
> loaded. I am not necessarily talking about an existing 
> auxlang, so assuming characteristics beyond an English-based 
> vocabulary is assuming too much. But even if the guy from 
> Spain can practically learn the auxlang overnight, that 
> should help produce the much-coveted user base.
> Also, a properly designed auxlang will use basic words anyone 
> with even a smattering of English can recognize, so the guy 
> in China gets a return on his learning investment, and he'll 
> find the pronunciation and grammar a lot easier too.

A smattering of English is only going to help him a smattering
anyway.  In a worldlang, he'll still have a smattering of vocabulary
from his L1.   The difference being that the guy who has never
studied any other language is still going to get his smattering in a
worldlang.  If he is learning WENSA-Lang-X he's either going to get
nothing or a something so close to his own language that there's
little point to learning it anyway, all depending on where he comes

> > > But there are different definitions of neutrality.
> > > Something neutral by your definition will be harder to
> > > bootstrap and promote, as it has no obvious
> > > demographic. "Equally easy for everyone"
> > really means
> > > "harder for everyone than most people will
> > tolerate."
> > 
> > Go back to my example of China and the Spain.  That's
> > definitely not
> > a situation that where the language is neutral.
> If they both come out speaking equally well in a reasonable 
> amount of time, it's equal enough. Your argument logically 
> requires you to have absolute equality for all potential 
> speakers, and you have admitted before that it's not 
> possible. (Besides, the Spanish guy will have a problem the 
> Chinese guy doesn't: false friends.)
> For me, the relevant point is ease of use, so long as ease of 
> learning isn't particularly more difficult for one than for 
> another. The Spanish guy may learn the auxlang overnight, but 
> the Chinese guy should figure it out in a week or two. So 
> long as they can converse with equal ease afterward, all is well.

But he's not going to figure it out in a week or two.  He may learn
some basic vocabulary in a week or two, but will likely never learn
to add "-s" (or whatever) to plurals or use verbal tenses every
time.  These are very real issues with Chinese that speak English,
and it's not a problem with irregularites but with differing speech

> > > He's probably more competent
> > > > > than he feels, but he knows he'll never
> > be as good
> > > > at
> > > > > English as he is at Japanese.
> > 
> > So he's not likely to be good at any other language
> > that has the
> > same Western features.
> What auxlang has the "same Western features" as English? You 
> don't really mean to say that all Western languages look 
> alike, do you? 

Yes, they do to a certain extent.  Lexically and structurally they
have a lot of similarities.  

> > First-hand experience is that Asians are the worst when it
> > comes to
> > learning or using English.  Obviously this is a problem of
> > English
> > being phonologically and grammatically very different from
> > the L1's
> > these people know.  
> In my earlier post, Tokyo Joe Sixpack thought one of the 
> attractive features of the hypothetical auxlang was that the 
> English was simplified in a way similar to English loanwords 
> in Japanese.

I call it Nihongurishi, check out my post on
alt.language.artificial.  Just something I was toying with, not
intended as an auxlang.