> [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 from. > > > 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 habits. > > > 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.