> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett > Easily readable for those who have some familiarity with Latin and/or > Romance languages or any of many, many, many other similar projects. > After all this long time, I wonder why people go to the trouble of > creating new languages along the same lines. The more I think about > it, the more I like Latino sine Flexione as a simplification of the > major language of the heritage of western civilization. (I fully > admit, however, that it is not a "worldlang" as some have been using > the term here.) Perhaps I should also dust off my copy of Richardius > Dominicus's "SPL: an International Language Based on Simplified > Latin." (Admittedly, the better known LsF has better prospects than > SPL.) I like LsF for the creation that it is, but wouldn't advocate its use as an auxlang. Latin is still a dead language and I think it's better to think in modern terms for an auxlang. A simplified proto-modern-Romance would make much more sense. Maybe use the LsF structure, but relex to a pan-Romance vocabulary.