> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett > I have tried to learn Esperanto three times and have never really > succeeded. I estimate I can read about three-fourths of an E-o text > without resorting to a dictionary, but that is strictly passive > reading. (I have heard very little E-o actually spoken, and I could > understand little of that.) My active command of the language is > almost nonexistent. However, I have in the past been able to compose > (written) text in IALA Interlingua (although I myself find LsF easier > to read). Somehow E-o and I just do not gibe, and if it were > to become > a widespread conIAL I would probably be at a disadvantage. > At the same > time, I am a little reluctant to advocate multiple conIALs. I've tried in the past to learn it too. I'll admit it was far simpler than natural languages because of the regularity, but then there's the part where I need to start building linguistic habits, and E-o quickly fails there. With me, it's mainly because there are just no useful outlets for practicing the language. I'll have to say I do better with natural languages because there is no shortage of material to read or listen to, making it likely that there is something that will hold my interest. Thanks to streaming television on the internet, I can now watch television in just about any of the world's major languages.