On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, steve rice wrote (excerpted):

> Also true. One of the problems of Interlingua is that it simplifies
> the learning and even usage task for people with the right background
> by assuming a lot of information. If you're familiar with a Romance
> language in particular, it works really well. Otherwise not. And it
> also is constantly being pulled toward Romance expectations.

> Again, it happens in Ia and seems to be happening in LFN. But both
> languages copy Romance a little too much with noun-adjective ordering
> and other details. I admit I'm surprised that LFN has overcome its
> creolish appearance to drift in a Romance direction. If only they had
> used <k>...

I think it is unfortunate that Ia and LFN are both being pulled over by
the romanophones.  There is so much of an attitude, "Well, MY language
does it this way, and we all know that this is the natural way that
languages work (or should work)...."  I can recall some of the LFN
discussions in which hispanophones were wondering how a language could
possibly work without a subjunctive mood and plural articles.  And I
recall from beginning French class so many years ago how some students
were thoroughly mystified that there are no progressive tenses in
French.  How could a language possibly get along without them?  So many
of us want a conIAL that is little other than a relexification of our
native tongue.  It is this tendency that I fight against in those rare
occasions when I write something in Ia, *deliberately* using Latin
particles as Gode did in order to try to fight against the tendency to
make Interlingua into Yet Another Romance Language.

Paul Bartlett