Sellamat prients!

I see that sambahsa can raise an interesting debate. Indeed, all of those 
questions are not peculiar to sambahsa and concern othr auxlangs (though 
sambahsa may be the one that most adresses those issues).
The question is often posed about a "minimal" auxlang (for instance: tiny 
wordlist, basic structure of sentences...)
Nothing would prevent me from deciding to limit sambahsa's vocabulary to a 
few hundred words. But the only truth is that every language, whether natural 
or artificial, tends to create new words (the more spoken it is,  the more 
words it'll be likely to create). For every language, the restriction of words is 
an illusion, or it is a purely artificial language. Every derivation or compounding 
may be put aside in favor of neologisms. Ex: Esperanto dropped "vagonaro" 
for "trajno" (train). 
The richness of sambahsa's vocabulary is due to the fact that it incorporates 
words shared by languages from different linguistic families. A single word can 
be used outside Europe while we Europeans use a compound. 
One thing I like about English is the structure of its vocabulary which 
incorporates very naturally Germanic and Romance words. So I do the same 
with Sambahsa but with a broader scope, ranging from Indo-European, modern 
European to Eastern languages. 
The same goes with expressivity. Indeed, every language will tend to 
develop "figures de style", and it is not obligatorily linked with Sambahsa's 
grammar (though its natural background helps it a lot); for example, LdP uses 
some particles which can do such job (yok, den...). Anyway, it is something 
we can't avoid (unless we want our conlang to remain a mere experiment of 
What conlangs have to replace are not pidgins, but the languages most used 
for international communication between people who don't share the same 
language (today, it is mostly English). I might certainly want to write in French 
on this list, Risto to write in Finnish, etc... A conlang would be a better 
alternative than a single natlang. 

Sambahsa has a bunch of simple rules; when they're put together, it really 
give the impression of a true natlang with all its complexities. I suppose that 
sambahsa is more complicated than most well-known auxlangs, but it is surely 
simpler than most natlangs, and sambahsa is (nearly?) able to compete with 
them with less effort. 

To explain a few interrogations: 
"aghyern" (meaning "morning") is regular; Sambahsa's pronounciation works on 
combination of letters (and not on single letters). The "h" after the "g" 
indicates that the "g" is to be hard (like always in German); it is the Italian 
system, which exists in Occidental too... "gy" would on the contrary have 
been a "dzh" sound (ex: "magyar" = [madzhAr] "Hungarian")
 "y" here works as a consonant, as it is followed by "e". It indicates that the 
stress will fall on the "a", and not the "e" as it would have been the case with 
two vowels "ie". 
So "aghyern" = [Agyrn]
*agyern = [Adzhrn]
*aghiern" = [agyErn]
*agiern = [adzhyErn]...
(The last inconsistency Sambahsa had was suppressed thanks to a remark by 
Jens; it was "gue" which could be either read [g()] or [g:]. Now, it is only 
[g], since "ue" alone is [:]). (long vowels is sambahsa are not obligatorily 
pronounced, they are mostly there to ascertain the position of the stress). 

"iris" is pronounced [Iris]. *irisa would imply a shift of the stress on the 
second "i". That's would "iris" remains "iris" at the plural. 

I am working to compile a list of sinitic words in sambahsa; it nears 300 words. 
I suppose that positive characteristics of sambahsa are the coherence of its 
IE based grammar which brings precision and shortness, and its selected 
international vocabulary.