--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Risto Kupsala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Steve Rice wrote:
> >--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Risto Kupsala <risto@...>
> wrote:
> > Steve Rice wrote:
> > > --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Risto Kupsala wrote:
> > >> An ideal worldlang is more international,
> more
> > durable and
> >>>> more neutral than any narrowly based IAL.
> *It's
> >>>> all there, it's only a matter of time
> before somebody
> >>>> manages to put it together.*
> >
> > Emphasis added. You might want to read the section
> carefully; it is the basis
> > for my remarks.
> >
> [...]
> > I referred to Gode's view (found in
> > other projects such as Occidental and Glosa) that the
> interlanguage already
> > exists in latent form and needs only to discovered and
> used. That is what your
> > quote at the top of the message says.
> I realize now that it can be understood that way, because
> of my misuse of English, but it's not what I meant. I
> did *not* mean that the ideal worldlang is out there,
> waiting to be discovered. I meant that all those wonderful
> features are part of ideal worldlang, and it is only a
> matter of time before somebody manages to put together such
> a language. There can be a number of languages that fulfill
> the mentioned criteria of ideal worldlang, the diversity of
> source material makes many different permutations possible,
> but none exist yet.
> I hope I managed to express myself better this time.

Very clearly. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
> > But Gode had a stronger case than you do, and it
> applies as well to Occ and
> > other "Eurolangs": the words aren't
> simply yanked out of their linguistic
> > context; they retain their old associations,
> linguistic, historical, literary,
> > and so on. That's the whole reason for claiming
> that Ia (etc. ) isn't artificial
> > and wasn't created.
> >
> > But what of the worldlangs? As Dave has pointed out,
> forms (not words as such)
> > are yanked out of their proper context, like removing
> organs from a group of
> > people and trying to cobble them together into a new
> person. An average heart
> > here, an average liver there, and after a while, a
> statistically average human
> > being has been created.
> Words are yanked out of their proper context always when
> people learn foreign languages. They make some kind of
> mapping between the words of their native language and the
> words of the language they are learning. Mostly it is
> inaccurate. In addition they have to compensate their small
> vocabulary by overgeneralization, using the words of the
> target language very broadly. The result is that anything
> that they say never sounds right for the natives.

But that's also true within languages. I doubt anyone here has quite the same associations for any given word that I do, and vice versa. But we learn to adapt and make allowances. However, doing that requires some commonality, such as native speakers of a given language have. It is overcoming that lack that is the true threshold of fluency in a foreign language. But you have no such commonality, not even the borrowed kind the "Eurolangs" have.
> Languages like Interlingua re-create the same situation.
> There are those who are at home in it, and those who
> aren't. Worldlangs are different. They level the playing
> field by yanking words out of their original context.
> That's neutrality. World IAL should be a platform for
> inclusive global culture, not exclusive Latinate culture or
> whatever Bob and Dave are trying to sell.

But the effect is that instead of some people being at home in it, no one will be at home in it. That is neutrality, but it is also self-defeating. Putting everyone on the street is a curious way to resolve the inequity of homelessness.
> > Maybe.
> >
> > I admit that I do something similar with my
> English-based project, borrowing
> > forms but not all the meanings that go with them; but
> the very fact that I'm
> > borrowing from a single source still gives a general
> context, if only a
> > backdrop.
> >
> > A case in point: there are languages that have no word
> for "hope." That doesn't
> > bother a "Eurolanger" at all, because his
> source languages do have that concept.
> > (So does mine.) But since you're taking a global
> view, you can't dismiss that
> > issue. You have no specific basis for your semantic
> divisions, unless you want
> > to analyze the semantics of however many source
> languages you may have. And
> > unlike the "European" languages, your
> sources will lack unity, leaving the
> > problem of what to keep or avoid.
> True. However there are enough universal things to set
> common ground for all. "Hope" can be replaced with
> a more general word, such as "want" and
> "belief", or the same idea can be expressed with
> several words.

Are there? Anna Wierzbicka claims there are only a handful of true semantic primitives, and constructing the rest could get tedious. I've actually studied this problem for some years now, using a resource you might find odd: books for Bible translators. They're used to running into lexico-semantic peculiarities, so they can give impressive advice and insight into the problem.
> In general I think worldlangs are more open to new words
> than Eurolangs. Especially cultural words can be brought in
> without having to worry that it doesn't fit in with the
> rest of the words, because there is no default or privileged
> vocabulary or culture in worldlangs.
And thus no ground for either borrowing or speakers to stand on.