Print

Print


steve rice wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/18/09, Risto Kupsala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Steve Rice wrote:
>>> However, as Dana said, the power of English goes beyond the 
>>> historic Anglosphere at this point. It must be acknowledged.
>> 
>> It is unimportant in my opinion. In fact, it is unwise to couple 
>> your language with the destiny of English or any other natural 
>> language. The ups and downs of different international language are
>> evident in here in Europe. We have seen the rise of English, we're
>> close to the peak now, and the decline is inevitable.
> 
> And Europe is the world? Back to Occidental, then...
> 
>> But that's not the only reason why I think that the current, 
>> transient popularity of English is unimportant.
> 
> Both "current" and "transient," like a hobo drifting downstream 
> toward the waterfall. How idyllic. How wistful. How wishful.
> 
> This particular hobo comes in groups of a billion or more, which 
> could clog the falls considerably. Dana is right: English has both 
> size and momentum to keep going even if the US and Britain suddenly 
> vanish. It's the most leverageable language there is.
> 
The difference now is that mass communication and the web arrived while
English is dominant.

>> The more important reason is that regardless of how many people are
>> estimated to speak English,  billion or 1 billion, there are 
>> many many words that are more international than the corresponding
>> English words. They are cognate words, loan words and 
>> coincidentally similar words. Those words are found by comparing 
>> vocabularies of different languages of the world. English has left
>> its mark to many languages, so consequently there will be many 
>> English words in worldlang too.
> 
> There is more to a language than just words. You have a discontinuous
> hodgepodge of lexical items--actually of mere orthographic or 
> phonological entities--while English is an organic whole. Between a 
> living organism and a physiological scrap heap, guess which wins?
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> Your thinking is simply Gode writ globally: it already exists; if we
> put it together, like Frankenstein's creature, it will come alive
> and take over the world. Notice how well that concept has worked for
> Interlingua in Europe and America.
> 
What you want is a language which feels like a natural and organic
whole, yet is regular and not so much like an existing language that it
is dragged towards that language.

Interlingua feels like a natural language, yet it's too close to the
romance languages and their irregularies, so it's dragged towards them.

Occidental feels more like a mixture (like English?), so it's less
likely to be dragged towards one of them.