Print

Print


--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Risto Kupsala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I meant that in Western auxiliary languages:
> (1) Words are long.
> (2) There are no tones.
> (3) Compound words are used a little.
> 
Eo tends to have short roots; compare kon- with Ido konoc-, Occ conoss[e], Ia cognosc[e]. It also has a lot of compounds.

But there's also Glosa, which at one point had a reasonable following (roughly comparable to LFN now). A lot of compounding, and they kept abbreviating words, especially in "Tako Glosa" (not to be confused with Burrito Glosa). How well did that ultimately work?

Brevity is useful, but beyond a certain point it becomes counterproductive.

Steve