On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:51 AM, <deinx nxtxr><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jim Henry wrote:

>> That could be conveniently combined, I reckon, with the suggestion
>> often made that children learn a relatively easy engelang or auxlang
>> before starting their second messy, complicated natlang.

> If you get them all learning the same "easy auxlang" there won't be much
> need for them to learn anything else.  That will deploy the auxlang and make
> it useful.

If it were done simultaneously everywhere, sure.   But my point is
that it would be somewhat beneficial to the children in particular
places where it's implemented even if it's decades or centuries or
never  before it's implemented everywhere, especially if there's at
least one classroom of children in some other country that's learning
the same auxlang.  You get the cultural benefits of corresponding with
those other children, plus the linguistic awareness and
self-confidence from learnng a relatively easy language first, which
improves their motivation for learning the next natlang the study and
their chances of succeding in learning it.

So for instance, suppose you have a classroom of children in in
Knoxville learning Sasxsek, and a classroom of children in Oulu
learning it as well, then by the end of a semester they could be
corresponding in it and maybe talking in it via Skype or something.
Then at the end of the semester the teachers lay out their options for
future study -- e.g. Esperanto is a little harder but you can talk to
thousands of times more people with it, Spanish or Japanese are a fair
bit harder but you can talk to millions of times more people with
them, etc.

Jim Henry