On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:18:37 +0200, Kjell Rehnstr?öm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Isn't it possible that the IAL might have the same kind of influence in >countries as English has nowadays? Yes! And even more. The planned auxiliary language can have much more influence if it has a high number of mother tongue speakers ,because it's easy. The easiness of the planned language will encourage more people to learn the world language ,because it takes less time to learn ,and this will cause much larger portions of the societies to speak this conlang. This is good to the global economy ,but it could damage the natural languages more. What I am trying to say is that we need to gain these economical benefits without damaging the natural languages. We want a very easy language that has few native speakers a long with other protective features e.g. My thinking is that Ardano can have only a few number of native speakers. And in case the conlang has millions of native speakers ,it is more possible at the end to see the whole world speaking this easy and logical artifitial language as a mother tongue ,and somebody needs to ask whether this will make human life smarter or the opposite. Our children are able to learn the most difficult natural languages without feeling their difficulties ,because they are their mother tongues. I don't know what would happen if humanity started to use a constructed language with very simple logic as a mother tongue for centuries and centuries. The problem is not just that ,because having only this problem is not a big one. We all know that how language is used by different cultures is a way of thinking ,and humanity needs different ways of thinking. Now imagine that all natural languages and cultures disappeared ,and we had one language ,and only one language , we will start to use this language in the same way ,the very same adverbs , the same adjectives with the same semantics...etc. All of this will happen while we don't know any other mother tongues that can affect the way we use and deal with this same world language. Also this is not the biggest problem ,we should think about what is next. When one mother tongue is present in the world ,then if for example a cartoon series becomes a hit ,and nearly all of our children through out the world watch it ,and this is repeated with other cartoons ,all humans are watching the same products even after they grow up ,they will watch the same succesful movies and so on. After all of this we will have an even much narrower spectrum of thinking. What I am trying to say is that we need to study the options in front of us, what will happen if we chose a world language? What will happen if we didn't ? How will be the shape of this world language? We have only one planet until now ,and one humanity , one life our children will live after us ,and we should see a wide picture and then choose wisely. It's not correct to ignore the economical advantages that will be gained if one world language was chosen ,and instead we choose to not have any world language or to impose a large number of them. I am saying maybe we can have two or three world languages in a way that one of them is more leading and prominent ,and the other easy languages are also present. In the end it's a proposal ,and we can choose or modify how it will work. For example I have chosen to make Ardano very similar to Esperanto and Ido in grammar with easiness of translation and exchange with them. So the idea of more than one world language is an applicable option if we chose a group of conlangs with a similar basic structure. Yet we can ignore this advatage if we saw that it is not useful. It's all about giving more and more advantages with less risks.