Print

Print


On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:52:12 -0400, Kjell Rehnström <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:

> [trim]

> My experience is different from Paul's – to me Interlingua of the IALA  
> was
> easier to understand than Peano's Interlingua. I could often relate IALA
> words to vocabulary imported into Swedish so it was easier to memorize,  
> for me.

Certainly, individuals' experiences can, and obviously do, differ. For you  
IALA was easier, and for me Peano was easier.

> The interesting question is if the immediate comprehension is such an  
> asset
> as I have thought. People seam to prefer Esperanto!

Of course, this brings up the matter of immediate comprehension for whom?  
Certainly for WENSA speakers, Interlingua (either one) may have some  
immediate comprehension, and Esperanto may have a little (if not much)  
comprehension here and there for a few words for either WENSA or non-WENSA  
speakers. Much as I like either Interlingua, I am aware that its appeal is  
almost entirely among WENSA speakers. For others, E-o would be no more  
difficult and probably easier. And even among WENSA speakers, there are  
features of E-o that might appeal more than some features of either I-a.  
(I would support any of the three, myself, if one of them should gain more  
widespread acceptance.)

-- 
Paul Bartlett