Print

Print


On 20 January 2013 16:08, Mathieu Roy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I know and I agree with the most part.
>
> In the ANADEW acronym, I'm more interested about the "EW" part.
>
> I think the language the people in this situation would create at first
> would be more regular than almost all natlangs, but I agree that exceptions
> would arise as they speak it. I also think they would try to make an easy
> language to learn in order that everybody learn it before becoming blind.
>
>
The thing is: what does "easy to learn" mean? My experience with learning
languages (I'm fluent in three, conversational in another three) and with
talking to other people learning languages, is that "easy to learn" for
languages boils down to one thing, and one thing only: *familiarity*. The
closest the language is to a language you already know (it needed be your
native language, by the way), the easier it is to learn, especially in
terms of getting the sounds right, but the same is true for grammar and
lexicon. And *that* *is* *all*. In my experience, it's easier to learn a
language riddled with irregularities, if its structure is close to what you
already know (especially if the irregularities are also similar), than it
is to learn a 100% regular language with an alien grammar.

Of course, other conditions like full immersion will make learning even
easier, but familiarity gives a tremendous boost in the learning process
(it basically bootstraps it). And that's it. I don't believe that there is
a universal scale of easiness in language learning.

So what would be easy to learn for ASL speakers? Something that looks like
ASL.
-- 
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/