8.6.2014 5:43, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Comment: Simplicity and expressivity are not on the same dimension and do not compete with each other.

My reply: I disagree. One can have a very simple language like Toki Pona, but it is very hard to say complex things in that language. It lacks expressivity. In other languages, say English or Finnish or Ithkuil, it is possible to express pretty much anything, but those languages are not simple.


On the other hand there is no doubt that English or Finnish could be regularized greatly without throwing out any of the expressivity. A great deal of complexities are just sediments of language evolution.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
What is important, I think, for ease of learning, are the number of cognates to a language one already knows. This is one reason that Esperanto and Sambahsa are relatively easy; it’s because the word stock is drawn from IE and most of the learners’ native languages are SAE. But… there is no way to build a lexicon which is cognate to all the world’s languages; they are just too different.

That's right, all the world's languages are too different. In theory it is possible to create a language that has about 6000 words, each coming from one of the about 6000 living languages. In theory each word could be unique to one language only. But what's the point of creating such jealousy driven language? And does anyone have the resources to survey over 6000 languages? No-one, at least not as long as auxlangs are created by individuals in their free time with minimal budget (if any).

There is a better solution. Pick 20-50 languages that have the greatest number of speakers. See what they have in common. Voilà! You have discovered the ingredients of a *worldlang*!

It wasn't an accidental discovery. It happened because almost every multimillion-speaker language has a loan word stock that is 25-75% of its total root word stock. Since there is a relatively small number of primal loan word sources (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Middle-Chinese, Arabic), all loan word stocks (or legacy word stocks) tend to be mostly the same across languages in a given geographical area.

This is the reality behind worldlangs. It's real. With that in mind it is easy to understand that the likes of Esperanto and Interlingua are just jokes when proposed to the whole world. It's easy to understand why there is no global auxlang yet. The world is waiting for something proper: the worldlang of gold.

--Risto Kupsala