8.6.2014 5:43, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
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
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]"
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
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
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.