On 2014-07-29 6:59 PM, Leo Moser wrote:

> I would guess a language could be strictly analytical, at least by some definitions of the term.

I myself cannot say that there is Language X that is strictly, totally 
analytic, but I think that there are some which approach analyticalness 
to consider whether such a language is possible.

> Among IAL's there are some that seem to be. Some of the a-priori ones, for example. Then maybe Latino s. F., Interglossa, Frater, Glosa, etc.

LsF (which is my emotionally, personally, all time preferred, for 
reasons we need not go into here, auxlang) is almost but not totally 
analytic. The others are close. (Amazingly, are there many others here 
who are familiar to any extent with Frater?) I myself think highly of 
Interglossa, although I estimate that after ~70 years it is not likely 
to succeed, due to circumstances. This is one of those situations in 
which pure linguistic superiority (speaking very loosely here) is no 
guarantee of widespread adoption. Similarly with Sona, which I consider 
totally analytic, in the sense if we allow compounding of otherwise 
independent lexemes.

> [...]
> In Africa, Yoruba is cited as a possible candidate for such a language.

As a global auxlang source, or just as an analytic natlang? (I freely 
admit that I know next to nothing about Yoruba.)

> Others here may have additional suggestions / comment.

One of the good things about AUXLANG is that responsible members can 
write responsibly in discussion, even if obviously they do not always agree.

Paul Bartlett