On 19 Oct 2015 18:42, "Temporary Conlanger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Basically these priciples imply a > trivial-to-learn grammar onto established international/english vocab, > to minimize learning effort and overall switching cost. > > Principles for International Auxillary Languages: > * no inflections (because they cause stem/suffix-change ie fusion and > irregularity which slow learning and make literal adoption of > loanwords problematic) > > * no sound/gender/number/... agreement (because they slow learning and > are redundant since they cannot remove ambiguity of association in > general anyway) > > * no tenses (express lexically instead) > > * strict meaningful word order (since words have to be in order anyway > and will contribute to meaning anyway, but if not used for essential > meaning then it will be abused to express mostly redundant > emphasis/subtleties causing more learning effort and misunderstanding; > if meaning of verb contains the argument order then cases/preps can be > avoided e.g. "I give you flowers" hence concise) > > * no lexical distinction btw verb/noun/adjective (faster learning, > e.g. I water the flowers. I use water power. I drink some water.) Word order can't signify as much as inflection, so it seems to me that if you throw away all the finiteness and agreement and other inflection then either the syntax is likely to be much more complicated or sentences will be wildly ambiguous. Is wild ambiguity undesirable in an IAL? Or would you have little function words that do much of the job of inflection but without the side effects of inflection that you mention? Would learners learn the language from a grammar or by picking it up through exposure? IMO an IAL would be nice to have, but only if it's a really really good loglang, better than any we currently have. So I wouldn't agree with any of your IAL principles, tho I recognize that you articulate a mainstream and traditional view. --And.