The statement that "most non-European languages do not use Greco-Latin internationalisms at all" is in my opinion far from accurate. 

There are many languages in Asia and Africa that do use them. The exceptions among the top 200 or so languages include most forms of Chinese, Vietnamese, Tibetan, Yoruba, some versions of Arabic, etc.
Greek roots like micro- -plasma hyper- mega- tele- hydro- -phon  and a thousand more (and even more Latinate roots) are deep in Russian and now in Uzbek, Mongolian, and even Uyghur inside China. 
English (and global science) has served to insert thousands of them into all the languages of India, modified into the many diverse scripts. 
They are all over Africa, primarily from English and French. Turkish has very many, Persian and Urdu as well.
Japanese, Korean, Javanese, and Indonesian are full of them.
Then there is scientific nomenclature itself, necessarily used even in China when the science is to be detailed and explicit, etc. And it is Greco-Latin in vocabulary.

Regards,      LEO
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J S Jones
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Principles for IALs

Maybe I should check to see how all my auxlangs fit your criteria. But what about alien auxlangs?


On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:32:10 +0200, Temporary Conlanger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Greeting to everyone!
>I think the below principles are obvious, necessary for a conlang to be 
>adopted as IAL, nevertheless there are many conlangs (all to some
>degree) violating them. From conlangs I've read about, "Glosa" and 
>"Lingua Franca Nova" seem closest, hence best. Would "Glosa" fit the 
>below, if ancient latin/greek vocab would be replaced with the below 
>mentioned mostly modern english (written, not pronunciation) vocabulary 
>already in use? 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:
>international auxillary language => learnable & adaptable => familiar & 
>(orthogonal: grammar does not force you to express something when not 
>intended/needed/known e.g. gender number emphasis time ...; instead 
>express by lexical means i.e. more words which is always optional)
>* no inflections (because they cause stem/suffix-change ie fusion and 
>irregularity which slow learning and make literal adoption of loanwords 
>* no sound/gender/number/... agreement (because they slow learning and 
>are redundant since they cannot remove ambiguity of association in 
>general anyway)
>* no gender/number (e.g. sheep, food, fish; e.g. "he-or-she", 
>* 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)
>* phonetic (i.e. pronunciation of every letter is context independent)
>* no tones
>* vocabulary Globalized/Colonial/English/Latin/Greek (already in use 
>hence everyone needs to learn it anyway)
>* no lexical distinction btw verb/noun/adjective (faster learning, e.g. 
>I water the flowers. I use water power. I drink some water.)
>Flaws of existing languages:
>By "flaws" in this context I just mean: "these are the difficulties for 
>adult learners of the language that could be avoided in a conlang or by 
>evolving the language".
>flaws of English:
>* spelling/pronunciation
>* redundant/large vocabulary (subtelties when needed can be expressed 
>with a few more common words rather than one rare word, do you like 
>looking up word defs just because the author wanted to seem educated, 
>could be solved if native educators would stop encouraging the use of 
>rare/obscure words and they would be marked archaic/obsolete in
>* irregularities
>* too many tenses
>* inflections (but at least fewer than in the rest of Europe)
>flaws of Mandarin:
>* characters
>* tones
>* its vocabulary only familiar to chinese speakers not 
>flaws of other European languages: inflections, ...
>flaws of other non-European languages: vocabulary not established as 
>international already, ...