Print

Print


Yes, the phonotactics of Indo-Euro languages can present major problems for Chinese, and other East Asians. 
Yet most IALs created by East Asians do not seem to address that issue, but use systems closer to Europe or South Asia.

-----Original Message-----
From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "The Fine Art of Grammar Writing"

On 2015-11-21 4:07 PM, Leo Moser wrote:

> While the grammar of Chinese is very different in detail from that of say Esperanto, I don't think a simple IAL of the western sort presents major comprehensional difficulties for Chinese.

There can be and are phonological / phonotactic considerations, of course, for any conIAL. According to what I have read (I will cheerfully accept correction), it is easier for adult learners from a tonal language environment to learn a non-tonal language than it is for adult learners from a non-tonal environment to learn a tonal language. Thus, it might seem that it is preferable for a conIAL to be non-tonal.

Certainly, for adult learners, again, there are phonological / phonotactic considerations. But if the phonology is not too extreme, the major consideration, in my opinion, comes down to morphology and syntax. 
Perhaps we in the west tend to over-estimate the matter. There are many non-Indo-European individuals who have learned Esperanto, for instance. 
Let them speak for themselves, rather than us WENSA speakers speaking for them. According to what I see on the Facebook group for IALA Interlingua, there is one participant who claims to come from Thailand, and Thai is hardly an IE language.

--
Paul Bartlett