Sorry, I don't speak Interlingue; I assume you're disagreeing with me since Interlingue also uses <q> and <x>. It seems like you're listing languages that use classic versus phonetic orthographies and concluding that the classic one is preferable? If that is your argument, then as rebuttal, I point to the many languages that don't use the Latin script at all. "keles usa li latin literes" seems to discount such languages from the discussion, but they can hardly be ignored. Besides the Cyrillic Slavic, Arabic, Indian, and eastern languages, there are also all of the African, Native American, and Oceanic languages that use the Latin Alphabet (as well as standard Chinese, technically). I'm not familiar with any myself, but I understand that they, having few Greek and Latin roots, tend to use the Latin alphabet phonetically. Speakers of all of these languages would have to learn the IAL as well, and ideally, they should one day be expected to do so without learning English, French, or Latin in conjunction. For this majority of people, traditional orthographies have little to offer, while phonetic orthographies greatly simplify the learning process.

2018年8月12日(日) 14:48 Kjell Rehnström <[log in to unmask]>:

Justin scrit pri li introduction de q in ido. On posse observar unt trend vers li classic ortografie equalmen in Occidental /interlingue e in Novial. Et Occidental et Novial comensa quam sat fonetic lingues. Ambe lingues usa q e x ma occidental in li version de 1928 e 1930 ne usa c in cultura o francese e ne y quam vocal, solmen por li son ipa j. Ma in plu tardi formes de novial on reintroduce li classic orthographie e Interlingue have anc un variante con classic orthographie, ben que li hodierni max usat variante es sat fonetic u un filosof ne generalmen es un philosoph ma un filosof.

Del altri láter li Interlingua IALA ha quasi exclusivmen usat li classic orthographie con solmen poc exceptiones. Li grammatica de Gode & Blair permisse li scription f vice ph, r vice rh, t vice th, ma quam dit, ti variant es tre rarmen usat.

Ma si on reguarda li lingues queles usa li latin alfabete on va trovar que it es solmen englés, francés e german queles usa li classic ortografie, li scandinavic, slavic e ugrofinnic lingues (keles usa li latin literes) e li ceteri romanic lingues – con li exception de francés dunque – non usa it.

An it es possibil que it actet se pri un mode (fashion) que evenit parallelmen con li evolution del fonetic alfabete.

Por tis qui ne have li classic ortografie in lor materni lingues on vell posser imaginar que un fonetic ortografie vell esser preferibil, nam ego ha videt que scritores sin ti ortografie in lor matrin lingues have problemas con li classic ortografie, ma ego save anc que mult persones de altri lingues tamen prefere li classic ortografie quel ili ha aprendet in lor studies del mundial etnic lingues.

Den 2018-08-11 kl. 23:10, skrev Justin Kunimune:
The one about spelling being specifically etymological rather than phonetic is particularly interesting. I know it's the same general argument that led Ido to reintroduce <q> and <x>, but I've never really understood the reasoning behind it. The argument in the book seems to be that etymological spellings indicate meaning, since apparently everyone should have an intuitive idea of what the root <phon> means as long as it is spelled in romanised Greek, while spelling it <fon> (the way it's spelled in Spanish) would lead to "obscuring of meaning and origin". Surely the number of people who know that the greek root <φών> means "sound" and that the Latin grapheme <ph> corresponds to Greek <φ> but who would not be able to associate <f> with <φ> is not so high as to outweigh the added difficulty of learning a language with two ways to spell /f/ (especially since Greek itself has only ever had one way to spell /f/).

2018年8月11日(土) 16:40 Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>:
Things have been very quiet on AUXLANG. Let's be honest, old fashioned
server-based email lists (once called listservs) are not used much any
more. Much activity has gone elsewhere on the internet. Years ago,
AUXLANG was very active, often with multiple posts a day. Now, of
course, it mostly exists as a archive.

Anyway, I thought I would post an except from E. Sylvia Pankhurst's
short book, "Delphos: The Future of International Language" from the
1920's. (I have a copy in my own webspace, although I am not quite
certain whether it is now in the public domain.) In one section, she
summarizes the characteristics "the" Interlanguage must have, according
to her. I have put the headers in a file, without the discussions.

In one part of the book, she briefly discusses some of the (con)IALs
that existed as of her time, including Peano's Latino sine Flexione. In
my estimation, her list of characteristics almost completely describes
LsF, but she does not seem to endorse it as such.

Here are Pankhurst characteristics.


E. Sylvia Pankhurst
Delphos: The Future of International Language
London: KEGAN PAUL. TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Ltd.
New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
[1927?]
(later reprinted by Forgotten Books)

[http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/Pankhurst_Delphos.pdf]

Pages 47 - 57 [italic letters not marked here]

It must be a posteriori.

The Interlanguage must provide the greatest
possible intelligibility: therefore it must reach
the widest possible internationality.

It will employ the Roman alphabet, the only
alphabet of printed characters which can
claim internationality.

The Vocabulary of the interlanguage will
consist mainly of words common to the Indo-
European speech-family, which comprise an
extensive dictionary.

Inter-European words will be used in their
Latin form, with the classical spelling and
pronunciation.

The Interlanguage cannot successfully form
its vocabulary from different speech-families,
nor can it attempt an amalgam of the forms
existing in various branches of the European
speech-family.

The orthography of the Interlanguage must
be etymological. It cannot follow the false
trail of simplified spelling.

In accord with modern tendencies, the
Interlanguage will be logical and analytical,
and will contain no more grammar than is
required to elucidate the meaning. Every word
will be found in the dictionary.

The Interlanguage will go even further than
English in discarding inflections. In the
verb comprehensibility can undoubtedly be
reached by one unvarying form, qualified by
other parts of speech.

The concordance of the verb with its subject,
in number and in case, has almost disappeared
... .

The agreement of adjectives with the nouns
they qualify and the declension of nouns, which
have departed from English, will find no
place in the Interlanguage.

For the sign of plurality we cannot look to
the Latin example; ... . The final s has by
far the greatest internationality, and has
the advantage of being pronounceable after all
vowels and most consonants.

Articles will probably be discarded by the
Interlanguage.

The Interlanguage will not attach gender to
inanimate objects—only to those possessing
it in the actual world of nature, and only
where the sense requires it.

In syntax, the Interlanguage will follow the
order broadly common to the European
speech-family; subject, verb, object, with
the qualifying words placed as near as possible
to the word they qualify.

--
Paul Bartlett