Leo wrote: > Even Bahasan, which does its best to pick up vocabulary from around > the world can run into this problem. Roots are distrubuted in accordance > with certain patterns. There is Latin in Russian, there is English > in Japanese, there is Sanskrit in Telegu, there is Russian in Mongolian, > there is Spanish in Tagalog, there is Arabic in Swahili. But there is > not much Japanese in Swahili or Turkish in Zulu. > The idea that Interlingua is too European for worldwide use does not seem justified. What alternative is there? Swahili regualarly uses Latin roots for constructing vocabulary when its own resources are wanting. Zulu and other African languages also borrow extensively from English. Japanese contains a large amount of borrowing from English . Russian also contains a very large number of Latin roots used to form nouns adjectives and verbs. This means that the resources of Latin and Latin based languages are not totally unfamiliar to the speakers of languages outside the Indoeuropean group. Indo-European languages cover most of the world's population any way. Most of Europe (Except Finish, Hungarian and Basque), most of India and a large part of Asia. Turkic languages also borrow Latin vocubulary. All of North and South America (except for indigenous languages). In Africa various European languages are still in use as languages of adminstration, commerce and education and are likely to remain so for a long time. So there is no shame in Interlingua or Esperanto for that matter being "too" European. It seems that Sino-Tibetan is the only language group that has not been influenced by Indo-European. One objection to Latin based constructed languages, in my opinion, is the retention of sex-based gender in pronouns, and the use of definite articles. Prepositions are another problem, as they do not exist in African languages and are often follow no logic in their use in European lanagues. It is difficult to match the use of prepositions among different Europe languages, nevermind deciding what their basic meaning should be. How have the inventors of auxlangs and conlangs dealt with this problem ? Regards David Gerard.