Print

Print


>Interesting example.  When one considers, that IALA Interlingua
>(not Gode's) is essentially nothing other than Italian,
>insufficiently simplified, with a Spanish plural sign, one would
>not be surprised if Italians preferred Interlingua.

I do not know why James Chandler wishes to expose his ignorance
by this gross oversimplification of the nature of Interlingua.
One could equally well say that Interlingua is English, or Spanish,
or French (written), or the Latin element in German, or the romance
in Russian.  Rather than making these crude disparagements that
display one's ignorance, why not focus one's criticisms on the
methodology behind Interlingua so that we might perhaps clarify
any misconceptions. Or perhaps he does not know enough about it
to engage in a rational discussion (like I'm sure Bruce Gilson
would) of Interlingua's methodology and principles.

By the way, of the major Romance languages, I find Italian the most
difficult to understand, given my knowledge of Interlingua.  I can do
better with Catalan, Sardenian, Romansh, Spanish, French. So, Interlingua
is not Italian as far as I'm concerned.  But Allan makes a telling point
that Interlingua is much more like Italian and other European languages
and for that reason will in all probability be more acceptable to the
Europeans in their quest for a common language.

Stan Mulaik