Kjell T-N skripted:

> To say that I-a is a
> simplified Italian is, with all due respect Chandler, nonsense.

My premise is that if one were to take Italian, and make the same
simplifications as are found in Interlingua, one would not end up with
anything radically different from Interlingua.  Actually, in some ways
the simplified Italian would be preferable: I believe Italian has
FilosoFia, where presumably I-a has PHilosoPHia.  Another thing that
springs to mind is the final -e for ease of pronunciation on the end
of words like "stazione", found in Novial (-(t)ione) but strangely
absent from I-a.
I fail to see any nonsense whatsoever in the arguments I have given.

> But if someday an artificial language is chosen as an international
> auxiliary language it will surely be I-a, or a language more or less
> similar to it - because the international vocabulary is already there, and
> there's no need to invent a new one...

If a language like I-a were chosen over one of the Ido-Novial type,
it could be nothing but a disgraceful concession to the preferences of
some for a Latin language, based on emotional and irrational prejudices
which have no place in the selection of an international language.

> If this language looks more like the Romance than like the Germanic
> languages that's also because these languages are spoken by more people
> than the Germanic ones and the importance of these languages increase by
> each day..

If there is one language in this world whose importance increases each
day, whether we like it or not, it is English.  Perhaps you hadn't
noticed that English is actually a member of the Germanic group of
languages, not the Romanic!

James Chandler
[log in to unmask]