Print

Print


I'm not going to quote Ken Caviness' entire post, but just in order to make
clear to which I refer, understanding that I am responding to the entire post
and not just this one sentence:
 
> ... If you had used Interlingua extensively over the
>je-ne-sais-combien-de years that you have been interested in IALs, I think
>it would have done more for the IAL movement than constructing new
>planlingvoj or modifying old ones.  IMO.
 
In YOUR opinion yes. I firmly and totally disagree. I would never have discov-
ered Novial, which I deem a _much_ better language. I do not believe, as Ken
appears to, that _any_ interlanguage is equally useful if you can find another
user.
 
For the purpose of wooing the overwhelming majority of the world's billions
of people who do not already use a conIAL, Esperanto, with its noun-adjective
concord and accusative-flexion, is an inferior vehicle, as is Interlingua, with
its two-stem verbs and vague-meaning derivations. Time spent developing a
better one is not time wasted. If it were, Zamenhof should have given up and
simply learned Volapuek.
 
                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)