Print

Print


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------648997E9D740AF3EEF0628F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 
 
--------------648997E9D740AF3EEF0628F4
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
 
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:06:13 -0700
From: "Robert J. Petry" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: International Rap Lin Rie / Dutton World Speedwords Training Center
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mikhail ADIGEYEV <[log in to unmask]>
CC: Multiple recipients of list AUXLANG <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Esperanto vs Interlingua & Occ.
References: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 
 
Mikhail ADIGEYEV wrote:
 
>      [kut]
>
>     IMHO, "auxilary language" and "the second language for all" are different notions.
> An auxlang described by Kjell Rehnstrom, Robert Petry et al, looks
> like a pidgin italian (or spanish), as a lingua franca, suitable for
> every day talk with people in foreign country.  It's ok for asking "Sorry,
> how I go post house" when I need to get post office in a foreign
> country (but to understand the answer is still a problem, I think).
>         But when I am writing a scientific paper, or (more important)
> a legal document, I don't need people to understand me "more or less"
> or that they can guess approximately what I wrote. No, I want them to
> understand PRECISELY what I mean.
 
Li sam problema posi se por li atomes ne-metallic, quam li fos-for-atom, li sul-fur-atom,
li oxigen-aton etc., ma li solution va ci esser diferent.
 
Lass nos prender li casu del sulfur-atom (fig. 4) quel posede ti-ci vez 6 electrones sur
su orbite M. Manca dunc 2 electrones. Por li sulfur-atom, li problema es li sequent:
capter du electrones suplementari o perdir 6. Nor atom, e noi comprende it, "prefere"
capter, ye ocasion, 2 nov electrones, ma nequande it va ceder su 6 electrones periferic.
Dunc in sulfur (solide yelb bon conosset) on ne va trovar un sol electron in liberta',
i.e. separat de su atom. To va permisser nos comprender, in un moment, pro quo li
substanties quam fosfor, sulfur, cautchuc, ebonite, etc... ne posse conducter li currente
electric.
 
> And for such purposes (not
> mentioning official documents and mass-media) "lingua franca"s are not
> suitable. To make then unumbigous you will need to make words have
> exact meaning (tho not exactly what they mean in natural languages) as
> well as add a good deal of grammar. If you'll try to keep it close to
> all roman languages at once (in order to preserve easy
> understandability) you'll get a language which would not be consistent
> and will be very complicated (similar to the current spelling in
> Interlingua which is not so clear and natural for not-WENSA speakers).
 
That's why de Wahl's rules for regularity solved much of this problem. And, Occidental is
only close to "roman languages" in the sense that it uses "international" words, of which
many, in science and law come from "romance" roots, along with Greek, which is also
incorporated if the word is international.
 
Occidental has many scientific and legal uses, and is very specific. And, the perceived
difficulty is no greater than Esperanto is to someone who is not familiar with, as you
mentioned, your former study helped you with Esperanto.
 
Again, Esperanto is capable now of reaching maybe 2 million people with a scientific
article. That means you have to get another 200-500 million plus to learn it in order for
that scientific article or legal document to be read by them. With Occidental those 1-500
million people can read most of the articles or letters without any training. Those that
can't read it but want to learn it would have no more trouble learning from scratch than
learning Esperanto from scratch. The advantages to Occidental right now are tremendous.
 
>         As to roots, common to all european languages, as far as I know
> these roots sometimes have slightly (or not so slightly)different
> meanings in different countries, not to say about idioms and such.
> For myself, it's much easier to learn an absolutely new word then to
> get used to use familiar words in different meanings (or especially
> NOT to use familiar words the way I use them in my native language).
 
And, of course, that is taken into account with Occidental.
 
>
>
>         What I wanted to say is that when/if the people of Europe/of
> the whole world will accept the "second for all" language, it must be
> language, powerful enough to be used not only in every day talk, but
> (maybe more important) as a means of communication between people
> (including scientific, business and other types of communication). So
> this language MUST have rather elaborated grammar rather then be
> understandable "at one sight". It must be a 100% language,
> not lingua franca. Esperanto (and maybe other auxlangs of that kind)
> IMHO, has such abilities, which is proved by lots of literature,poems,
> songs and journals in Esperanto.
 
Occidental does that right now, and can be understood by at least a half billion people,
without training. With a weekend of practice they would be 150% ahead of Esperanto at
least. And, Occidental is a totallly complete language ready for common, legal,
scientific, prose, poetry, song use. It is totally complete. So, make a chart with for and
against for Esperanto and Occidental. The side with the most positives for learning and
using it now will be Occidental. Unless, of course, one wants to join a closed club of
actually, much less than 2 million people.Anyway, welcome to auxlang, and be prepared for
some IAL fun.
 
Al l sue,
Bob, x+
 
 
--------------648997E9D740AF3EEF0628F4--