Michael Farris wrote: > > Charles wrote: > > I'm not convinced Eo is or isn't good enough, > > but am sure natlangs vary in their overall utility. > > Define what you mean by "overall utility". No matter which criteria you choose, languages will rate differently by comparison, and there is no evidence indicating the factors are magically "balanced". Some languages dominate others in every category. J. Guy has a post on the web describing the languages of adjacent villages on an island, sharing the same way of life etc. Along each dimension, phonology morphology syntax you-name-it, Tolomako was simpler and just as effective. There are tendencies that may work over time to level the "overall utility" of languages. But like they say in Economics, in the long run we're all dead, so one must accept the current state of things as decisive. Look at natlangs that have been deliberately reformed. Turkish, Indonesian. Did the changes improve matters? Or did they make no difference at all overall? More obviously in auxlangs, every tweak does make a difference. Oh yes, my criteria ... The more well-defined, regular, easy-to-learn, extensible, flexible, easy-to-pronounce, with extremely minimal grammar and idiom, the better. Maybe plain vanilla "C" (SVO style), or "Forth" (OV).