On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Kjell Rehnstrom wrote: > Charles scribeva: > None of the IALs is both easy to speak and easy to parse by computers. > E occidental e interlingua es simple a parlar. Si illos non pote esser > perlaborate (be parsed) per computatores, tanto pejo (so much the worse) > pro le computatores! Let them speak Euroclone! ... Uh, that will not work. Interlingua admits to having minimal grammar, being primarily a dictionary circa 1950 of common European/Romance words. No two speakers sound alike, and though I understand 98% of the words, the idiom is still basically just a relexification of the speaker's most familiar natlang, so I still am not sure of meaning. I wrote programs to do simple word lookup, then found that the idioms were really the most difficult part. Though useful, Interlingua will never be the world language (as it appears to me now). And we do need one. I think the answer is a computer-mediated inter-language, and that such is indeed feasible. > >None of them are as simple in phonology and syntax and morphology > >as most East Asian languages. "Weighed and found wanting." > > Qui dice isto? Who says? Just me. The other 5 billion can't even understand it, let alone say it! I admit that Ia is a very good eurolang.