Print

Print


charles wrote:
 
> 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,
 
Yes, this is the biggest difficulty in "at-sight" languages, it's far too easy
to slide into just-plain-boring or relexification of one's native language,
which can be quirky at best and opaque or completely misleading at worst. I've
had the pleasure(?) of hearing a semi-bilingual Polish/British (born in
Poland, emigrated with family in childhood to Britain) use expressions like
'good as far as it goes' (dobre tak daleko jak idzie) which I understood only
because I know the English expression, if it means anything in Polish, it's by
accident). It works both ways, sometimes British or American lecturers who
don't know Polish ask me for help in deciphering English that's mostly
relexified Polish.
 
Given the two boring and relexified, I'd probably take boring, since there are
less potientially catastrophic consequences to boring.
 
AMikelmundamente
Mikefarris