Print

Print


Michael Farris wrote:
 
> [kut]
> > According to all the criteria of those who desire a world language based on
> > either one of NOVial, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental) or Glosa, it
> > fits most of the bill. It has a combination of features from each one of
> > these languages... in fact in the case of NOVial, Occidental and perhaps
> > Glosa, it holds the pattern which they desperately to imitate.
> >
>
> Yes, this (imitating English) is a definite weakness in the languages mentioned
 
I find this an interesting statement. Especially since English, the most influential
language is today the most "powerful" and influential. How can that be a weakness?
However, I don't agree that Occidental is any kind of imitation of English.  See
further comments below.
 
> Occidental is potentially flexible enough (in that the published vocabularies
> are more like suggestions instead of rigid commandments) but is hobbled by that
> unattractive etymologyical spelling and most of what Bob writes can more or less
> by translated word-by-word from English (hopefuly he'll loosen up in time)Learn
> English ... and know your place in the pecking order!!!!
 
Unattractive ... spelling??? How can that be? It is no different in that respect
than other languages from which it gets its baisis. And, the rule of spelling is not
as bad as most seem to think. Occidental is not trying to separate itself from the
languages which preceded it such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, German,
English, and others. It is trying to work WITHIN those languages. Thus, IF it does
its job right, the reader will think things like this. Why, this is just an
imitation of English, my language. Ever read that before about Occidental? Or.
Occidental is too much like French? It is just imitating French. Or. Occidental is
not much different from Spanish. etc. Why? Because it is doing its job correctly. It
is an INTER-language, not a separate language. On the other hand, which languages do
the other IAL's appear like to various readers. Usually they are compared to one
major language, and hardly ever more than one, whereas Occidental has often been
compared to many different languages as the reason a particular individual doesn't
like it. I've read one person on this list say they don't like Occ because it is too
French like. Well, he/she missed the point of what Occidental was meant to do. It
was doing its job.
I've also read, Occidental is too much like Italian. And, I don't like Italian.
Again, the point was missed. Occidental was doing its job. If it weren't doing its
job you could never hear those kinds of remarks.
 
Occidental appears to be like what ever language in the occidental category that the
reader is most familiar with. That is success, not failure. Occidental is doing the
job iit was designed to do.
 
And, if the method of spelling were changed, then it could not do its job. i.e. Work
in, around, within, among other languages. Not become a separate language that one
must learn from scratch. Let's take RLR for instance, so I don't start any hot
debates.
 
RLR is not an INTER language, it is an international language. It is built upon the
international vocabulary used by the world, _but_ it is not recognizeable as any of
these languages. It has to be learned from scratch just like most of the other
IAL's. And, the international words are "mutilated" beyond recognition. So, what's
the difference? Occidental is designed from the same word stock and grammar
principles [simplified] as other major languages, and, because of that, each person
recognizes it as an imitation of his/her most familiar first or second, etc,
language.
 
RLR uses the same sources, but it is not recognizeable. The difference is, to me,
striking, and important. This is why comparisons sometimes are so important. But,
too many get hyper when comparisons are shown. So, let me show a comparison with Occ
and RLR.
 
RLR: C e u bu.
Occ. Ti es un libre.
Eng. This is a book.
 
RLR. C e u lin demin.
Occ. Ti-ci es un lin international.
Eng. This is an international language.
 
Now, which looks more like and "imitates" English?
 
If one were to do the same thing with French, Spanish, etc. Then, the "imitation"
claim might change. For instance.
 
Spanish. Este es un libro.
Occidental. Ti-ci es un libre.
Englilsh. This is a book.
 
Now, we would say in this example that Occidental is imitating Spanish. In the other
comparison it was more like English.
 
Try it with the other occidental languages and you'll see what I mean.
 
By the way, Occidental was not created or developed by an Englishman or American. He
was Estonian. Thus, how is it that he developed an imitation of English. [Besides,
many of those posts of mine that can be almost word for word translated into English
are from old Cosmoglotta magazines. Thus, as you can see, it was doing it's job.
Making it easy for you to work with it because to you it appears to be English.
That's its job, and it does it very well.]
 
So, learn Occidental first, after your mother language, and people will think you
are imitating, English, or Spanish, or Italian, or French, etc. And, there you have
it, your second language of choice is doing its job. That comment about imitating
English appears on the surface to be saying, "Occidental isn't doing its job as an
IAL because it is too much like Englilsh." Yet, the very fact of making such a
statement shows the greatest strength of Occidental. It is a true INTE-national
language, and the only IAL I know of that does it so well this way.
 
Cordialmen,
Bob, x+O~