Print

Print


Kjell Rehnstrom wrote:
 
> Bob, on debe considerar que esperanto e occidental ha varie conceptos.
>
> Occidental usa _brevit=E9_ e _individualit=E1_ pro interlingua _brevita=
te e
> individualitate_. Nunc (occ =3D -nc) isto es OK, proque isto es le conc=
epto
> de occidental. Viste que tu non poteva/voleva responder, io suppone que=
 le
> differentia es causate del division del verbos in static e non-static i=
n
> occidental.
>
> In le mesme maniera Esperanto ha su proprie systema de formation de
> parolas, ma illo es multo efficace (efficiente) quando on maestra le
> systema.
 
Kjell,
In spite of what it may look like, the point is not to knock Esperanto. B=
ut,
to set straight the propaganda about it being so easy, etc. It is not. On=
ce
that is understood, then there is no problem. Esperanto is great at what =
it
does, and as Ken likes to say, no more and no less. It just so happens, t=
hat
Occidental does the same thing and a whole bunch more, that's all. When t=
hat
is finally seen for the truth it is, then there will be no problem.
 
And, of course I recognize that it has its methods and Occidental has its=
 
methods, and or concepts. The real difference is the fact that Occidental=
 is
able to be used more widely than Esperanto without the effort. That's all=
=2E
 
Bob,
x+O~