Chris Burd wrote: > > > > international vocabulary is useful ONLY to those who have studied a second > > > > European language and OBSERVED what kinds of words are "international". > > >No, contrarily. All you need is English OR French OR ... I recant here. Lojbob is probably right that one must have at least tried to study a 2nd language in high school or similar. But how many people have never suffered through any such class? > > >Take a random sample of text from any newspaper, grab the -tion, -al, > > >and -ive words. What do you see? These words are international already. > The trouble is, even if you take all the widely diffused -ive and -ion plus other obvious Latinisms like _nocturnal_, plus all the no-brainers like _hotel_ and _cigarette_, you don't have enough vocabulary for a workable language. That's not even considering the problem of grammatical words. Is that really known? What percentage? I wish some research organization, dedicated to linguistics, or even interlinguistics, would do some real scientific study of this, so we would have some data about this subject! > So you need some way of filling out the lexicon. IALA went about it by first defining a minimum list of concepts to provided for (Eaton's list) then defining selection and standardisation criteria for deriving the vocabulary. If the quality and veracity of those criteria and their actual application are totally irrelevant, then you can be happy with the result. > This methodology was in principal infinitely extendible; IALA stopped at 27,000 items for their dictionary, but they could have listed the entire body of neo-Latin technical and scientific terminology if they'd wanted to. Those words are, of course, *in* Interlingua, they're just not in the dictionary. This was a hypothetical methodology, all the way.