Print

Print


Carlos wrote:
 
> The problem I see with these regional ALs, is that I see them just like
> national languages in a greater scale.
 
They are; and that is where the national languages came from,
in a sense: a union of dialects centered on a capital. But,
a regional IAL can be *vastly* simplified and easier to learn.
 
> they want to talk to other people in Europe, so they learn
> Interlingua. But then they want to talk to Asians, who (in this hipotetical
> case) have learned a sort of "Oriental" language. So they learn "Eurasian".
> And then, this big group want to talk to Africans, so a new language is
> developed, etc.
 
Europe's interlingua serves at least 1/3 of the world's population.
Asia's does not exist yet, Putonghua is too difficult outside China,
but if a kanji-interlingua did exist, it could serve another third.
Let's say a Swahili-based interlingua for Africa and Moslems
(unlikely, but we're dreaming anyway). So, 3 or 4 IALs total.
After another 100 years, during which we heavily *use* the IALs,
one dominates and becomes "the" IAL.
 
Compare the times of learning: It would take a year to learn
the simplest unfamiliar vocabulary, whereas one can use an areal
interlingua almost immediately (say a week of study), and a much
higher percentage of people succeed in learning such (can't fail,
because they know the vocabulary cognates before beginning).
 
Then adding the non-areal language is not so painful or critical,
since not everyone needs to learn it, and they would have already
learned how to think in a different language. A *real* problem
is that we have no real neutral global language available now.
Esperanto is incurably and "unfairly" European, and too difficult.
In fact, the only usable IAL that is simple and exists now is ...