Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > I would be very, very, VERY surprised if a monolingual russian understand > more than 1 (one) word every 50 of Occidental. Have you ever seen a > russian text? (No, I don't mean that it's written with Cyrillic letters, a > transliteration would do. Be surprised, then. Even I can see the high number of Russian cognates in the Occidental Radicarium. Maybe because De Wahl grew up speaking Russian and served in the Czarist navy, he felt the need. > Polish? Have you ever seen a polish text? Yes. I thought it was well-known that Esperanto is a Slavic relex. > > but Occidental > > uses the international vocabulary directly without mangling roots. > > International in the sense of England and USA? Yes, and France (De Wahl's favorite language, apparently) and Latin and Greek (his course of study) and German ... But you are correct, there is no significant infusion of Chinese or Hindi or Arabic. One size can't fit all. > > What this means to me, is that I already had a working vocabulary > > in Occidental without learning a new one. > > Good for you. And 10 times better for you (I assume Italian). > This means that in > Occidental I can use whichever Italian word I like, right? Cool! Not quite, but close. I open page 164 of the Radicarium; there are 18 roots, and 12 have close cognates in Italian. So reading Occidental for you might require a hour of "study". (Of course you would not attempt to bring your 100,000 word Italian vocabulary into Occidental, which is an interlanguage designed for easy learning by non-Italians ...) > Or one has to learn English so he can then easily learn Occ? > > A puzzled Pierpaolo. Even for an English-speaker, OCC is easy. What's not to like about it?