Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > [kut]>From comments on this list, by Robin Turner and/or Lojbab, IIRC, it > seems that Interlingua and Occ are not comprehensible to any learned person. I have learned that many "learned person(s)" are not learned in their own language. i.e. They can use it but have no concept of the building blocks of their languages today. Thus, they are unable to recognize even the simple roots within their own languages, much less the same ones in Occidental. It's an interesting revelation to me. Let me give you an example that applies to the English speaker, but also equally well to some other languages. Without going to a dictionary, how many folks know at sight the meaning of these "words"? ab able abs ac acer acid acri ad ada ade af ag age agi ago al ali allo alter amb ambi amphi an ana ance ancy anni annu ant ante anthrop anti apo ar arch ary as asis aster astro at ata ate aud aus aut auto be bene bi bin bio bon calor cap capit capt cata cause cede ceed cep cept cess chrom chron cian cide circ circum cise civ claim clam clud clus cognosc con coni con cord corpor cour court crea cred cub cule cumb cus cuse ian ible ic icle il ile im in ine intellect intellig inter intra intro ion ir ish ism ist ite ity ive ize nasc nat neo ness neur non nounc nov number numer nunci plais plu plur plus pneuma pneumon pod poly potes puls punct re rect recti ri ridi risi rog roga sang sat satis scope scrib se semi sesqui simil sion soph tact tain tang tra tion tui tuit ty ultima ure vac vert vid vulcan These are all parts of the makeup of words used in English and other languages and Occidental, and each has meaning(s) that help a person know what the word means from the inside out. But, most "learned" folks just know the word by its memorized use. For instance: How many English speakers can "at sight" read this word? SANGUISUGENT I dare say, that word is not "at site" understandable to the majority of the English speaking public, both British and American. But, if one knows his/her language they can figure it out without a dictionary. SANGUI (sanguis) -- Latin root = blood SUG (sugere) -- Latin root = to suck ENT -- suffix = that which Occidental can be easily read, then, by the "learned" person who is "learned" in their own language. This is why it only takes one language in the "occidental" realm to read and understand Occidental, because it uses, in its case, all such roots/affixes that are common to the largest group possible to start with. It is fals to claim a person has to know two or more romance languages to read and understand it. What one needs, is to know and understand their own "occidental" language first, and as a whole, we don't. You'd be surprised, or maybe not, at the educators who are actively teaching in universities, etc. today who don't know the meanings of most of the "words" listed above without going to a grammar or dictionary. They have, like most of us, memorized the final word themselves and have never spent time at all memorizing the core structure roots and affixes of their mother tongue. Cordialmen, Bob, x+O~ P.S. You're not allowed to look in a dictionary, grammar or word building book of any kind. So test yourself, do you know all of the above listed "at sight"? You should. The total list is around 260, I just listed a few. Actually, every "learned" person should have all 260 memorized.