Print

Print


Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
 
> I seem to understand from your postings on this list, that the
> principal advantage of Occ is is its at sight recognizability.
 
Ease and speed of learning for adults, this is most important.
Several auxlangs have relatively simple grammar, but only the
"naturalistic" "at-sight" languages can solve the vocabulary problem.
(There is one restriction, of course, see below.)
 
So the list of candidates meeting these criteria is just:
Occidental/Interlingue, Novial, Interlingua de IALA.
Of these, I tried Occ last, and only Occ worked for me.
I believe it is the easiest, therefore the best.
 
> Certainly, this can only possibly work for latin/germanic languages
> speakers (or better, for speakers of a languages with a mix of
> latin/germanic vocabulary, ie English, I don't know other examples).
 
Occ vocabulary and syntax are a systematic combination drawn from
Russian, French, Spanish, English, German, and many points in-between.
There is a common base underlying all these, the "international words"
drawn mostly from Latin and Greek. But not just roots as in Ido;
the affixes are international as well.
 
Europanto, Lingua Franca, InterlinguA, and others have all done
something similar but in different ways and with different results.
Occ is an attempt to be as pan-european/american/australian as is
possible; InterlinguA is pan-romance; Europanto is pan-humor.
Lingua Franca worked, and very well, for over 800 years,
an early proof-of-concept.
 
The limitation is that obviously the common base extends only
as far as it does. It doesn't reach India or Japan or China.
But those Asians who study European languages would find
any auxlang to be easier than any natlang, no doubt.
 
I see no reason why we should have *only* one auxlang,
there should be several in wide use simultaneously.
The same effort that fails to learn French in 4 years of study
should be sufficient to successfully learn 4 good auxlangs.
But every adult is able to learn their own one easiest areal
interlingua, for me it's Occ and for others maybe Ia or etc.
 
> If Occ has other advantages wrt say, Eo, Ido, Ia, Glosa, etc, I don't
> see them mentioned.
 
They all work to some extent and have strengths.
Esperanto has strong systematic word-building capability.
Ido has much more naturalistic (for Europeans) roots and syntax.
Glosa has the optimally simple (pidgin/creole-like) syntax.
Interlingua has a very natural look and sound.
Occidental has all of that in high degree.
 
> Indeed, I know very little about Occidental. Just what you write on
> this List.  On internet there's very little material.  Can you suggest
> a currently available book to read?  (The material you recently
> announced here, only works on Windows machines, as far as I know, so
> it is of no use to me).
 
I also refuse to run Microsoft's predatory and inferior software.
But there is printed material available from Bob for cost of materials.
I have bought the Radicarium, De Wahl's personal list of 5000 roots;
the grammar of Ric Berger in French (not to difficult to figure out);
and German grammar (it *is* too difficult for me, but has good examples).
 
However, I learned to read Occidental just by reading the pages
available on the web, mainly the famous discussion between
Jesperson and De Wahl. Links are collected here:
http://catty.com/~catty/lang/occidental.htm
 
The real key to Occidental is to realize that it is not an artificial
language created by De Wahl; rather it is a discovered one,
a codification much like that Sanscrit of Panini ... but easier.
The principles are there for anyone to do a better job of it.
 
As a conlanger myself, I look at Occidental and see a work of art.
Using it in email with people who understand limited English,
I find that it actually works. Thinking in it, it feels good.
I can even read a little French now, much better than before.
Why on earth people feel they must attack Occidental, I don't know.