Dear Jovan,  In reply to your question about which auxiliary language to
learn, I enthusia-  stically  recommend Interlingua for several reasons.
First, the vocabulary is certainly more understandable than some of
Esperanto; secondly, being based on the Romance languages, it is also a key
to Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese, at least in reading.  Perhaps you
have studied French or Spanish in school , and that will make understanding
Interlingua easier.  Just rad some of the messages on this e-mail network.
Compare Esperanto  MALSANULEJO  and SAMSEKSEMULO with Interlingua hospital
and homosexual.  If in Italy you ask for a MALVARMA  BANO  instead of a BANIO
TEPIDE you will not be understood, but in the second instance the meaning
will be understood even if not real Italian.  A personal note: I came upon
international languages in 1943 when I found Otto Jesperson's "An
Inernational Language" in the library where he describes his own Novial;
later I obtained grammars of Esperanto, Volapuk, Mondial, and others.  In
1955 I discovered Interlingua at UCLA, where it was used in resumes in
medical periodicals.  Having been a student of the romance languages, I was
immediately drawn to it, but did not do much with it until the past few
years.  Latino Moderne is Stark's idea of what Latin  might have become,
keeping the verbal endings and the dative case for pronouns.  Stark
recommends using Interlingua vocabulary. L.M. is  too esoteric; Interlingua
is more reasonable in its verb forms and syntax. Esperanto has retained an
accusative case and agreement of adjectives and nouns; Zamenhof was Polish
and accustomed to these forms which have all but disappeared in the romance
languages.  His vocabulary was often chosen at random from various languages
and sometimes skewered around to fit when other forms or roots  were already
used.  I think you will find Interlingua a more reasonable auxiliary
language. Mi  melior augurios pro vostre studio de nostre belle lingua.
Cliff Wurfel