Proque si illo habeva genere grammatical etc., le lingua non esserea si facile a apprender, e non esserea un lingua commun a tote le romophonos. In practica, Interlingua es un genere de pidgin (mais con regulas ben definite pro le extraction del vocabulario del linguas fonte).
Paul
"Kjell Rehnström" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>vermente es le parola.
>KjR
>MacLeod Dave skrev 2013-06-28 00:49:
>> Si Interlingua veramente debe esser un lingua romance, pro quo non
>haber
>> conjugation del verbos, genere grammatical, etc.? Isto seria le passo
>> sequente. Si le lingua es create pro communicar con parlatores
>romance, io
>> non vole sempre dicer "io es, illes es", etc., tro innatural.
>Interlingua
>> pote esser un lingua pan-romance o un lingua pan-(west)europee, ma
>non
>> ambes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/27 Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>> Un error. :( Io intendeva expedir ad INTERLNG integre, e non
>solmente a
>>> Stan ipse.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 27 Jun 2013 17:27:09 -0400, Paul Bartlett
><[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martedi, le 27 junio 2013 15:02:34 -0400, Mulaik, Stanley A <
>>>> [log in to unmask]**edu
><[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interlingua jam es morte, Paul, in le forma del parve gruppo de
>>>>> personas qui lo usa. Cata anno plus mori. Facer emphase super un
>>>>> variante del lingua que usa formas contrari al rationamento e
>theoria
>>>>> de su elaboration, solmente proque su usatores non esseva
>>>>> sophisticate linguisticamente como su creatores non va
>>>>> impressionar le autoritates politic e linguistic del meritos
>>>>> del lingua. Interlingua non es un esperanto, ni un occidental.
>>>>> Illo es un extraction e standardization objective del elementos
>commun
>>>>> in le major linguas de Europa e le Hemisphero Occidental. A causa
>de
>>>>> isto illo es un
>>>>> lingua ric in vocabulario. E mesmo si nos mori, le mesme lingua
>>>>> pote esser extracte de iste linguas parlate per centos de
>milliones.
>>>>>
>>>> Per favor, vider mi essayo (in anglese) "Thoughts on IAL Success"
>>>>
>http://www.panix.com/~**bartlett/thoughts.html<http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/thoughts.html>.
>Il ha duo factores critic: "Good Enough" (bastante bon) e "Stable Base"
>>>> (fundamento stabile). Io scribeva (e continua asserer):
>>>>
>>>> "My point with this factor is that theoretical optimality is all
>well and
>>>> good, but it is not at all sufficient by itself to ensure
>acceptance and
>>>> use of an IAL, whereas another suboptimal but "good enough"
>language, taken
>>>> together with other factors, may have relatively more success."
>>>>
>>>> e
>>>>
>>>> "Some conIAL designers fall into tinkering, ever striving for
>>>> "perfection" as they see it. But as Andrew Large pointed out in his
>_The
>>>> Artificial Language Movement_ ([Oxford]: Basil Blackwell, 1985;
>ISBN
>>>> 0-631-14497-8; p. 154),
>>>>
>>>> 'Like the alchemists of old, artificial language projectors are not
>>>> easily deterred by others' failures. They doggedly cling to the
>belief that
>>>> success can be achieved if only the right mixture of ingredients
>can be
>>>> blended in the correct proportions.'
>>>>
>>>> Sooner or later, people have to quit tinkering and _use_ something
>>>> instead of dissipating the energy of the conIAL movement. Many
>people learn
>>>> Esperanto in order to use it without getting deeply involved in
>>>> metaconsiderations. Some people seem to get involved with conIALs
>for the
>>>> sake of discussing them endlessly and never get around to trying to
>build a
>>>> significant user community which will not spend its time talking
>about the
>>>> language almost as if it were an end in itself rather than as a
>means to an
>>>> end: improved human communication and understanding."
>>>>
>>>> Io renega tu assertion que "Interlingua jam es morte," sed io
>assere que
>>>> essayos de facer que illo se conforma ad un puritate linguistic
>theoric lo
>>>> occidera vermente. Io specula que "le autoritates politic e
>linguistic" non
>>>> se interesa in re le characteristicas theoric del lingua. Lor
>question es,
>>>> "Esque illo functiona ben como un lingua auxiliar?"
>>>>
>>>> Si, Stan, io es un "esperantisto" in re interlingua. Io lo dice
>fermente.
>>>> Io cerca un ver lingua auxiliar. Interlingua pote esser (es) un
>tal, sed
>>>> solmente si nos cessa persequer le sonio inutile de perfection
>theoric. A
>>>> mi aviso, simplemente "un extraction e standardization objective
>del
>>>> elementos commun in le major linguas de Europa e le Hemisphero
>Occidental"
>>>> es un perdita del tempore e del effortio. Si, io es un
>"esperantisto." (E
>>>> de novo, io non desira que interlingua deveni Ancora Un Altere
>Lingua
>>>> Romanic.)
>>>>
>>>> Io non accepta tu propositiones theoric, e tu non accepta mi
>>>> propositiones practic. Simplemente nos disaccorda, e probabilemente
>necun
>>>> convincera le altere.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Bartlett
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
>>>
>http://listserv.icors.org/**archives/interlng.html<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.pagef30.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
>> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html
>> .
>>
>
>
>--
>Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
>http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html
--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html
|
