🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4frum8$6en@oden.abc.se> m9548@abc.se (Kjell Rehnstroem) writes:

   >Same as above. Unless Interlingua also succeeds in sounding so similar
   >to all (!) Romance languages that people in a few countries will
   >understand roughly what you are getting at and start a baby-talk
   >discussion with you. In any case no one will be impressed by "sin
   >errores".
   Maybe not, but the fluency!
   Possibilemente non, ma le fluentia!

If I want to impress anyone with fluency, I just use my native
language. Or make up a language.

   >   Interlingua. Every minute you have dedicated to the study of
   >   Interlingua will pay off when you start learning other languages.

   >Other Romance languages.

   and English, that is to say the "culture" words in it.
   e le anglese, a saper le parolas cultural in illo.

Now I wonder what a "culture word" could be... (Note that the only
Romance word in the last sentence is "culture", so may I conclude
that "culture" is a culture word?)

   >Suppose the European Union finds that Interlingua is a great way to
   >simplify communication in Europe. It starts an educational program
   >designed to teach people just enough of it to understand moderately
   >complicated texts, 
   Why just "moderately complicated texts?
   Pro que solmente textos moderatemente complicate?

Because no amount of teaching will suffice to make everyone understand
complicated texts (where I define "complicated text" as a text written
with the intention not to be understood easily) ;-)

   >maybe selling this program as "education in basic international vocabulary".
   In this case more people would choose the Romance languages, which is
   good in order to make their position stronger in Europe.

Why is that good? Why should their position in Europe be stronger?
How do you measure the strength of a language group in Europe?

   >It then hires a small staff of Interlingua experts and publishes 
   >its information to the citizens only in Interlingua. If they want 
   >to respond, they are of course free to learn Interlingua actively, 
   >if they can. Or hire a translator (at their own cost). 
   >The EU, as the main user of Interlingua, could even define the
   >vocabulary. 

   The politicians would not like such a situation, and the individual
   citizans would ceartainly not be so stupid as to accept such a
   development. 

Citizens have already accepted many developments that are against
their interests. They just have to be advertised nicely. And why
would politicians dislike a situation that puts them outside of
the control of the citizens? That's what they have been aiming
for for years.

   >George Orwell would be delighted.

   Even without the introduction of an international language, there is a
   risc that the EU-version of the national official languages will be so
   specialized that they anyway will be impossible to understand by the
   individual citizans. Remember the "drawingrights" and "lactoproductive
   units"! 

Definitely. But that is no reason to encourage this development.

   >True. But that is not a good reason to design and advertise a language
   >based on its potential for such misuse.

   Prove this! Please, ruminate aloud the statement above.   

What should I "prove"? That the existing possibility of misuse is no
good reason to encourage further misuse? That's an opinion, I can't
prove it. Or that Interlingua was designed and advertised based
based on its potential for misuse (in the above sense)? Well, I think
you mentioned yourself that Interlingua's strongest point was that
it can be understood by people who never learned it. You also admitted
that these same people cannot write or speak Interlingua without
learning it. So Interlingua *is* designed for one-way communication.

   And how many times have I not heard Esperantists say that you cannot
   speak Interlingua. Either they don't know what they are talking about

Not from me, certainly. I'll go only so far as to claim that *I* can't
speak Interlingua... In fact, I am sure that it is possible to learn
Interlingua to fluency. I just wonder how much time one would have to
invest to do so. Are there any statistics?

   I'd be dishonest, if I stated that Esperanto were as good an
   international auxiliary language alternative. Why, do you thin, did I
   become interested in Interlingua and learnt it without too much use of
   energy, if I did not thought that Esperanto were OK? 

You don't expect an answer from me, do you? I am not very good at
mindreading.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                     | E-Mail: hinsenk@ere.umontreal.ca
Departement de chimie             | Tel.: +1-514-343-6111 ext. 3953
Universite de Montreal            | Fax:  +1-514-343-7586
C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-Ville     | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/Nederlands/
Montreal (QC) H3C 3J7             | Francais (phase experimentale)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------