Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 14:08|
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:56:47PM +0800, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> >I do not know Chinese,
> >but I guess that it may be good at coining new words too.
> >Too bad it is so hard to pronounce.
> It is extremely difficult to pronounce. to an european speaker. koreans,
> tai, vietnamese.... find it rather simple. on the other hand, chinese
> would have lots of problems with reknown IAL(esperanto), or with yigide.[snip]
Exactly, which is why I keep going back to the point: it's easy relative
to who? *I* think tonal languages are the way to go, because you can get
so many more root words into a single syllable. Plus, tones are so darned
easy to learn! After all, if *I* have no problem with it, why would
anybody else? But just because I think this way, doesn't mean it works for
OTOH, do please take a serious look at Joe Fatula's proposal. I think he
has hit a few very good points, which is actually worth consideration.
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos