Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answes&proposal

grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com writes:
> But then it is useless. The European Romance nations are not part of an
>organization grouping only Romance nations, but part of the European
>Union that is only half-Romance. What do you do with all those
>Germanic-speaking countries, and with Greece? What is the interest of
>such a IAL if it puts apart half of our partners? No, the smallest
>target possible for an IAL is the European Union, and it is only
>half-Romance.

Another thing is, many creators of IAL's intend them for the world. Now
many Esperantists will claim otherwise, but i do know that for instance,
my relatives in the Philippines would have no use and no interest in an
IAL that has grammatical structures that are romance based (like gender,
more than the three simple tenses, etc). I even have friends whose
grandparents didnt bother learning English because they felt they would
have no use for it. Just because the words are based off of the Romance
languages, and Romance syntax doesnt mean its any easier for the four or
five billion other people who don't even know any Romance languages.

Anyway, to get back on conlanging, why just focus on the romance
languages? Like Christophe said, only half of the European Union is
romance. If it is in fact intended for the European Union, one should be
somewhat fair to each of the language groups in the EU (Slavic, Germanic,
Greek, Scandanavian, etc.). Or perhaps go a priori :).




____________________________________________________________________

     "Raw to the floor like reservoir dogs"  - A.V. Helden
____________________________________________________________________