Re: CHAT: Umberto Eco and Esperanto

At 8:34 pm -0500 9/6/99, Tom Wier wrote:
.....
>What in particular are you saying is simple about Vorlin?  I don't
>know much about the language, but it seems to me that just about
>any definition of "easy" is going to meet up with resistance
>*somewhere*.
Again, from bitter experience, I can confirm that this is so.  Basically,
more often than not, "easy" means 'having a similar structure to my own
language' while "difficult" means 'far too different in structure from my
own language".

In any case, throughout the few thousand years of recorded history, ease or
difficulty has had little or no bearing on people learning a language for
international communication.  It's what is most widely used that's the
over-riding factor.

>For example, I found Esperanto's case system was a *cinch* --
Two cases is not over-taxing.  But when the majority of mankind get on
quite fine without any case system, one does wonder why a constructed
auxiliary has it.

>it was the "hidden" irregularities like those that we've recently
>discussed on the list ("kataro", etc.) that I found more challenging.
Indeed - I doubt very much that a "perfect" language is humanly possible.

[....]
>
>I totally agree.  I don't think I'd be learning Classical Greek now unless
Whereas I would  :)

Give me a natlang I've not met before & I'll spend hours & hours on it just
for the fun it.  If someone, e.g. gave me an Innuit grammar I'd devour
greedily.  I'd not care a damn whether I ever met an Innuit or found
anything to read - those would be bonuses.  I just love finding out about
and discovering languages for their own sake.

Weird, I guess - but then don't most people think that about conlangers ?    :)

Ray.