Re: The Great Sundering (was Re: basic morphemes of a loglang)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
 >
> Yes.  I haven't learned *any* auxlang, but yet I can make out the
> rough meaning of a text written in Esperanto or Interlingua with
> rather little difficulty.  I have no doubt that at least Esperanto
> and Ido are indeed mutually intelligible.

I learned Esperanto twenty years ago. A couple of years
ago, I chanced upon a booklet written in Ido while in a
used book store. I found I could read it without difficulty.

But I'm surprised that anyone who has studied Interlingua or
one of its clones, but has never studied Esperanto, could
make much of an Esperanto text. The reason is Esperanto's
wide use of affixes to build words. Compare "lernejo" to
Interlingua's "schola" or "malsanulejo" to Interlingua's "hospital."
E-o's "foresto" means "absence" not "forest."

--Ph. D.

Note: This post should not be construed as an advocacy of
any international auxiliary language.