Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Tom Wier wrote:

> Robert J. Petry wrote:
>
> > > (2)  Thus, I was referring to just such a language as you described.  You
> > > described several things:
> >
> > Similar, yes, but not quite as potentially extensive right out of the box, although,
> > as everyone
> > knows, English at present is a very active language.
>
> What do you mean by "right out of the box"?
I meant presenting something written or spoken immediately to someone who had not seen or heard it
before, and being able to understand most of it immediately, i.e. "right out of the box." So, if
Occidental and English were publised side by side in the world press, more people would
understand the
Occidental by far, than they would the English. However, I have no fantasies that this includes a
possibility with a crossover between an English, or German, etc. speaker and Chinese for
example. This
kind of difference has not been overcome yet to my knowledge. And, since I
originally mentioned upwards
of a billion people it should be obvious I am not referring to a language that
would do this with every
person on the planet.

[kut]

> > Again, although I agree with your statement about borrowings, I am talking about
> > being able to do
> > this without the "borrowings" so to speak. It's interesting, as an adjunct, to
> > listen to Hispanic
> > speakers here in the southwest. They have a great mixture of English within their
> > speech, and it
> > is interesting to listen to. Especially when hearing them discuss "baisball", "strike one",
> > "first base" etc. And, even ".....good luck., see you later." And, much much more,
> > all intermixed
> > within the "Spanish" language.
>
> [kut]
>
> But I don't think this has much to do with what you were describing.
> What you were postulating was a language which, in itself, could be used
> more or less without effort, without having to be learned intensively (nor
> nearly any at all, from what you said).  For example, in the Spanish-English
> codeswitching of the Valley (the Rio Grande river valley near the border
> between Texas and Mexico), one has to use a more or less precise manner
> of syntax, and/or lexical borrowing from English:
I did not mean that it did. Perhaps I should have said "as a sidelight" instead of "as an adjunct".

> [kut]Anyways, codeswitching is not some sort of universally recognizeable language
> or anything, nothing like what you've described.
>
> How could you have a language which is transnational without having
> borrowings of phrases or locutions, that is, without the language itself being
> used interenationally?  I'm not sure I understand your claim here.
Sometimes the words we use, when we think we are communicating, cause a misunderstanding.

> [kut]
> Well, so far, I don't understand your  case :)
>
> Please, tell me what you mean by a "complete" language, where borrowings
> are not an element of it, *and* where a language (like English) is not in play.
I'm curious to read your comments about the sentences below. Would you say that
the quotes are from a
"complete" language, or is just "borrowings". What I mean by a complete language is one that has a
grammar and vocabulary in place.

>
> Your comment above would seem to necessitate native fluency in a language:
> if you haven't studied a language (in some manner, at least, like even listening to
> it passively), and yet still know it immediately upon being able to hear it, then
> you simply *won't*know*the*language. :)
"Por facilisar li aprension del lingue, Esperanto reducte li nu'mere del radicas a
un minimum e recurre
a su sistema de derivation por expresser un grand nu'mere de notiones por queles
omni lingues vivent usa
special radicas."

"In Occidental, in contrari, Li principie del internationalita furni in li grand
majorite' del casus un
rocc-solid fundament por li selection del just afixes."

"Li internationalita' es in omni casus li max secur e practicmen li sol posibil
guide por li edification
de un vocabularium quel satisfa omni exigenties de un lingue universal."

Now, perhaps I have used the wrong descriptive words to try and describe what I mean. But the three
examples above should give an idea of what I mean "right out of the box." If you have
never seen, or
heard, Occidental before, I surmise that you can understand what I just quoted
without much problem at
all. But, of course, the usual reply is, this is true only if someone knows more than one of the
occidental languages. However, in my experience so far, one only needs to know one of
them, one's own
mother tongue. And, remember, I am not saying Occidental reaches the oriental who has
not bothered to
learn at least some occidental tongue. And, in the case of teaching Occidental to
such a person, it is
much easier than teaching them English from scratch, or Spanish, or German, or even Esperanto.

> > you wrote:
> > > > One, let's say, that could right now reach upwards of a billion people with
> > > > written and spoken messages, would be better in that category over one that
> > > > could reach maybe 10-50,000 people who are students only of that AIL.
> > >
> > > (b) current estimates for the number of speakers of English (of whatever
> > > variety) range normally somewhere between 500 million and 1 billion
> > > people (though some go even higher).  These speakers are on average
> > > literate (though varying in ability).
> >
> > In that case, I am talking about a language that will reach upwards of two billion folks,
> > certainly way beyond English alone.
>
> Wait, how can you do that? I mean, just a couple posts ago you set the numberto be
> one billion, and
> now that such a language exists (i.e., English), you now
> up the request?  On what basis do you do this?  And, anyways, what language
> is this that you posit could do this, Occidental?  I mean no disrespect, but you
> must back up a claim if you wish to be seen as anything approaching scientific.
I was assuming the post that said English ranged somewhere between 500 and 1
billion had more up to date
statistics than I had originally stated, therefore, since Occidental reaches much more
than the English
speaker, then it could reach upwards of 2 billion, since if the statistics for English
had "grown" then
so would have the other language groups Occidental can reach. It is not limited
to English speakers, so
obviously, if that is true, then it would reach more than just English speakers, "right
out of the box."

> [kut
> This is more of an exaggeration of the facts.  The vast majority of English speakers inthe world
> (especially the native ones) speak something that is by and large entirely
> intelligible with every other variety.
Upon what do you base this claim, that Burgess is exaggerating his facts. He may
be, but on the other
hand, maybe he isn't.

> Also, to cite "Chinese" as a language known by over a billion is misleading
> at best, because (a) there is no one language called Chinese, and (b) even
> the largest subset of that which often gets called by that name, Mandarin,
> comprises no more than, say, 700 or 800 million, almost all of which is
> located within the borders of the People's Republic of China.  This is
> nothing like English, which, in addition to having let's say an approximately
> equal number of speakers, is spread all across the globe.  I don't want  to
> sound like an Anglophile here, but the fact is that English is already doing that
> which you first set as an international language.
Chinese in written form is a different subject than its spoken forms. And, I agree,
English is already
doing that which "you first set as an international language." But not, obviously,
to the same extent
immediately that Occidental can do. However, because Occidental can do it is no guarantee
that it will
be accepted. In fact, that is probably the very reason it would be, and is,
resisted to the extreme.

Enjoy you posts,
Al l sue & Amico,
Bob, x+