it doesn't have to be that way. We can and should create a language whose rules fit on a postcard. If I know how to say its words, I should know how to spell them, and if I see them written, I should know how to say them. The new language's sounds could be carefully chosen to be comfortable for a very large number of humans.
There's already an existing project that fulfills so many of those criteria that it's going to be very hard to organize a new one from scratch. And the existing project already has a deep legacy of literature and culture. That project is the world's second most widespread language: Spanish.
Spanish has been destroying the dreams of Esperantists and others over the years who hope to build a more regular, orderly, and easy to learn common language based on common Indo-European roots.
Turns out that it's dang hard to design anything easier or more accessible to speakers of any European language than Spanish already is. The spelling and pronunciation are already completely regular and predictable. The grammar is straightforward and common to almost all European tongues. The vocabulary is mostly based on Latin with some Arabic variety thrown in, but it's been standardized over the centuries so that a lot of it has a simpler and more natural morphology. The sounds are a simple subset of what most languages already use.
It's a great second language: it's fairly easy, the world's second most widespread tongue, and spoken in warm countries with very friendly natives. It's not likely to provide you with many lucrative business opportunities, though. None of the world's financial capitals use it.
There's already an existing project that fulfills so many of those criteria that it's going to be very hard to organize a new one from scratch.
It's not hard as in "it can't be done" because it was done several times.
And the existing project already has a deep legacy of literature and culture.
For an interlingua candidate I see this more as a drawback.
That project is the world's second most widespread language: Spanish.
Yes, but the second most widespread language is still only about 6% of the population.
Spanish has been destroying the dreams of Esperantists and others over the years who hope to build a more regular, orderly, and easy to learn common language based on common Indo-European roots.
I don't want to start a flame, but by many standards Esperanto is much more simpler and logical e.g. if we take conjugation system, irregular verbs, etc. Esperanto is not unpopular because it's not simple enough. It is; Likewise Spanish is not widespread because it's easier (in quite a few aspects) than English. The widespread of Spanish and English is due to historical and political reasons, that's it.
Having to learn German and French at middle school and deeply hating those languages because of all their inconsistencies I was surprised how regular Spanish was when I traveled to Guatemala for a course. After three weeks it could talk and understand enough of it to take care of myself.
(Unfortunately this was almost 15 years ago and I didn't maintain my level.)
Italian has some of the same advantages (and I believe you can get away without using the subjunctive in more situations), but it is much less widely spoken, of course.
Comments
it doesn't have to be that way. We can and should create a language whose rules fit on a postcard. If I know how to say its words, I should know how to spell them, and if I see them written, I should know how to say them. The new language's sounds could be carefully chosen to be comfortable for a very large number of humans.
There's already an existing project that fulfills so many of those criteria that it's going to be very hard to organize a new one from scratch. And the existing project already has a deep legacy of literature and culture. That project is the world's second most widespread language: Spanish.
Spanish has been destroying the dreams of Esperantists and others over the years who hope to build a more regular, orderly, and easy to learn common language based on common Indo-European roots.
Turns out that it's dang hard to design anything easier or more accessible to speakers of any European language than Spanish already is. The spelling and pronunciation are already completely regular and predictable. The grammar is straightforward and common to almost all European tongues. The vocabulary is mostly based on Latin with some Arabic variety thrown in, but it's been standardized over the centuries so that a lot of it has a simpler and more natural morphology. The sounds are a simple subset of what most languages already use.
It's a great second language: it's fairly easy, the world's second most widespread tongue, and spoken in warm countries with very friendly natives. It's not likely to provide you with many lucrative business opportunities, though. None of the world's financial capitals use it.
It's not hard as in "it can't be done" because it was done several times.
For an interlingua candidate I see this more as a drawback.
Yes, but the second most widespread language is still only about 6% of the population.
I don't want to start a flame, but by many standards Esperanto is much more simpler and logical e.g. if we take conjugation system, irregular verbs, etc. Esperanto is not unpopular because it's not simple enough. It is; Likewise Spanish is not widespread because it's easier (in quite a few aspects) than English. The widespread of Spanish and English is due to historical and political reasons, that's it.
Having to learn German and French at middle school and deeply hating those languages because of all their inconsistencies I was surprised how regular Spanish was when I traveled to Guatemala for a course. After three weeks it could talk and understand enough of it to take care of myself.
(Unfortunately this was almost 15 years ago and I didn't maintain my level.)
Italian has some of the same advantages (and I believe you can get away without using the subjunctive in more situations), but it is much less widely spoken, of course.