Re: Word system

Dear Robin,

  Your post was a little like a promo for Esperanto, a= nd compared  Esperanto's logicality with the non-integrated nature of the=  lexicon of  English.

   Basically, I suspect that the members o= f the Glosalist wish to avoid  negative criticism and would prefer to hea= r criticism of the positive kind.

When I read the same reactions, I alwa= ys think of some persecution complex. In my circle of Esp language users, I= am considered an enemy of Esp, because I am always criticizing the bad fea= tures of it. Even the users of Esp feel them persecuted, when sy makes c= ritical remarks about their beloved language. This is reason that I don’t l= ike those who have fallen in love with a certain language. And it seems, th= at it is a generally phenomen at those who are delighted with a language (b= oth whu are using Esp, Glosa or Ido). This is the main cause that I am mess= aging here. Actually, I’m looking for a better language. I don’t conside= r me “Esperantisto” because I’m not a fanatic of it, and I never would be i= t, but I am trying to search the best planned language.

I’m not contente= d with Esp for some reasons:

• I don’t agree with the use of the accusative= endings.
• I don’t agree with the accord of the adjectives to the nouns wh= en using accusative or/and plural endings.
• I don’t agree with the total f= reedom of word order (it makes the readind more difficult, and slows down i= t).
• I don’t agree the resonance of the Esp (maybe it could be because of = the abundance of “j” [like enjoy, play], and “cx” [like chalk, chips]).

• I= don’t agree with the non-separated system of it’s compound words (it also = slows down the speed of reading and make tired the eyes).

  And I don’t li= ke the people who are always contented with them and their works. I’m not c= ontented even with me. I think, who is always contented, stops to progress.= And I think, that it has no sense to discuss about what works, but about w= hat gives problems, about what doesn’t works, or works less well.

  Maybe= you won’t believe what I am declaring: I have no personal biases for Esp. = or for other planned languages. I am not a fundamentalist.

   So, ye= s, there are apparent efficiencies within the Esperanto  system, but not = everyone's mind works in this "filing cabinet" way.  A  quick, sharp mind= , on hearing a sequence of highly inflected words in a  sentence, skips f= rom one inflected additive to the next, gaining  ever-sophisticated compl= exity of meaning during the fraction of a second  that each incoming word=  has to play across their mind, be processed and  understood, then cleari= ng the mental slate, while the mind is made ready to  receive the input o= f the next multivalent word.

I didn’t only tasted Esp, but I have learnt= it in a high level mode. So now, I can express all my mind using it. And I= don’t want only to sample, but to learn Glosa in the same manner (if I wi= ll make sure of that I will be able to express all my mind like in Esp). I = could translate easily your above written sophisticated frazes into Esp. An= d I wanted to reach the same ability with Glosa. But there aren’t enough co= ursebooks, and genuine dictionaries in several languages. The word-list doe= sn’t enough. You need dictionaries thet have completions about how to use t= he concerned word. And you need reading a lot of fictions, immaginative lit= eratures to gain mastering in a language. I have experienced it with Esp.

=

   The ultra-logicality of language works in books where the mind can=

slow down and decode each word - at its own pace - finally assembling t= he collection of multifaceted signals into the meaningful encoding of th= ese complexities into a string of ideas that blend into a satisfying = communication called a sentence. … and then on to the next sentence c= omposed of a new set of puzzles to be decoded and resynthesised into mea= ning. Each successive, solved sentence-meaning must be added reflexive= ly back to interact with the whole thread of thought created by the cont= ribution of previous sentences.

You are right. Nevertheless, it’s a grea= t demand. What have to be able a “bridge-language” (it is about a language = that the people won’t use everyday)? Firstly, you can be able to learn it r= elative rapidly. Then, you can be able to use it soon after you have mainly= learned it, without too much exercises done.

It’s a conflict between to= be an easy to learn rapidly and easy to speake language by everybody, and = a rapidly readable language. I thought of the fact that when you are speaki= ng, you have to know in active mode a large amount of words. In case of non= -logical languages, you have to know in addition lots of expressions. The c= ompound word system give you the possibility to create the word that you no= t remember. But in the same time it slows down the reading and the comprehe= nding. It is a significant dilemma of what to do.

    DON'T OVERHEAT=  THE LISTENER'S BRAIN BY FORCING THEM INTO PLAYING  MIND-GAMES WITH EVERY=  WORD.   This has the effect of turning the receiving  of incoming commun= ication into an experience similar to that of running  through a minefiel= d.

I agree with it. But the system that use enormous quantity of express= ions doesn’t work as a “bridge-language”. We can’t expect that the people h= ave learned in advance mass of expressions like in English. The people want= to get command in the language in a short time. And want to master the lan= guage even if they use it only seldom. They don’t want to learn many words = and expressions. It will be a bridge language, not a mother tangue that you= are learning for a long time.

Regards,

Laslo