Dear Stanley Mulaik!
Thank you for this thorough analysis of methodology providing the basis of IALA's design of Interlingua. I realize now that my suggestion of the pioneers of Interlingua being primarily concerned with designing a lingua franca with a maximal facility in grammar and a vocabulary, though selected from within the roman/latin inheritance, were to be those most internationally known, was my misunderstanding.
Auxlinguas like Esperanto were designed to provide facility and international vocabulary. And yet the intended ingenuity in simplified grammar resulted in what many found unnatural and thus a complication, rather than an advantage. Also the intended internationalisation by importing words of latin, teutonic and slavonic origin destroyed the coherency, rhythm and harmony of the resulting language.
Ido was, as I see it, a melioration, and the vocabulary being more roman/latin improved the "melody" and harmony in the language.
Your explanation of the basic principles of the design of Interlingua provides an insight in why Interlingua retained what I have regarded as various "unneccessary complications". Among these is the question why Interlingua, having like English, just one gender, nevertheless ends its nouns with vowels that are reminiscences of having masculine, feminine and neutral. Why not, as a main rule, end most nouns in -e or in a consonant? Why not simplify the numbers like they are in Esperanto and Ido? Like 20 = dudec instead of vinti, 30 = tridec instead of trenta etc. The "vinti" is a reminiscence from a system based on 20, like in French vingt, Spanish vainte, Italian venti...
Granted, this is the obvious choice of those who have these languages as their mother tongues. But to the English, the Norse, the Germans etc it is just a complication.
So, the intention in the design of Interlingua may be: "Did they really sacrifice the simplicity on the altar of tradition?"
An argument for the design of auxlingui is that we should not favour one group of "mother tongues" above an other. That is the strongest argument for not directly adopting English as the obvious international language.
But I do understand why the choice of IALA became as it became.
That does not, however, mean that one need to oblige.
Rather it leaves an area open for new trees to be planted.
There is no law enforcing Interlingua, no authorities to excommunicate infidels.
Or, rather, if somebody want to build an alternative on other paradigma, he is free to do so.
There is, as far as I know, no international patent on the vocabulary of Interlingua or any other language.
I observe that there is a growing environment / milieu for experimenting in linguistic designs, all from the Tolkien linguas to the Lingua Franca Nova and Toki Pona.
Today was my 81st birthday, so I may not be present to observe which of the many will win.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Academia pro Interlingua (ApIA)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to academiaprointerl...@googlegroups.com
> To post to this group, send email to academiapro...@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/academiaprointerlingua
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout