|
|
Does Ido look as sexy (ie : convincing) as Interlingua ?
|
|
|
greg - that's the thing about Interlingua, that is, that it looks like a "real" Romance
language almost, unlike, say, Esperanto, which looks like crap and not like an actual
language anyone'd speak. Of course, with IG, I'm aiming for almost a higher standard
of "realness", in that I've been aiming for consistent phonology and like, which
I don't think they bothered with in the case of Interlingua.
|
|
|
I'm even wondering if they cared for phonology at all.
|
|
|
Yeah, from looking over some stuff on Interlingua they seemed to basically not give
a crap on how things are to be pronounced, as long is it sounds vaguely like Ecclesiastical
Latin, and don't give a crap about having any kind of consistent set of ordered phonological
changes which would have hypothetically happened between it and Proto-Romance, that
is, Vulgar Latin.
|
|
|
Perhaps because rendering phonological change wasn't one of their goals. The cause
of Interlingua or any Romance-based artificial language is made easier as (written)
Latin phenotypy is a winner everywhere in the real world. Why bother to manifest
phonology if you want your auxlang to be visually recognised and instinctively 'adopted'
by Romance-speakers ? It's easier to get people (try to) write in an auxlang than
speak it. You've got to start somewhere.
|
|
|
Well, it's just because I tend to be a pedant who actually cares about these kinds
of things, unlike most. ;)
|
