sudanglo:As I understand it, SPX, the designer of Interlingua in striving to achieve instant recognizability of forms, made it very difficult to be certain of using correct forms when writing the language (I don't think it was ever intended to be spoken).

In contrast, a text in Esperanto may not produce instant recognition. You have to put some effort into learning how the language works first. However once you have overcome this initial hurdle, you can have a very high level of confidence about whether you are speaking or writing it correctly.

Well you would know better than I would. I've never heard that it's not meant to be spoken. I've always understood that it's supposed to be a full featured language, but I haven't looked into it too deeply.

What I've gathered is that the creator(s) analyzed the vocabulary of languages around the world (particularly Romance languages) and pulled out those words which are written, and which sound, almost exactly alike across the language set, and then came up with a simplified vocabulary to connect them together. According to Wikipedia, "Individuals, governments, and private companies use Interlingua for learning and instruction, travel, online publishing, and communication across language barriers." I wonder how true that really is.

erinja:Romance languages are already mutually intelligible to a great extent, and I feel like it's more worth your while to learn French, Spanish, or Italian, than to learn Interlingua. It will be more effort but not a ton more, and you'll speak a language with a large literature, and you will still be able to understand a lot of text written in other Romance languages.

Yeah, this is true, which is why honestly I will probably never get around to learning much about Interlingua. It just seems like that time would be far better spent learning Spanish, especially since I already have something of a foundation in that language anyway.

This is not even to mention that if I'm in France and need to communicate, realistically speaking, more often than not English will probably get the job done if my French is not up to par.

SPX:This is not even to mention that if I'm in France and need to communicate, realistically speaking, more often than not English will probably get the job done if my French is not up to par.

This is true to an extent, but don't underestimate the power of a little passive understanding. A basic ability to understand simple signage does wonders for the ease of travel in a foreign country. Not every automated ticket machine has an English option, for example.

A very limited ability in a language, versus no ability at all, can make a huge difference in the difficulty of a trip.

------------

Interlingua is fully featured in the sense that it's a complete language. I think you're conflating "fully featured" with "easy to learn".

Interlingua is a fully featured language but it was not designed with the express intent of making it easy to learn to speak. It was intended to be easy to read for people who already speak a Romance language.

Ease of passive understanding, and ease of learning to speak something, are actually quite different (and different again from being fully featured).

People can and do learn to speak Interlingua but it isn't easy like Esperanto.

erinja:
This is true to an extent, but don't underestimate the power of a little passive understanding. A basic ability to understand simple signage does wonders for the ease of travel in a foreign country. Not every automated ticket machine has an English option, for example.

Yes, I agree.

I would probably take any time I would put into Interlingua and instead put it into the language of the country that I was planning to visit, though. A month's worth of study and a dictionary in your pocket will get you pretty far for those little tasks.

Also, like you said, if you know one Romance language the others don't look so foreign. Having some understanding of Spanish, I have noticed that some things I read in French and Italian make some sense.

erinja:Interlingua is fully featured in the sense that it's a complete language. I think you're conflating "fully featured" with "easy to learn".

No, the point I was making there was that, at least to my knowledge, it was designed to both be read/written and spoken.

As for the difficulty, all I know about is the little I read when I was first discovering and researching constructed languages. But I do remember reading that it is at least supposed to be significantly easier to learn than a natural language because the grammar is simpler and far more regular.

So I stumbled across what I'm assuming is the main/official site of Interlingua (www.interlingua.com) and found this bit of text. . .

"Benvenite al sito del Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI), establite in 1955 pro diffunder le lingua auxiliar international interlingua. Le UMI ha membros e representantes in cinque continentes. Interlingua es communication sin frontieras."

Just utilizing what I know of Spanish, I would translate it thus:

"Welcome to the website of the World Union for Interlingua, established in 1955 for (diffunder) the auxiliary international language Interlingua. The UMI has members and representatives on five continents. Interlingua is communication without borders."

I'm guessing that I got that mostly right. If so, then damn, Interlingua really has something going for it.

It's nothing special, however.

Can you read this text equally as easily, or almost equally as easily? It's in Italian.

"Benvenuti nel sito dell'Unione Mondiale per la Interlingua, fondata nel 1955 per diffondere la lingua ausiliaria internazionale Interlingua. L'UMI ha membri e rappresentanti nei cinque continenti. Interlingua è la comunicazione senza frontiere".

erinja:It's nothing special, however.

Can you read this text equally as easily, or almost equally as easily? It's in Italian.

"Benvenuti nel sito dell'Unione Mondiale per la Interlingua, fondata nel 1955 per diffondere la lingua ausiliaria internazionale Interlingua. L'UMI ha membri e rappresentanti nei cinque continenti. Interlingua è la comunicazione senza frontiere".

Hmm, interesting. . . I'd say perhaps ALMOST as well.

In the Interlingua passage, "al," "establite," "auxiliar," "in," "es" and "sin" are instantly clear to me whereas "nel," "fondata," "ausiliaria," "nei," "è," and "senza" require using some context clues.

But that does drive home the point that it would probably be better to just spend that time studying a major Romance language.

Forigite

SPX:

sudanglo:As I understand it, SPX, the designer of Interlingua in striving to achieve instant recognizability of forms, made it very difficult to be certain of using correct forms when writing the language (I don't think it was ever intended to be spoken).

In contrast, a text in Esperanto may not produce instant recognition. You have to put some effort into learning how the language works first. However once you have overcome this initial hurdle, you can have a very high level of confidence about whether you are speaking or writing it correctly.

Well you would know better than I would. I've never heard that it's not meant to be spoken. I've always understood that it's supposed to be a full featured language, but I haven't looked into it too deeply.

Most constructed languages, specifically including Esperanto, usually start out in written form. I once read, although do not now recall the details, that it was some time before Zamenhof and another person had an actual spoken conversation in E-o.

Like E-o, (IALA) Interlingua started out in written form. However, people actually do speak it. I have 47 audio files of podcasts of "Radio Interlingua" produced in Europe, with people actually speaking the language. On the other hand, for me personally (please note), Esperanto is just a written code, as I have never spoken it and have heard very little of it spoken. (And that little I could scarcely comprehend, unlike written texts.)

Hyperboreus:
engl. "diffuse", (from latin diffundō, diffūdī, diffūsus, diffundere, < *dis-fundō), meaning:
v.tr.
1. To pour out and cause to spread freely.
2. To spread about or scatter; disseminate.
3. To make less brilliant; soften.
v.intr.
1. To become widely dispersed; spread out.
2. Physics To undergo diffusion.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Hyperboreus:It is readily understood. I am positive that any native Spanish speakers, and probably other Romance speakers, too, can immediately read Interlingua fluently. They just might miss one or two special words, but that also happens in our native languages.

That's interesting. I wonder if more complex texts are just as easily understood by speakers of other Romance languages. Being a Spanish speaker, how much can you usually understand when trying to read something in French or Italian?

BTW, I see you have Guatemala listed as your country of residence. I spent two months in Antigua in 2007, trying (only somewhat successfully) to learn Spanish. Interesting country.