I prefer Interlingua because it is comprehensible right from the start if you speak a Romance language and I imagine it is sufficiently comprehensible for an English speaker. There’s this saying that it is “a language you already know but have never learned”. This is done through more natural semantics and syntax.
About this following part, I’m not sure, but I’ve heard they also call it “the modern Latin”. As I understand it, in order to be decipherable to all Romance languages speakers, it employs old Latin roots (with variations). The cool part, in case this is correct, is that we all know some of these words via science, arts, philosophy… (aqua, caelum, ovum…).
Looking at examples online, it is surprisingly easy to understand! I can see it being better than Esperanto for romance language speakers specifically, but it still seems to me like Esperanto would be a better auxiliary language due to the simpler grammar rules and no fixed word order
If you mean “is Esperanto English”, the answer is no, they’re pretty different, Esperanto combines elements of latin and slavic languages. If you mean “Isn’t English already an auxiliary language”, the answer is also no. English is a lingua franca, not an auxiliary language.
Esperanto is a romance-adjacent language using the Roman alphabet. It has its own grammar and phonetics, with rules that are flexible enough that a word-for-word translation from English or German will have a fairly correct sentence structure. As someone who speaks English, knows a little French, and has heard German, I expect it is closer to Spanish or Portuguese than English, but it isn’t just like those, either.
Reading through this thread really makes me wish Esperanto or some other auxiliary language caught on
I like Interlingua.
TBH I don’t know much about other auxlangs/conlangs besides Esperanto. What makes you prefer Interlingua?
I prefer Interlingua because it is comprehensible right from the start if you speak a Romance language and I imagine it is sufficiently comprehensible for an English speaker. There’s this saying that it is “a language you already know but have never learned”. This is done through more natural semantics and syntax.
About this following part, I’m not sure, but I’ve heard they also call it “the modern Latin”. As I understand it, in order to be decipherable to all Romance languages speakers, it employs old Latin roots (with variations). The cool part, in case this is correct, is that we all know some of these words via science, arts, philosophy… (aqua, caelum, ovum…).
Looking at examples online, it is surprisingly easy to understand! I can see it being better than Esperanto for romance language speakers specifically, but it still seems to me like Esperanto would be a better auxiliary language due to the simpler grammar rules and no fixed word order
Isnt that english?
If you mean “is Esperanto English”, the answer is no, they’re pretty different, Esperanto combines elements of latin and slavic languages. If you mean “Isn’t English already an auxiliary language”, the answer is also no. English is a lingua franca, not an auxiliary language.
Fascinating, I didn’t know about auxiliary languages
Esperanto is a romance-adjacent language using the Roman alphabet. It has its own grammar and phonetics, with rules that are flexible enough that a word-for-word translation from English or German will have a fairly correct sentence structure. As someone who speaks English, knows a little French, and has heard German, I expect it is closer to Spanish or Portuguese than English, but it isn’t just like those, either.