Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!CC.UMontreal.CA!news.Umontreal.CA!hinsenk
From: hinsenk@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Hinsen Konrad)
Subject: Re: Languages in the EC
In-Reply-To: ccardona@mail2.sas.upenn.edu's message of 9 Feb 1995 22:49:46 GMT
Message-ID: <HINSENK.95Feb10114303@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Followup-To: alt.politics.ec,sci.lang
Sender: news@cc.umontreal.ca (Administration de Cnews)
Organization: Universite de Montreal
References: <3fdf8r$gqe@nic.lth.se> <3feev2$4df@news.INbe.net>
	<HINSENK.95Feb2193405@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
	<791833634snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk> <3he66a$imd@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:43:03 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <3he66a$imd@netnews.upenn.edu> ccardona@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Maelstrom) writes:

   I dont understand this??? How can proponents of Esperanto say that it is 
   easier to learn and yet a "real" language.  If it were a real language it 
   would be just as complex and thus just as hard or easy to learn.

Would you care to explain your reasoning? What is your definition of
a "real" language, and what alternative kind of languages can you think
of? Why should all "real" languages (however defined) be equally
difficult to learn?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                     | E-Mail: hinsenk@ere.umontreal.ca
Departement de Chimie             | Tel.: +1-514-343-6111 ext. 3953
Universite de Montreal            | Fax:  +1-514-343-7586
C.P. 6128, succ. A                | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/Nederlands/
Montreal (QC) H3C 3J7             | Francais (phase experimentale)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
