Kiel registrite je 09:43, 26 okt. 2010 vidi fonttekston Lvh (diskuto \| kontribuoj) Patrolantoj 13 554 redaktoj →‎Biblioteko de Aŝurbanipal: nova sekcio ← Iru al antaŭa ŝanĝo		Kiel registrite je 10:43, 26 okt. 2010 vidi fonttekston Hans (diskuto \| kontribuoj) Patrolantoj 2 600 redaktoj →‎Neo (planlingvo): iom plu stukturo Iru al sekvanta ŝanĝo →
Linio 303: ghis!--[[Vikipediisto:Hans\|Hans]] 19:39, 23. Okt 2009 (UTC) ==== advantages or disadvantages of languages ==== I'm not studying them to find advantages or disadvantages, but rather out of pure linguistic interest - I think that every language has it's own beauty and to speak of certain language being better or worse is pointless from a linguistical standpoint - there are only more or less desirable and convenient characteristic given the certain circumstances and requirements. As for Neo, I find it (even though I would contradict myself by saying so) almost perfectly balanced - grammatically simple yet fully expressive and *nuanced, with vocabulary more or less easily recognizable but interesting and a bit exotic with obvious Volapuk influence. Linio 314 ⟶ 315: National languages have developed without a target. For them this is pointless, you are right. But constructed languages have targets. To my opinion they should have. Zamenhof has written in detail about his intentions. Esperanto should be an easy to learn means of understanding for everybody. So it is not intended for such people, who first learned latin during countless hours and then come to learn simplified latin dialects as latino sine flexione, latino semplificato or interlingua. The authors of new projects should clarify their targets. To say simply, itto iscall a project "fasile" without intensive proof is not sufficient. Re recognizability of vocabulary. This is one of the subjects discussed among supporters of language projects. Among them details:

Hans