Pro dicer le veritate, il es assatis difficile apprender a scriber interlingua vermente ben!

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Le problema principal con interlingua es que multo de su vocabulario es arbitrariemente selegite. Pro le institution financiari, illo ha le parola "banca". E pro le altere usos del parola illo usa "banco."

In espaniol e portugese, on usa le forma "banco" pro ambe significationes. E ben que un del dictionarios que io sovente debe consultar quando io scribe interlingua accepta e "selectionar" e "seliger" como alternativos, pro exemplo, illo accepta solmente le forma "acceptar" e non "acciper". E illo accepta le forma "obtener", ma non "obtiner" como un alternativo.

Il ha habite debattos pedantic e interminabile inter interlinguistas sur lo que debe esser formas acceptate inter multe possibilitates de parolas alternative, le quales, il pare, nunquam termina.

Ma pro esser juste, esperanto anque ha habite tal debattos. Io legeva, ante unes annos un debatto sur le legitimitate de "oldigxi" in vice de "maljunigxi".

Como linguas planificate non ha gruppos de usatores native qui pote decider tal questiones (e le numero de "denaskitaj esperantistoj" es troppo parve pro esser un ver communitate viabile de parlatores native), il pare impossibile evitar tal debattos. E in le caso de esperanto, illos mesmo ha producite diverse "idaj lingvoj" como ido, esperantido, etc.

Ma in despecto de omne isto, io admira multissimo le flexibilitate morphologic de esperanto con su systema agglutinative de radices e affixos.

Io habeva studiate esperanto ante alicun annos e habeva apprendite a scriber lo assatis ben. Ma io comenciava a studiar interlingua quando io discoperiva que le lingua non es completemente morte--o, forsan io debe dicer "minus morte" que ido, occidental, o novial.

Iste interesse mie esseva assatis natural proque io habeva studiate omne su linguas fonte (le latino e le linguas romanic). E nunc, ben que io pote leger esperanto facilemente, io non pote scriber lo.

---

To tell the truth, it is rather difficult to learn to write Interlingua really well!

The principal problem with interlingua is that a lot of its vocabulary is arbitrarily selected. For the financial institution, it has the word “banca.” And for the other meanings of the word it uses “banco.”

In Spanish and Portuguese, only the form “banco” is used for both meanings. And though one of the dictionaries that I often must consult when I write Interlingua accepts both “selectionar” and “seliger” as alternatives, for example, it accepts only the form “acceptar” and not “acciper.” And it accepts the form “obtener” but not “obtiner” as an alternative.

There have been unending pedantic debates among Interlinguists about what should be accepted among many possibilities for alternative words, which, it seems never come to an end.

But to be fair, Esperanto also has had such debates. A few years ago I read a debate about the legitimacy of “oldigxi” instead of “maljunigxi.”

Since planned languages to not have groups of native users who can decide such questions (and the number of “denaskitaj esperantistoj” is too small to be a true viable community of native speakers), it seems impossible to avoid such debates. And in the case of Esperanto, they even have produced new “idaj lingvoj” such as Ido, Esperantido, etc.

But despite all this, I greatly admire the morphological flexibility of Esperanto with its agglutinative system of roots and affixes.

I had studied Esperanto a few years ago and had learned to write it rather well. But I started to study Interlingua when I found out that the language is not completely dead--or perhaps I should say “less dead” than Ido, Occidental, or Novial.

This interest for me was rather natural because I had studied all its source languages (Latin and the Anglo-Romance languages). And now, though I can read Esperanto easily, I cannot write it.