3 ms·
> I personally doubt it very much. It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt... It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist
by axiolite 4y ago
> I personally doubt it very much.
It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt...
It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist than Esperanto, simple rules, and being based on English it omits things like gender for objects.
While perhaps exaggerated, the claim was: "it would take seven years to learn English, seven months for Esperanto, and seven weeks for Basic English."
Some references to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism
https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/
https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_English https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_Englis...
- mariusor 4y agoThe first doubt was around the fact that a language with the pronounciation background coming out of the English language will be "easier" to learn than a strictly phonetic one. Just looking over the list of words in your last link, I'm pretty sure that any number of them would trip someone that is a blank slate. For example: "who", "wheel" and "humour" are vastly inconsistent with regards to how they sound. Having to learn these idiosyncrasies, even for 900 words, would be - in my opinion - more difficult than the basic rules of Esperanto (and Ido, which seems even simpler). I would imagine that coupled with a phonetic transliteration of the common sounds it would be easier but then the language would probably become a different thing all together. I hope that clarifies a bit.