Objeta kontra interlingwa
Oni shwo oftem ke konstrukti-ney lingwa bu mog bi sam hao kom naturale-la. Ver, nuy internasion-ney lingwa bu es tanto riche kom inglish, ni tanto elegante kom franse, ni tanto vigorful kom doiche, ni tanto jamile kom italiano, ni tanto nuansaful kom ruski, bu es tanto "domlik" kom nuy janmalingwa. Oni laudi e valorisi oli sey hao kwalitaa de nasion-ney lingwa, bat oni fogeti ke lingwa hev sey kwalitaa sol wen janma-shwoer yusi it. Interlingwa fasilem mog bi pyu riche kem fransejen shwo na inglish, pyu elegante kem danskejen shwo na franse, pyu vigorful kem doiche de koy italianos, pyu jamile kem italiano de inglish-jenta, pyu nuansaful kem ruski de doiches e pyu "domlik" kem may janmalingwa shwo-ney bay ruskis. Sikom nuy lingwa es helpalingwa, oni mog justem kompari it sol kun naturale lingwa shwo-ney bay auslander. Dan ye nixa fo shami.
An objection against interlanguages
An objection which is often raised against constructed languages is that they can never be as good as natural languages. It is true that our Interlanguage is not as rich as English, not as elegant as French, not as vigorous as German, not as beautiful as Italian, not as full of nuances as Russian, not as "homelike" as our mother-tongue. But note this well, that all these good qualities, which one appreciates and praises in the national languages, are found only when they are spoken or written by natives. And the Interlanguage may very well be richer than the English spoken by a Frenchman, more elegant than French as spoken by a Dane, more vigorous than the German of some Italians, more beautiful than the Italian of the English, more full of nuances than the Russian of Germans, and more homelike than my own tongue spoken by Russians. And as our language is an auxiliary language, it can only be compared fairly with natural languages as spoken by foreigners; and then neither Ido nor Novial (nor LdP - we should add) need feel ashamed of itself.