In a vacuum, yes. But the implementation is harder. Requiring everyone to simultaneously change pronunciation and writing is more difficult than changing one or the other first. In Chinese, these two things can be separated.
And in a vacuum, yes. But if you think a global language is worthwhile, you’d settle for pronunciation or writing first, rather than demanding both. So while it is a desirable feature of a global language, it is not a necessary feature.
Alphabets are easy to learn, requiring perhaps two hours of studying to learn and apply the basics, plus a period of semi-passive absorption to more fluently master. Any language that uses an alphabet, especially one which uses the Latin Alphabet (which is widely known, even among people who don’t primarily communicate using it) will have minimal extra work to go between written and spoken forms of the language, especially if the language is designed with the goal of a global language in mind.
In a vacuum, yes. But the implementation is harder. Requiring everyone to simultaneously change pronunciation and writing is more difficult than changing one or the other first. In Chinese, these two things can be separated.
And in a vacuum, yes. But if you think a global language is worthwhile, you’d settle for pronunciation or writing first, rather than demanding both. So while it is a desirable feature of a global language, it is not a necessary feature.
Alphabets are easy to learn, requiring perhaps two hours of studying to learn and apply the basics, plus a period of semi-passive absorption to more fluently master. Any language that uses an alphabet, especially one which uses the Latin Alphabet (which is widely known, even among people who don’t primarily communicate using it) will have minimal extra work to go between written and spoken forms of the language, especially if the language is designed with the goal of a global language in mind.