lingwadeplaneta skrev:
> --- In [log in to unmask], Kjell Rehnstršöm <cellus@...> wrote:
>   
>> lingwadeplaneta skrev:
>>     
>>> --- In [log in to unmask], steve rice <ansric@> wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> --- On Wed, 3/24/10, Jens Wilkinson <jenswilkinson@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> 2010/3/24 Kjell Rehnstr?öm <cellus@>:
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Is there an explanation why tones disappear in â€" I
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> suppose  â€" Native Chinese
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> speakers? One could imagine that a very strong influx
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> of non-Chinese
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> speakers would mean such things, but is that the
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> case?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mean that tones will disappear in native Chinese
>>>>> speakers.
>>>>> It's non-native Chinese speakers. So if Chinese were to
>>>>> become a world
>>>>> language, then non-Chinese speakers would use the Chinese
>>>>> words
>>>>> without proper tones. That's all.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> The point of my post was that forms borrowed from Chinese, Arabic, and Hindi into an auxlang with a reasonable phonology would be mangled in the process: Chinese forms would lose tone, Chinese and Hindi would lose aspiration or find it mapped to voicelessness, and Arabic would lose emphatics. But those are borrowed forms, not the original language or its speakers. Similarly, Russian would lose palatalization, at least much of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Some such losses aren't a problem. English words borrowed into Eo generally lose their original stress, for example, but they remain recognizable. Chinese loses far more, and I'm not sure recognizability survives, especially given how many homonyms it already has.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> In case of Chinese instant recognizability will often not survive, but how important is instant recognizability? That is the question. I couldn't at first recognize the Eo's "vosto", but as soon as I knew that it meant the Russian "hvost", the recognizability switched on, and I will remember this word even if you wake me in the midst of the night (a R saying). So recognizability varies, instant recognizability may be not that important.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Interestingly, when I learnt the Russian word xvost, I did not associate 
>> it with the Esperanto vosto. Strange that we at once recognize some 
>> words as related to other and in other cases not.
>>     
>
> The form "vosto" doesn't resemble "hvost" much, it could even better be used for "vostok" (east). But even some similarity, not leading to at-sight recognition, may be enough for "secondary recognition". I do admit it is a word from Russian. 
>
>   
Interesant, li rusi vorde "vostok" primemora "ost" in germani lingves. 
In komunikando on povud usa "ost" i no "est". Tand on havud "vest" (o 
alternativim west) i "ost", grand diferentifiko.

Kjell R