>Paul O Bartlett wrote:
>> I do
>> think that relexification is a problem, and I agree that the "at sight"
>> Euroclones pose a particular risk.
I haven't noticed a problem, though I am new to the Interlingua lists.
I remember reading that only the international meanings are included in
>> (I have noticed this with
>> Interlingua, but also with Glosa, which does not necessarily seem to be
>> entirely "at sight," despite some claims for it.)
I agree. I would have to actually "learn" Glosa to understand it.
>At-sight can only work within some region where the natlangs
>share a common ancestry, so Ia does well within Europe,
>and even the relexed idioms usually are understood;
Let's expand on that a little! :)
Folks in Europe do share the language base of Interlingua.
So do folks in a sizeable area outside Europe that
includes e.g. North, South, and Central America. There
is also an educated elite of people in probably every
country who know a source language or the language of
science and technology.
>still, I wish the grammar of Ia were more restrictive,
>defining where the bl**dy unmarked adjectives go.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "unmarked adjectives."
>For a world language, I begin to think that deriving
>words from *any* ancient or proto- natlang is wrong.
I can tell you've taken some steps toward understanding
As I understand it, an Interlinguist takes the most
recent possibile prototype. This ordinarily
means taking a very modern word. Here are some words taken
at random (eyes closed, the fast method) from the WIN
(Woordenboek Interlingua-Nederlands). I've also translated
them into English.
boycottar to boycott
cooptar to co-opt
revoltar to revolt
swingar to swing, to dance or play swing
vorticose vorticose, vortical, pertaining to a vortex: whirling
Most are like the English, but also the French, the
Spanish, etc. etc., you know.
Of the 39855 entries in the WIN, very few are from an
ancient language, even as early as Middle French. I would
guess about 200 (a half percent). I think it IS fairly
common to *consult* an earlier language to find the
prototype of a word. But the result is a modern word.
>There are not enough truly "international" words.
Do you like a language with lots and lots of words? ;)
At times, there isn't a truly international word, but
this is rare. For info, see the preamble to the IED--
I think there's at least one Interlingua dictionary with
more than 100,000 entries. I'm not sure if it's out yet,
but soon! The larger dictionaries also have large numbers
of word combinations, in addition to actual entries. IED
says that there are potentially several hundred thousand
international words. Enough?
>Nobody has tried it recently, but I think maybe
>a new class-hierarchical language is the Way;
>a dictionary would amount to a small encyclopedia ...
>and it would be easy to memorize and use the top-level
>words, which would be the shortest and most common.
>I imagine the WordNet noun hierarchy, relexed.
You know, I think that's a great idea! Bravo, Charles! People
could learn as much as they felt comfortable with, starting with
the easiest words. The IED might give you some useful ideas.
It has a similar structure, if I'm understanding your concept
>[BTW, I have to check the TO address field carefully,
>since almost every reply ends up going to the poster
>instead of the list. I think the list server is sick.]