Print

Print


James Chandler wrote:

> Rob
>
> What is your rationale for saying the Vulgar Latin form is the "proper
> prototype"?  Surely there is no logical necessity for ANY of the forms
> which
> have evolved from the common ancestor to bear any resemblance
> whatsoever to
> the ancestral form.  If you think about it logically, it is possible not
> only that the descendant languages have developed in widely divergent
> directions, but also that the ancestral root is unrecognizable in ALL
> of the
> descendant languages.
>
> If you want a vocabulary for modern europeans you need to look at the
> modern
> european languages and deduce the prototype of the modern forms.  This is
> the only logical basis for selection, as far as I can see (and precisely
> what Wahl had already done by 1922).
>
> Kordiale, James Chandler
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.geocities.com/idojc - IALs index
> http://www.geocities.com/idojc/yindex.html - Ido index
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/idolisto - Idolisto home
>
> "I find only anxiety and apprehension about the social effects of this
> pastime and especially about its effect upon small children." - T S
> Eliot in
> a letter to The Times, predicting the dangers of television, Wednesday 20
> December, 1950

On acquire un bon idea de lo que es vocabulario commun europee si on
compara le dictionarios de "parolas estranier" (fremdaj vortoj, fremda
vorti) in dictionarios de un maximo de linguas le qual on pote
fysicalmente comparar. In iste caso on videra parolas como "nocturne,
diurne, fluviatil, studentil, infantil, francogerman, filosemita,
homofobo" etc. Si tal parolas es latino vulgar, ego dubita multo, illos
es tanto plus extrahite ex le latino medieval e classic que era olim le
linguas commun in Europa. Il es le survivente material de iste lingua
que ancora vive in le linguas europee e que forma parte de interlingua.

Kjell R