Multi-Reply here to save bandwidth ...

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 21:45 CEST, Patrick Littell

 > On Apr 6, 2005 2:33 PM, David J. Peterson
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
 > And (and this is important) children
 > > actually do learn Georgian.  As far as I'm concerned,
 > > if a child can learn Georgian, *anything* is possible.
 > > ;)

Hehe. Georgian must be perverse from what I heard about it
here, but I didn't know its morphology is *so* difficult.

 > I agree with David.  After all, by the first grade the
 > kids presumably know how to *speak* their language,
 > although in some seriously polysynthetic languages it
 > seems that the *most* complex constructions might not be
 > mastered until the ages of ten or eleven.

OK. Maybe children would be, say, 7, 8 years old in their
first year? Over here, children usually go to school from 6
or 7 years on, depending on whether you're born before or
after July 1st. Being born in August, I was 7.

 > I'm not all that familiar with the McGuffey Readers, but
 > from the name it seems like their purpose it to teach
 > kids to read.


 > By the age of seven, they certainly have a
 > good grasp of their spoken language, even if it's not
 > suitable for formal oratory yet.  Is the written language
 > is basically the same language as the spoken one?

I guess written language is as often a bit more formal and
conservative. But basically, I agree. I remember myself not
understanding why I have to learn about grammar at school
when I can speak my L1 already quite properly. And compared
to English, German syntax is due to declension and
conjugation of nearly anything more difficult than English.

 > One thought: I've been learning Tzeltal, a Mayan language
 > of Chiapas, and the wonderful manual I've been reading
 > uses a somewhat different, slightly simpler orthography
 > than other works, or the "official" orthography if there
 > is one.  In it, multi-morpheme words are often broken up
 > and it's pretended that they're separate, independent
 > words.

That'd be a possibility, putting mid-dots or hyphens in
between, if not even spaces. Though usually, two same
sounds are reduced to one, with vowels getting an acute
accent. The combination is not necessarily pronounced

 > After all, we learn to
 > print a year or two before we learn cursive, and I don't
 > think it really hinders us. --

Hehe, there is no distinction between printed and
handwritten media because they're preindustrial.

On Thursday 07 April 2005 00:48 CEST, B. Garcia wrote:

 > True. Think about our own native languages and the
 > shortcuts people use when speaking it.
 > What I present for Ayhan is the formal language.
 > Colloquially, they might tend to drop the
 > animacy/inanimacy, natural/unnaturalness affixes (but i'd
 > not gotte that far).

I already thought about changes in colloquial language. I
basically thought of simplifying the (in)animacy stuff
which I also have and fronting case markers. They're
articles in front of verbs anyway. Some phonetic reduction
and simplification of weird vowel clusters etc., et voilą,
a colloquial standard.

On Thursday 07 April 2005 01:42 CEST, Gregory Gadow wrote:

 > It might be instructive to look at a reader in an
 > agglutinative natlang. What would a Turkish primer look
 > like?

As long as the texts at the page Tim May gave the link to
include interlinears, it'd be worth to have a look at that.


Edatamanon le matahanarą sitayea eityabo ena Bahis Venena,
15-A8-58-1-3-13-13 ena Curan Tertanyan.