Print

Print


James C:
> There is a clear semantic distinction between
> "because" and E. "as, since", F. "car", D. "denn"
> etc.  So I'm not surprised that Ia has both "proque"
> and "nam".

I'm with Todd Moody, because/since I don't see a
difference between "because" and "since".  If you
mean "between 'why' and 'because'", then I am not
surprised either.

More importantly, however, is that when discussing
Interlingua it is legitimate to ask the question
of what it even means for Interlingua to "have"
something.  The answer is not as straight forward
for Interlingua as it is for other languages and
projects because for Interlingua there are great
variations in the fundamental conceptions of what
Interlingua even is.

Consider what Ingvar recently posted on this topic:

     "Nam"  es pur latino classic e  pro
     isto illos non sta inter [ ] in IED.

What this means (and forgive me if you're already
acquainted with this detail) is that this word was
included in the IED simply because it was on a list
of Latin words which someone in IALA thought would
be useful.  They are not a product of the methodology
which produced the bulk of the vocabulary in the
dictioanry.  Unlike the square-bracket words (which
are also "not necessarily" a product of this
methodology), they are not marked in any way in the
IED.  For someone whose conception of Interlingua
rejects the idea that words can be arbitrarily added,
Interlingua does *not* have the word "nam" since there
is no support for this word in the conventional
sense.

Of course, for someone with a different conception of
what Interlingua is, this is not a problem.  Still,
a statement like "Interlingua has X" strikes me as
overly simplistic.

For the record, my conception of "what Interlingua is"
includes basically anything which I expect that the
majority of Interlingua speakers will understand or
be able to find in their dictionaries, although within
reason compared to actual usage so as not to drive
too many people away from my texts.  (I myself try
to avoid texts which include too many particles which
are found neither in the IED, nor supported by the
conventional linguas fontes - English, French,
Italian, and Spanish/Portugese.)  As a result of this
conception, I will use proque, perque, and nam -- all
in fairly wide use, as well as more rare words such as
"saepe" which comes to mind more easily than the
alternative "sovente".  I'd even use "[mox]" if I
could remember what it meant.  In addition, I use a
few Esperanto words in Interlingua guise such as
"presque" which nobody has ever misunderstood.  (This
is in contrast to words like "se" (if) which should
always be seen as a lapsus linguae in any of my
Interlingua texts.)

So, is there not an extent to which it can be said
that Interlingua *has* the word "presque" (by virtue
of the fact that it looks like Interlingua and is
understood by nearly all speakers of Interlingua),
in spite of the fact that it is rarely used (only by
myself and a few people who have accidently learned
the word because of my "imbroliamento") and is found
in none of their dictionaries?

> Ido also takes "nam" from Latin,

As does the reform project of 1894.  This similarity
is commonly (and speciously) used by Idists to suggest
that Zamenhof secretly loved Ido.

> Esp takes F "car" and puts a random hat on the c
> so it becomes "char" (!).  Jespersen in Novial
> took "den" from Ger.

Never expect James to pass up an opportunity for a
dig at Esperanto.  Having seen many people learn the
word "char" (often written as "car" with a hat on the
C) without problem, I can only interpret this dig as
hair splitting or sour grapes.

Digging a bit deeper in this thread, I see that
Ingvar Stenström <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> "Nam" in latino e Interlingua es un conjunction
> explicative, differente in su signification de
> "proque", que es un conjunction causal.

I must admit that I don't really understand this - on
at least two different levels.  First, I do not "feel"
a difference between an "explanation" and a "cause."
If you are saying that there is a difference between
the two sentences listed below, I honestly have no
idea what that difference could possibly be.  I'd
welcome an explanation.

- Ille non poteva venir. proque ille es malade,
- Ille non pote venir, nam ille es malade,

On another level, though, the question needs to be
asked on what basis can meaning even be established
within Interlingua.  If on the basis of the IED, we're
left with "proque=because/nam=for".  According to my
English dictionary, BECAUSE and FOR are different only
in nuance.  If we can refer back to the orgiginal
Latin meaning, perhaps my occasional use of "num" as
an emphatic negative form of "esque" is more justified
than I thought.

Amike salutas,
Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
www.NightinGael.Net
---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs