Print

Print


It's not hard. When you understand what's going on through word order
you don't need the -n. When it's not obvious then you do.
I like eating bread.
Me prizas manjar pano.
Now let's say that I'm thinking about bread first and then I decide to
say that I like it.
Pano...n, me prizas manjar.

On 6/27/06, Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Don, Dave, Jens, and others...
>
> Somehow I'm seeing Don's quote of Dave before I can
> see Dave's note....
>
> Je 04.56 atm 2006.06.26, Dave MacLEOD skribis
> >Whenever you feel like the word order-n changing.
>
> Then the question becomes "when should I feel like
> changing the word order" -- which is really the same
> question.  Beyond that, though, I'm not sure that
> your answer is even true - since two fluent Ido
> speakers independently edited out an -n ending from a
> text of mine.
>
> If you'd like to hear the edited phrase (without the
> -n), put to music even, tune into www.RadioVerda.com
> for the episode after the next one (i.e. RV080).
>
> On a different question, same subject heading, Don
> Harlow wrote:
>
> > Actually, that last was in reference to the
> > predominance of spoken usage over written usage
> > of an IAL.
>
> I know.  That was the "slight topic change" I
> mentioned.  It seems to me "slight" because the
> issue that Jens was disagreeing on followed more or
> less directly from the point which you said that
> no non-Esperantist auxlanger will believe.  That is,
> if you do not believe that an auxlang will primarily
> be spoken, then you will not see the needs of
> speakers as important.
>
> The strength of the link between these two topics
> may well be open to debate.  After all, Jens did
> use the word "speaker" and not "writer".  Still,
> I believe a case could be made that lack of experience
> actually *speaking* an auxlang could lead to the
> impression that speakers would like to stop and
> consider every feature they wish to express, rather
> than train themselves to put them in reflexively
> without thought -- which, I think, was your point;
> the point Jens missed again.
>
> On second thought, Jens later said that when he
> said "optional plural", he wasn't talking about
> a language where you can say "three dog" or "three
> dogs", but rather that you'd always say "three
> dog".  I do not call this optional plural.  Since
> he's not advocating "optional" grammar, maybe he
> didn't really miss your point as much as he was
> looking at a completly different stick.
>
> Amike salutas,
> Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
> www.NightinGael.Net
> ---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>