Print

Print


Bruce skripted:

>He certainly expected changes to be made; he said as
much. And I might note 

that in the era from 1930 till his death, he accepted
things (like "va" as a 

future auxiliary, and spellings with "c") which he
argued against in AIL. I 

think that Jespersen was much more open to changes in
his language than 

James is!

Note that this is not an argument against the -r
specifically, just a note
of caution regarding reforms in Novial proposed in J's
absence.  I agree
that J was open to changes in Novial, but I do think
that means a greater
onus on us to really appreciate what J was trying to
do with Novial, the
character of the language, and possible changes that
would be incompatible
with Novial as J left it to us.

>Actually there is no double standard. Verbs having
multiple endings is not 

the point I'm trying to get rid of; it's verbs having
the *same endings* as 

nouns!

I now see that what you are requiring is in fact not
the same thing as
strict POS marking.  Let me summarize two conditions
which I will call POS
and BRG:

POS) Each POS must have a distinctive ending which is
used for every member
of that POS.

BRG) No two POS's may share the same ending.

Now it is clear that POS and BRG are not equivalent,
and in fact BRG is a
stronger condition in some ways than POS.  It creates
a battle for finite
resources among the various POSs, with simple -V
endings being the most
valuable commodities.  I can see now how, according to
BRG, the verbs in
Novial are the most troublesome POS, as they use up a
total of 4 simple -V
endings.

The logical conclusion of BRG is that one should try
to liberate some or
all of the 4 verb endings for use by other POSs.  But
then you still want
to conserve the 4 verb classes for the suffix -tione. 
This does imply
adding a consonant to the end of each of the verb
endings, but which one?

Voiceless consonants are out of the question.  Liquids
are best avoided in
final position, especially where they are going to be
very frequent (and
Novial already has a fair few final -r, eg. in the
series hir-dar-vor).

Voiced obstruents are either taken (-d) or are totally
artifical (eg. -b) so
that leaves the nasals.  -m or -n would certainly be
the best choice.  Can
these be justified on the basis of the source langs?

If not then I would conclude that what you are trying
to do is simply against the grain of Novial, and
cannot be made to work.

(Btw Bruce: in your plan would -u verbs take just the
-r, giving -ur, or
did you decide to insert an -e-, giving -uer ?)

Kordiale, James Chandler
[log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/idojc - IALs index
http://www.geocities.com/idojc/yindex.html - Ido index
http://www.geocities.com/idojc/medilingua.html - Medilingua

"We should all stay in touch, we should make a big network on both sides of the Atlantic because your country and my country are the biggest problems in the world today, we are the biggest rogue states in the world today and the citizens have got to take back control of the plane." - George Galloway, MP Interviewed on the Alex Jones Show, 31st May 2005 infowars.com ronpaul2008.com truthnews.us

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com