Print

Print


--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Dmitri Ivanov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> --- In [log in to unmask], steve rice
> <ansric@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would market it to people with an L2 knowledge of
> English and 
> > even some L1 speakers. That would make more global
> than LdP will 
> > ever be. In fact, it would give me an initial
> demographic greater 
> > than Eo's. Global enough.
> 
> You know, I too can say that I *market* my language to be
> more global
> than yours will ever be. The actual result will depend on
> what breed
> of pigs can fly better :)

The point is that it should be intelligible to that many people encountering a text or sample of speech. I don't think LdP's immediate intelligibility is that high. But the key is context; I tried "ia" on someone I know and didn't get very far until I used it in a spoken sentence, which was correctly understood. This also adds to the gamelike aspect, which is a positive.
> 
> > I think it's a bad idea to base a
> > > global language on
> > > English pronunciation which is too specific. 
> > 
> > I find this amusing coming from a proponent of an
> auxlang that
> unduly mimics English phonology in places, treating
> phonemic features
> phonetically.
> > 
> Usually, if we take a specifically English word, then we
> proceed from
> English pronunciation: mani, wik, lup, kaunta, katapila,
> mira, inloo.

I understand most of those, but is "mani" "money"? All I can think of for "inloo" is "in-law."

> But in words shared by other major European languages we do
> not follow
> English pronunciation: muskul (not "masl"), sfera
> (not "sfia"), minuta
> (not "minit"), mobile (not "mobail").
> About phonetic-phonemic, if you mean the notorious
> "gou", we have
> changed it to "go" long time ago following your
> valuable advice.

Fair enough. Thanks. I haven't kept as current as I should've.
> 
> > Thus far, auxlangs have been merely written codes. Few
> of them are
> spoken even by a handful of their adepts. I am aiming not
> just for "at
> sight" intelligibility but for "at hearing"
> recognition. If someone
> knows how to pronounce the letters and then reads a text
> out, he
> should understand it roughly as well as regular
> English--and since the
> grammar, phonology, and orthography are simpler, he can
> master this
> English even if he's afraid to use regular English
> actively.
> 
> A question: given at hearing recognition but simpler
> grammar and
> everything, won't it be percepted just as "low
> quality" or
> "simplified" English? (say, for those who are
> afraid to use regular
> English, as you write). Anyway, it still seems to be a kind
> of English...

Is Bislama a kind of English? It's English-based, to be sure, and it is more susceptible to influence from English than my project should, because I am designing for autonomy. Like all creoles, Bislama arose from dependence on a source language, but I can design against it.

Yet critical opposition, which I do expect, can be useful. Would the Harry Potter books have done quite so well without the controversy they generated?

While the grammar is simpler and more consistent than that of English, it isn't merely "simplified" English. A competent user will generate sentences that aren't at all correct in any form of English I know--but the vast majority of them should be *intelligible* to an English speaker.

Steve