Print

Print


Roger Mills wrote:
> Vincent Pistelli wrote:
> 
> 
>> I was just wondering if any of you
>> saw a google ad for this new language
>> Esata. 
>>
>> What do you guys think about it?
>> http://www.beginnersgame.com/esata.html?gclid=CP_97K7Fj50CFR9N5QodVjHR7w
>>
> Sari, me no like-um :-((((( 

Mi tu no laikim.

Admittedly, I've only skimmed through the PDF, but it comes 
across to me as a somewhat eccentric Euroclone auxlang.
___________________________________

Paul Hartzer wrote:
[snip]
 > Instead of creating a new and untested system, I should 
think the stated goal (an English-based auxlang) would be 
more successful by looking at a global sample of English 
creoles and pidgins and integrating the commonalities.

Yes, indeed. I suggested something on similar lines many, 
many moons ago on Auxlang (and got flamed for it). But if 
one is thinking in terms of a simplified English, it does 
seem strange to me not to look at actual, real world examples.

I note that Esata retains case distinction in 1st person 
singular: yo = I; mi = me. I haven't read it closely enough 
to see how t works out. but, as most of us known, in modern 
colloquial English the distinction is not the simple 
nominative ~ accusative. The "between you and I" 
construction is possibly now even more more common in spoken 
language than the "between you and me"; and there's the 
perennial argument about "It's me" ~ "it's I"   ;)

Later in the text I read:
"_yo_ I,me ....... _mi_ I, me, my"

Then shortly  afterwards i discover that "my" may be _yode_ 
or _mi_ - all very confusing IMO.

AFAIK all English based pidgins & creoles have a single, 
indeclinable form for the 1st singular, usually _mi_ or 
_me_. One wonders why Esata makes things more complicated.

Also, IMO the author's initial premise is incorrect. S/he 
writes;
"It is naive to think that the world will continue to move 
toward linguistic unity using English in its present
form. Classical Greek and Latin were also dominant on a vast 
scale, but both lost out to vulgar dialects, that
the common, poorly educated people could speak."

Classical Greek was not dominant on a vast scale. It was 
confined to a comparatively small territory. When Alexander 
created his great Empire, Athenian-based Greek was spread 
across it. But what resulted was not the vulgar dialects; it 
was the Greek Koine. No one person or committee _planned_ 
the Koine; it evolved as Greek became the de_facto auxlang 
of the Empire. In fact, the vulgar dialects of the Greek 
homeland tended to give way to the international Koine.

Classical Latin was more dominant in that it was the 
official language of the Roman Empire. But it is not true to 
say that Classical Latin lost out to vulgar dialects. It is 
true that the spoken Vulgar Latin developed into different 
dialects and thus gave rise to the modern Romance languages. 
But when the western Empire collapsed, Latin remained for 
another millennium as the written & spoken auxlang of 
central and western Europe. However, it was not Classical 
Latin that was used, but a Koine that we now call Medieval 
Latin. But no one person or committee devised Medieval Latin 
from the Classical language; it evolved.

Likewise, yes indeed global English Koine will not be the 
language literary language of Britain or America; but it 
will evolved. Indeed, it has been evolving over the past 
half century and IMO will continue to evolve.

Pafu's mangling of English reminds me a bit of Philippe 
Labbé's 17th century attempt at simplifying Latin; only I 
prefer Labbé's language   ;)

For the curious, the Pater Noster in Labbé's language is:
Oh pat asa, u eno ni cels.
Nom ee santur.
Regn ee venu.
Vol ee facur, tou ni cel te ni ter.
Donu mo da as li pan asa de oms dies.
Te parcu da as li debs asas,
    tou the as parcos da debans asas.
Te no ducu as ne tentag. Pa libu as ba mail.
Enu.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]