Print

Print


--- On Fri, 12/25/09, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jens Wilkinson wrote:

> > At one time, when I had
> completely merged
> > "b" and "p," somebody (a native English speaker) told
> me it sounded
> > ridiculous to call a banana a "panana." I wouldn't
> have a problem
> > understanding it, though, to it's sort of an asthetic
> choice. I have
> > also had people tell me they don't like the
> reduplication that
> > sometimes exists in NP, because it sounds "babyish."
> It does,
> > actually, but that's not really a reason to dislike
> it. We talk to
> > babies that way because it's easier to pronounce and
> remember "peepee"
> > than "urinate".
> 
> What sounds ridiculous to one person will sound natural to
> another.  A new language is going to have its own
> unique sound.  I don't think that's much of an issue as
> long as it's not taken too far. The initial draft of Sasxsek
> did have "panan" for "banana".  I've never really
> worried about having an accurate representation, just a good
> mnemonic.

Agreed. It depends on the nature of the project: for something westy, it would be a bad idea. But given NP's nature, I don't see a problem.

> I somewhat agree with reduplication, but that's
> subjective.  Not so much because it's "babyish"
> sounding but sounds primitive.  I did it with a couple
> of the most basic words like "mama" and "papa" because they
> are overwhelmingly popular so no reason to go against the
> tide there.

Reduplication isn't a problem unless it's too frequent. Eo uses reduplication (ekz. finfine) for that matter.

Steve