Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On Sunday 03 February 2013 17:13:38 Roger Mills wrote:

> --- On Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> (snips)
> Two immediate reactions:
> - I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> I find it off-putting.  The advantages and disadvantages of
> diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
>   case system.
> 
> RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some
> specific suggestions.

Mixed-case transcription/transliteration systems just suck and
are as ugly as an oil spill.  A transcription avoiding this can
easily be made up for Klingon (basically, as there is only *one*
letter that is used both upper- and lower-case, you can just
change _Q_ into _qh_ and then dispose of the case distinction).

Yet, the current mixed-case system is firmly established among
Klingonists, and if you ask me: the *language* is itself as
ugly as an oil spill, too!  But that, too, is just my personal
taste.  Let the Klingonists do what they want to, and let our
colleague do what he wants to with SimArabic.

And for Arabic, we have a pretty serviceable transcription
system developed by the Deutsche Morgenlšndische Gesellschaft,
which is in international use.  There really is no good reason,
in these days of most computers being capable of handling the
required diacritics, not to use that for a morpologically
simplified Arabic.

> --------------------------------------------------------
> - as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
> language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
> IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
> many!  But that is a personal preference, I know.
> 
> RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the
> materials more closely, however.  Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's
> necessary to retain the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I
> know, is one of Arabic's features.....

I am not much into this kind of "simplified natlangs".  Sure,
they are easier to learn than the real thing, but what is the
point of them?  Someone who has learned SimArabic will still
be lost at understanding real Arabic, because the latter is
full of irregular forms he does not know because they have
been excised from SimArabic!

Basically, such simplified languages are perhaps useful as
regional auxlangs, but apart from the fact that regional
auxlangs IMHO make less sense than global ones, I doubt that
simplifiying a natlang in such a half-hearted way as in
SimArabic is a good way of achieving that.  Why not go the
whole path and dispose of *all* inflections?

But we are about to slip into auxlang advocacy here, and
this list is not the right place for that.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"BÍsel asa …am, a …am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha …amal." - SiM 1:1