Print

Print


Stephen Rice skrev 2014-02-07 23:53:
> On 2/7/14, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:17:16 -0500, Stephen Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I'm leaning strongly at this point toward Latinate Interlingua rather
>>> than LsF. I was going to do a comparison of the two using the opening
>>> of _Evangelii Gaudium_, but when I checked the Latin section of the
>>> Vatican Website, I couldn't find the document. So I tried English:
>>> http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/index_en.htm
>>>
>>> Notice what's missing: a Latin version!
>> Odd, perhaps (or perhaps, not so odd). Now that you mention it, I just did
>>
>> a search myself, including using a search metaengine (Dogpile, that I have
>>
>> better results with sometimes than with Google) and banging on the Vatican
>>
>> website, and I could not find the Latin text anywhere, either, *.va or
>> other.
> As I recall, back when they came out with the new catechism, the Latin
> version, though technically the official one, was published well after
> the English.
>
>>> About the only advantage to
>>> LsF would be the Pope's Latin tweets, and if they are essentially the
>>> same as his tweets in other languages, the advantage would be
>>> negligible. I've considered using Interlingua with an emphasis on its
>>> Italo-Latin vocabulary: "also" would probably be "anque" rather than
>>> "etiam," and certainly not "tamben." "But" would probably be "ma"
>>> rather than "sed." And so on:
>> However, the "Italo-Latin vocabulary" would actually be *less* of
>> "Latinate Interlingua," at least to me.
> I suppose I could produce different versions--that could be automated
> easily enough. I intended to do that anyway with some of my existing
> translations, using un ortografia plus fonemic as well as the standard
> orthography.
>
> Also, there could be significant
>> resistance from those interlinguaists who persist (much to my personal
>> distaste) in trying to make I-gua over into Yet Another Romance Language
>> :@ .
> I don't care about them, really. I'm just wanting to mainstream an
> auxlang. If newcomers switch to another version, such as Romance, or
> even to another auxlang entirely, it doesn't matter to me. The goal is
> to raise awareness and acceptance.
>
>>> I'm considering a Website with the tagline "Le Latino Moderne pro le
>>> Ecclesia Eterne," which seems reasonably elegant.
>> Yes, I would agree. I no longer receive "Panorama in Interlingua" in the
>> paper version (just online), but as I recall, the mailing envelope used to
>> refer to Interlingua as "Le Latino Moderne." (I suppose this was before
>> David Stark's Latino Moderne, and I don't know whether anyone is still
>> even trying to use the latter.)
> Back in the 80s, when I subscribed to _Currero_, I frequently received
> promotional materials with it (usually a single sheet, occasionally a
> small pamphlet), and they not infrequently called Interlingua "le
> Latino Moderne." That was well before Stark, I think.
>
> Steve
> .
>
Ego crede que on jam del initio 
propagande interlingua usava le 
termino "Latino moderne".

Un avantage de desinentias personal 
del verbos poterea esser que on 
rende le lingua plus succincte (s i 
sto es le correcte parola), e on 
evita anque le necessitate 
distinger sempre si le tertie 
persona es mascule o feminin.

Kj. R