Print

Print


Stephen Rice skrev 2014-02-14 20:37:
> On 2/14/14, Wayne Rossi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I would guess that Peano used the ablative because it allows for plurals in
>> -s without any problems. Sure it's interesting for a language if you have
>> some of those second and third declension nominative forms - vox, ager,
>> pater, nomen - but they don't play along with the plural in -s or even in
>> -es. Do you really want "paters" or "pateres", "nomens" or "nomenes" when
>> you can just have "patres" and "nomines"? What exactly does "vox" become -
>> voxes or voces? It's worse with -us words - "muruses"? You get "muros" with
>> the ablative. It just makes more sense, and since every LsF noun ends in a
>> vowel, you wind up with an extremely regular plural.
> But LsF doesn't require the plural--in fact, Peano preferred to avoid
> it. No, Paul is right: the reason is that the ablative singular looks
> like the typical Romance form, though historically the development
> followed another path. Also, the oblique stem is used in derivations.
>
> A month or so back I mentioned in passing that if I did something like
> LsF, I would always use the citation form, which is roughly what Kjell
> is talking about. My reasoning was that it's sometimes difficult to
> tell where a form came from. Thus Jespersen writes,
>
> The facility, however, with which this Latin is read is largely a
> delusion: for myself, though I have read a good deal of Latin in my
> life, I have found sentences which I could not make out except by
> translating them into the mother-tongue of the writer, Italian or
> French, and others which I was not able to understand even in that
> way. "Illo es nunc facto plus facile gratias ad factos"--does that mean
> "this is now an easier fact," or "more easily a fact," or "made
> easier"? I suppose the last. "Cresce impossibilitate de resana et illo
> procedi usque ad securo morte"; in the next following sentence "nam
> Volap√ľk more tunc certo" I first took more to be "custom," but then
> discovered that it was Latin morior, and that the mark of past time
> was left out in consequence of the adverb tunc, so that the whole
> meant "V. died certainly."
>
> This, or rather most of this, may be all very well for those who have
> learnt Latin, even if they have forgotten most of it; but what about
> the majority who have never had the benefit of a classical education?
> It is said that they can understand this Interlingua by means of a
> Latin dictionary--but how are they to know that when they see more,
> they are sometimes to look under mos, and sometimes under morior? Or
> where to look for homine, pote ("can"), etc.? It is, of course, much
> worse when it comes to writing (or speaking!) the language oneself:
> what is the use of telling a man who has learnt no Latin grammar that
> he is simply to take the ablative, when his dictionary gives him only
> the nominative and genitive?
>
> ***
> So I thought it would be simpler to have mos, morior, etc. It would
> mean that the equivalent of "be" would be "sum," of course, and verbs
> would tend to end in -o, which would be good for marking PoS but bad
> for recognition.
>
> Still, I can almost agree with Dave's reservations about LsF: Latin is
> highly inflected, so converting it immediately into an isolating
> language is a bit of a problem. I haven't tried using it actively
> until recently, and converting Latin into LsF is more difficult than I
> had thought, or anyway less automatic. So I'm still not sure about
> idea of using it to win over Catholics to the idea of auxlangs, though
> I am working on the possibility.
I suppose one will have to treat 
this language as something new, 
jsut that it happesn to use Latin 
words in the nominative case and 
verbs in 1st person sing. as they 
are often entered in dictionaries, 
but translating from Classical 
Latin you cannot just skip the 
inflections. That will leave 
gibberish. One will have to make a 
new translation as into quite 
another langauge.

Kjell R