Print

Print


A few things to clarify, not just for Ben Woods, but in response to his suggestions.

Many design features of Acadon do take into consideration its use as a spoken language. 

Spoken Acadon can be far more reliable for the input of text,  programming, or any data than spoken English would be. Clearer to pronounce, easier caught by machine, its vocabulary less ambiguous, et alia. 

Some old-timers at auxlang will remember my "laws of avoidance." (No two morphemes distinguished only by l/r, or b/v, or t/d, or i/e, or u/o or ... some thirty of these.)

I had remarked:
>If we think in terms of clarity, is a language that flows like Spanish better than a staccato one that makes it easier to catch the morphemes? 

Ben Wood has responded:
>>You're using vague terms to describe linguistic features. What makes a language "flow"? Is it a CV syllable structure? 

Sorry if I was vague, I guess I assumed that others would catch my meaning. Many languages allow the phonemes of one morpheme to tag onto the next word or change it. Think of French-creoles and all the languages of  Africa that add a l- or d- to morphemes borrowed from French. 

Have you ever read texts in French or Italian written in the IPA? Think also of 'doncha' and 'gonna' in English. 

"Elision" is even allowed in Esperanto, Neo, and many other IALs. Not just in poetry.

Fact is, I can read Spanish more readily than German or Russian, but rapidly spoken Spanish can lose me, while would I catch the spoken German or Russian with greater ease.

Mandarin Chinese has only a bit of this cross-morpheme stuff (two 3rd tones, shemma, jr, etc.) However other Chinese languages such as  Minbei ('Foochow') is filled with it - in the form called sandhi.

A quote from Wikipedia:
"Sandhi (Sanskrit: संधि saṃdhí  "joining") is a cover term for a wide variety of phonological processes that occur at morpheme or word boundaries (thus belonging to what is called morphophonology). Examples include the fusion of sound across word boundaries, as its name implies, and the alteration of sounds due to neighboring sound or due to the grammatical function of adjacent words."

Some IAL designers have gone to great trouble in compiling their  syllable structure to prevent cross word confusion, whether called sandhi or not. 

Acadon does this by assuming a very slight pause between words and then accenting the first syllable (always). It further increases the clarity of word boundaries by inserting a small glottal stop when a word begins in a vowel (with no intervening punctuation or significant pause). Many languages do this.

Ben Wood also said:
>>What makes you so sure morphemes are "easier" [a complicated term in itself] to process in a language with consonant gemination? For some people, it may be the opposite.

I respond:
I didn't refer to gemination as such. That is twinning of the same consonant or pronouncing it for an audibly longer period of time than otherwise. Gemination exists in Italian, not in Acadon. 

I meant strings of differing consonants. Some IAL's have only open syllables. I find this an unnecessary constraint, especially for an IAL that intends to be of use for modern scientific publications. But the strings can be designed to fall within limits. 

Acadon syllables end in a vowel or only in one consonant. Acadon words end only in the vowels, or in -m -n -l -r -s -t or -c. The -c is used largely for words related to symbolic logic, mark-up language, or programming. 

Sorry, I erred in the message below in saying that Acadon has at the present a tentative list of about 40,000 words. The actual number is about 88,000. (I was thinking of a differing list -- an old Bahasan one.)

Regards,                         Leo 

Leo John Moser

//////////
-----Original Message-----
From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben Wood
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 8:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: auxlangs as tools and as toys

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:02:58 -0700, Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>In contrast, the Acadon project is highly focused on the written form. It is to be usable for access to data, for legal documents, for medical procedures, etc. as well as for literature and e-mail generally. The (tentative) vocabulary that I have for it stands at about 40,000 words. I will need twice as many. I’ve just added the term: phonaesthetics. 
>

In my observations, trying to control how the language is used will backfire; creators often have too much pride in their work. I would advise to at least consider the use of spoken Acadon, what the general trends might be in terms of everyday use.

>You value a more pidgin style, far more oral centered.
>

Just as a matter of fact, there have been non-oral auxiliary languages with pidgin/minimal grammar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlinguistics#Kinds_of_interlanguages)

>I reply. . . IMO gaining speakers is not necessarily the ultimate goal of all auxlangs.  Acadon could be exceedingly successful without a single speaker.* 
>

I should have been less specific. When I said to gain speakers, I meant users in general (written and/or spoken). Though if the language can be spoken, it most likely will given a sizable community.
 
>Europeans often say that spoken Italian and Spanish sound ‘more beautiful’ than spoken German and Russian. But does this simply reflect cultural stereotypes -- praise for the historically prestigious Latinate sound systems? To what degree are cultural prejudices involved in all this?
>

I actually had this discussion a while ago on this list, when someone claimed that languages sound inherently "masculine" or "feminine". It's entirely cultural prejudices and personal tastes that determine what people perceive.

>Might not a tone language, like Chinese or Igbo, sound better than one that is monotone? 

All languages have tones. In those languages it's just phonemic rather than semantic.

>If we think in terms of clarity, is a language that flows like Spanish better than a staccato one that makes it easier to catch the morphemes? 

You're using vague terms to describe linguistic features. What makes a language "flow"? Is it a CV syllable structure? What makes you so sure morphemes are "easier" [a complicated term in itself] to process in a language with consonant gemination? For some people, it may be the opposite.

-Ben