Print

Print


Steve said:  
> Dr Russell allowed ad-hoc borrowings from English to fill in lexical lacunae. 
> This isn't a bad idea in principle, though I would prefer Spanish, because
> 1. Spanish dictionaries are about as easy to find as English ones 
> 2. Spanish is easier to pronounce 
> 3. Spanish orthography is far more phonemic than English.

Leo remarks: 
I have no complaints about what I see as the general intention here: 
           But we must remember:           
Very few in China or elsewhere in Asia (other than in the 
Philippines) have any contact at all with Spanish. There 
would be relatively few Bengali-Spanish or Javanese-Spanish 
dictionaries to be found. Contact with Portuguese is spotty 
in Asia, very minor in the larger picture. Latinate words 
would be most likely familiar to Asians via English, the 
ISV, or perhaps Russian or French.
.
This flies in the face of the Ibero-centricity of projects like LFN 
(Lingua Franca Nova). Dr. Zamenhof almost totally ignored 
Spanish and Portuguese, but we need not flip in the other 
direction and compose an IAL that is heavily Ibero-centric -- 
or one that is excessively "Italo- Ibero- concentric," such as 
Dr. Gode's "Interlingua." The impact of Italian in Asia is 
widespread, but almost totally restricted to musical terms
and a few foods.
.
In contrast, in most of Asia there is extensive exposure to English, 
and in many places (from Iran to Vietnam) to French.  German 
is learned by a few Asians for its technical/scientific and commercial 
value. Thus varied Hindi-German dictionaries are liable to be more 
easily found than Hindi-Spanish ones. 
.
There remains, of course, a vast Russian language influence in 
Central Asia -- even into the Uyghur language of China. These 
Russian borrowings often relate to modern life, to technological 
innovations, or to scientific concepts. Thus they often carry into 
Asian languages a significant vocabulary of Greco-Latin origin. 

Best regards            Leo

 Leo Moser 
-----Original Message-----
From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Rice
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 5:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Searight's Sona: "The Book" and Dan Holodek's Lessons

On 12/26/14, Kjell Rehnström <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Stephen Rice skrev den 2014-12-26
> 08:44:
>> ... IALA's Interlingua is a good
>> model, as youu can understand the
>> mechanics of the language. The
>> negative side is that too few
>> takes the pain to understand them.
>> The associations are still problematic, as anyone outside IE and 
>> even, to some extent, Romance can attest. You must have noticed them 
>> yourself. But they have considerable support from people within those 
>> spheres.
> When I did not have access to a
> Swedish-Interlingua dictionary I
> used the little vocabulary in the
> Interlingua Grammar in combinationn
> with dictionaries from Swedish to
> the source languages and then
> checked in the IED which I had
> found at a bookseller's in Uppsala,
> and in that way I could verify if
> the words I chose were good
> Interlingua or not.

Then you were depending more on support products (dictionaries and, in the case of the KGD, below, grammars) than on the language proper.
That's true for any language, and it's also important to have such materials available in several languages, a detail that appears to have escaped the Kotavans.

> One should however be able to do
> something in the same way with
> Novial as Jespersen is quite
> generous with his thoughts of what
> his language would look like.
>
> The Ido "gramatiko detalosa"
> perhaps can serve in the same way.

Again, this has nothing to do with the language proper: an a-priori system could do it. It's only systems whose creators are obsessive-compulsive about classification schemes that get into trouble. Suma is a good counter-example: Dr Russell allowed ad-hoc borrowings from English to fill in lexical lacunae. This isn't a bad idea in principle, though I would prefer Spanish, because

1.Spanish dictionaries are about as easy to find as English ones 2. Spanish is easier to pronounce 3. Spanish orthography is far more phonemic than English.

Since the workaround would mostly be for specialized terms, the general neutrality of the language wouldn't be compromised: the standard, high-frequency vocabulary would still be a priori.

Steve