Print

Print


Sorry, I don't speak Interlingue; I assume you're disagreeing with me since
Interlingue also uses <q> and <x>. It seems like you're listing languages
that use classic versus phonetic orthographies and concluding that the
classic one is preferable? If that is your argument, then as rebuttal, I
point to the many languages that don't use the Latin script at all. "keles
usa li latin literes" seems to discount such languages from the discussion,
but they can hardly be ignored. Besides the Cyrillic Slavic, Arabic,
Indian, and eastern languages, there are also all of the African, Native
American, and Oceanic languages that use the Latin Alphabet (as well as
standard Chinese, technically). I'm not familiar with any myself, but I
understand that they, having few Greek and Latin roots, tend to use the
Latin alphabet phonetically. Speakers of all of these languages would have
to learn the IAL as well, and ideally, they should one day be expected to
do so without learning English, French, or Latin in conjunction. For this
majority of people, traditional orthographies have little to offer, while
phonetic orthographies greatly simplify the learning process.

2018年8月12日(日) 14:48 Kjell Rehnström <[log in to unmask]>:

> Justin scrit pri li introduction de q in ido. On posse observar unt trend
> vers li classic ortografie equalmen in Occidental /interlingue e in Novial.
> Et Occidental et Novial comensa quam sat fonetic lingues. Ambe lingues usa
> q e x ma occidental in li version de 1928 e 1930 ne usa c in cultura o
> francese e ne y quam vocal, solmen por li son ipa j. Ma in plu tardi formes
> de novial on reintroduce li classic orthographie e Interlingue have anc un
> variante con classic orthographie, ben que li hodierni max usat variante es
> sat fonetic u un filosof ne generalmen es un philosoph ma un filosof.
>
> Del altri láter li Interlingua IALA ha quasi exclusivmen usat li classic
> orthographie con solmen poc exceptiones. Li grammatica de Gode & Blair
> permisse li scription f vice ph, r vice rh, t vice th, ma quam dit, ti
> variant es tre rarmen usat.
>
> Ma si on reguarda li lingues queles usa li latin alfabete on va trovar que
> it es solmen englés, francés e german queles usa li classic ortografie, li
> scandinavic, slavic e ugrofinnic lingues (keles usa li latin literes) e li
> ceteri romanic lingues – con li exception de francés dunque – non usa it.
>
> An it es possibil que it actet se pri un mode (fashion) que evenit
> parallelmen con li evolution del fonetic alfabete.
>
> Por tis qui ne have li classic ortografie in lor materni lingues on vell
> posser imaginar que un fonetic ortografie vell esser preferibil, nam ego ha
> videt que scritores sin ti ortografie in lor matrin lingues have problemas
> con li classic ortografie, ma ego save anc que mult persones de altri
> lingues tamen prefere li classic ortografie quel ili ha aprendet in lor
> studies del mundial etnic lingues.
> Den 2018-08-11 kl. 23:10, skrev Justin Kunimune:
>
> The one about spelling being specifically etymological rather than
> phonetic is particularly interesting. I know it's the same general argument
> that led Ido to reintroduce <q> and <x>, but I've never really understood
> the reasoning behind it. The argument in the book seems to be that
> etymological spellings indicate meaning, since apparently everyone should
> have an intuitive idea of what the root <phon> means as long as it is
> spelled in romanised Greek, while spelling it <fon> (the way it's spelled
> in Spanish) would lead to "obscuring of meaning and origin". Surely the
> number of people who know that the greek root <φών> means "sound" and
> that the Latin grapheme <ph> corresponds to Greek <φ> but who would not
> be able to associate <f> with <φ> is not so high as to outweigh the added
> difficulty of learning a language with two ways to spell /f/ (especially
> since Greek itself has only ever had one way to spell /f/).
>
> 2018年8月11日(土) 16:40 Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Things have been very quiet on AUXLANG. Let's be honest, old fashioned
>> server-based email lists (once called listservs) are not used much any
>> more. Much activity has gone elsewhere on the internet. Years ago,
>> AUXLANG was very active, often with multiple posts a day. Now, of
>> course, it mostly exists as a archive.
>>
>> Anyway, I thought I would post an except from E. Sylvia Pankhurst's
>> short book, "Delphos: The Future of International Language" from the
>> 1920's. (I have a copy in my own webspace, although I am not quite
>> certain whether it is now in the public domain.) In one section, she
>> summarizes the characteristics "the" Interlanguage must have, according
>> to her. I have put the headers in a file, without the discussions.
>>
>> In one part of the book, she briefly discusses some of the (con)IALs
>> that existed as of her time, including Peano's Latino sine Flexione. In
>> my estimation, her list of characteristics almost completely describes
>> LsF, but she does not seem to endorse it as such.
>>
>> Here are Pankhurst characteristics.
>>
>>
>> E. Sylvia Pankhurst
>> Delphos: The Future of International Language
>> London: KEGAN PAUL. TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Ltd.
>> New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
>> [1927?]
>> (later reprinted by Forgotten Books)
>>
>> [http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/Pankhurst_Delphos.pdf]
>>
>> Pages 47 - 57 [italic letters not marked here]
>>
>> It must be a posteriori.
>>
>> The Interlanguage must provide the greatest
>> possible intelligibility: therefore it must reach
>> the widest possible internationality.
>>
>> It will employ the Roman alphabet, the only
>> alphabet of printed characters which can
>> claim internationality.
>>
>> The Vocabulary of the interlanguage will
>> consist mainly of words common to the Indo-
>> European speech-family, which comprise an
>> extensive dictionary.
>>
>> Inter-European words will be used in their
>> Latin form, with the classical spelling and
>> pronunciation.
>>
>> The Interlanguage cannot successfully form
>> its vocabulary from different speech-families,
>> nor can it attempt an amalgam of the forms
>> existing in various branches of the European
>> speech-family.
>>
>> The orthography of the Interlanguage must
>> be etymological. It cannot follow the false
>> trail of simplified spelling.
>>
>> In accord with modern tendencies, the
>> Interlanguage will be logical and analytical,
>> and will contain no more grammar than is
>> required to elucidate the meaning. Every word
>> will be found in the dictionary.
>>
>> The Interlanguage will go even further than
>> English in discarding inflections. In the
>> verb comprehensibility can undoubtedly be
>> reached by one unvarying form, qualified by
>> other parts of speech.
>>
>> The concordance of the verb with its subject,
>> in number and in case, has almost disappeared
>> ... .
>>
>> The agreement of adjectives with the nouns
>> they qualify and the declension of nouns, which
>> have departed from English, will find no
>> place in the Interlanguage.
>>
>> For the sign of plurality we cannot look to
>> the Latin example; ... . The final s has by
>> far the greatest internationality, and has
>> the advantage of being pronounceable after all
>> vowels and most consonants.
>>
>> Articles will probably be discarded by the
>> Interlanguage.
>>
>> The Interlanguage will not attach gender to
>> inanimate objects—only to those possessing
>> it in the actual world of nature, and only
>> where the sense requires it.
>>
>> In syntax, the Interlanguage will follow the
>> order broadly common to the European
>> speech-family; subject, verb, object, with
>> the qualifying words placed as near as possible
>> to the word they qualify.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Bartlett
>>
>