Jose Mario Marques <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>[log in to unmask] wrote:

>> Leo Moser sends additional texts in Novial. They were written about
>> six years after the one that you have read.

> > I attach below some samples of Novial of about 1937. C replaces K
>> in many places, etc.

>> >From _Novialiste_, p. 305:
>>   Ma lo haved samitem altri min bonim
>> trameditati propositiones, e li accepta del rationalis fid
>> desfacilisat per ke on non votad pri chaki detale isolat, ma nur
>> blokim.

>> Li resulte esed 157 votes por li nonchanjat lingue contre
>> 93 por li chanjas da Zamenhof (ultre dises venid 11 e 3 por medi-
>> propositiones). Zamenhof enuntiad tand tre prudentim ke un grupe
>> tant micri non poved fixisa li lingue por eterni tempes.

>>    Omni disu esed nonconosant dal esperantistes, til ke li intim
>> amike de Zamenhof dre Javal, kel self esed fervorosi reformatore,
>> printad li propositiones ye curti tempe ante sen mori.

>>   Zamanhof proposid sen projectes "conte sen propri
>> convictione" e "in sen cordie certim esperant ke les ved fi
>> refuset".
>> I hope that you find these samples of interest. Can you read the
>> newer form more easily?

>Thanks a lot.
>They are very interesting. I understood everything, except the upper
>phrases, that remained not clear to me.

>In the first phrase, it's unclear for me the expressions:"li accepta del
>rationalis fidi" and "Omni disu esed nonconosant dal esperantists"

>In the second phrase: "in sen cordie certim esperant ke les ved fi

>It seems to me that if one speaks a romance language and has a previous
>knowledge of English, French and Esperanto, certainly he will understand
>at once a text in Novial as it is in the sample you sent to me, that
>seems be much easier than the before.

>May be that is caused, because the first one was a translation and the
>second one was originally a text in Novial?

The first text was 1928 Novial. There were some changes made between 1928 and
1937. That may also be part of it.

>But you spoke about changes in the language for the second text that may
>be would have been improving the recognizability of the language. What
>changes? Could you describe them?

Many were. I don't know all the changes that happened after 1930; some of these
certainly include the use of "c" in some spellings.

>Is there in Novial any syxtem of derivation of words similar to that of
>Esperanto with affixes?

Very definitely so. If you note the explanations I gave, I broke some of
the words down. Many of the formations are exactly parallel to Eo's, for example
Eo plibonigi pli-bon-ig-i       Nov plubonisa(r) plu-bon-is-a(r)
(The -r is found in our 1997 updated version only.)

>I saw in the text that there are compound words of the type
>"cultur-homi" that are similar to the system of Esperanto to create new
>words by putting roots one aside the other, the chief one in the end.

Where Eo does something RIGHT, Novial is very similar. But many of the things
I object to in Eo are missing in Novial. Eo overuses (in my mind) mal-, and
while Eo has granda/malgranda, Nov prefers mikri to desgrandi (des- is the
equivalent to Eo mal-).

>About spelling, is it regular as in Esperanto? That is, the same sound,
>the same letter? Is there a fixed stressed syllable or the stress is not

Novial uses qu and x for "kw" and "ks" but generally follows one letter-one
sound. The stress rule is a little more complex than Eo's: the vowel before
the last consonant is stressed.

                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)