Print

Print


Kapitano Eglefino wrote:
>
>    The current trend in IAL proposals seems to be toward what
> might be termed 'Maximal Syntactic Simplification'. My question is:
> how far can this go?
>
>    Say we begin with a sentence in Esperanto:
>           La hundo nigra cxasis rapide katojn blankajn.
>           (The black dog rapidly chased white cats)
>
>    Firstly, we can remove tense and number markings. This gives:
>           La hundo nigra cxasi rapide katon blankan.
>
>    Next, replace the -N ending with an accusative preposition, and
> while we're at it, introduce a nominative preposition, and make
> articles optional:
>           Bai hundo nigra cxasi rapide Na kato blanka.  OR
>           CXasi rapide Ba hundo nigra Na kato blanka.  etc.
>
>    The adverb -E ending can safely become -A:
>           Bai hundo nigra cxasi rapida Na kato blanka.
>
>    This leaves us with three word classes - Noun (-O), Verb (-I),
> and Adjective/Adverb (-A). However, in parallel with the loss of
> the Adverb/Adjective destinction, we can remove the Verb/Noun
> destinction, with the introduction of a preposition which
> preceeds a verb clause:
>           Bai hundo nigra Du cxaso rapida Na kato blanka.
>
>    What else could be simplified? Well, how about removing the
> Head/Modifier destinction? This might give:
>           Bai hunda nigra du cxasa rapida Na kata blanka
>
>    Of course, now we have no need for grammar-coding at all, so
> the word-class suffixes can be removed:
>           Bai hund nigr du cxas rapid na kat blank
>
>    To my mind, the final sentence is easy to parse, and has a grammar
> far easier to learn AND USE even than Esperanto. The stems are even
> still largely recognizable as derived from natlangs.
>    I imagine that few of you reading the above reduction would have
> objected strongly to the loss of number marking, or the adverb/adjective
> dstinction, or the introduction of an accusative preposition (although
> Zamenhof himself experimented with such a preposition and rejected it).
>    The Nominative (I should really say Agential) will raise a few
> eyebrows, and may be objected to because it adds to the length of the
> sentence. But Japanese has a Subject Postposition, so why not?
>    It is I suspect the verbal preposition that would be most strongly
> obejected to, because it it so UN-NATLANG-ISH. Some might even say
> that it voilates a Linguistic Universal.
>    I'm not so sure. If a conlang were to violate a linguistic
> universal, surely it would be very difficult to use, and be incapable
> of expressing utterances other than the most simple. It may even be
> impossible to say anything at all in a lang that voilates a genuine
> universal.
> The reductive system outlined above would, I suggest, be easier to
> learn, easier to use, easier to parse be computer, less ambigious,
> less tangled in syntax than (say) Esperanto or any of the other
> Euroclones.
>
>    But then again, perhaps I've overlooked something crucial, and am
> talking rubbish. What do you think?

Not at all.  I think you're reinventing Loglan, in a way.  Your
'prepositions' are grammar words, and the rest are predicates.

--
Rex F. May
"That government is best which governs somebody else."
Visit my 'Tceqli' artificial language site at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7429/