Print

Print


On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:01:35 GMT, "Raymond A. Brown"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>"There is thus a fairly great number of cases in which the existence of
>necessary derivitives in -IONE and -IV obliges us to select verbs ending=
 in
>-E (akte, aktione, aktiv, etc.); similarly the verbal ending -I is =
claimed
>by -ITIONE (expedi, expeditione, &c.) and -U by -UTIONE (evolu,
>evolutione).  But apart from these verbs it is best to have the uniform
>verbal ending -A, as it would be intolerable in each particular case to
>remember whether the original verb belonged to the first, second or =
third
>Latin conjugation; sometimes living languages have different vowels (F
 
Well, this is the paragraph where Jespersen supports my novial reform
project. I don't know wether he would accept my ideas, I haven't him
here to ask, but it's clear I'm working over his ones:
"it would be intolerable in each particular case to remember whether
the original verb belonged to the first, second or third Latin
conjugation;"
In my project, I have unified all verbs, with the ending -A. Those
ones ending in -I or -U are transformed to fit in the new scheme:
puni =3D> punita, distribu =3D> distributa, evolu =3D> evoluta, etc
Those ending in -E just get the -A: opine =3D> opina, lekte =3D> lekta,
etc.
Now, for the -(t)ione matter, the suffix will be ever -atione. But
there are an alternative form (-ione) for those verbs which formerly
ended with -e -i -u (this is how we will keep the naturalistic form).=20
We have not to learn which verbs are those of -ione suffix because
they are the same as on our natlangs. Non-occidentals might use the
-atione always. That will give non-euroclonic words from them as
opinatione, distributatione, but I don't think that's problematic, and
they would learn by practice where the -ione suffix is advisable.=20
 
With this system (which is not perfect, but is the best I've found
IMHO), we have got an uniform verbal -a, we have got the nice
possibility of -ed as fixed preterite marker (instead of those
unnatural -ad -od -ud), we have got -r as possible infinitive marker
after -a, and we have got desappearance of shared endings (-e, -i,
-u).
 
 
>>I think there are several solutions, each of which looks ugly to the =
proponents
>>of another. And I think we can only solve this by producing our own =
languages
>>and letting them compete.
>
>On that I agree completely.
>
>>I do not like Marcus' solution, nor he mine. I am
 
The only arguments I've heard for you Bruce to not liking my solution
is that it goes on the opposite direction of yours. I don't think this
is a strong argument. And I know my project is not perfect, but I
believe it brings several good improvements at a very low price.
 
>I have no preferred solution of my own; partly because I yet to be
>persuaded that (fairly) strict PoS marking is particularly desirable, =
and
 
Could you explain more about your position in this matter, Ray?
I think it would be interesting, in spite that I like strict PoS
marking.
 
>partly because I have desire to produce a Novial-based conIAL.
 
Sorry?
 
>I merely ask that aguments for one's preferred scheme or against =
another's
>preferred scheme be factual.
 
I think that's helpfull for everyone. Thanks :-)
 
 
 
Saludos,
Marcos