Print

Print


At 05:04 22/2/98, Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
.......
>>But what if you used a system closer to English? The _uniform_ ending would
>>be simply -IONE.  For example if, say, the infinitive suffix was -ER (Im
>>*not* saying it should be), we would have:
>
>>distributer     distributione
>>evoluter        evolutione
>>lekter          lektione
>>skripter        skriptione
>>formater        formatione
>>etc.
>
>I like this system much better than Marcos'.
 
Thanks.  :-)
 
>The  only advantage, in my eyes,
>of the NN system is that our forms are shorter in those cases where the -ione
>forms end in <vowel> + tione. And these shorter forms are closer to the natur-
>ally occuring forms in a few languages (though, in most cases, this does not
>apply to English).
 
Agreed.
 
>>We could even accommadate 'oddities' like:
>>opiner          opinione
>
>>This would leave no optionally irregular alternatives.
>>Just a thought.
>
>I don't necessarily want to go back and undo a lot of work we've done over a
>period of several months.
 
 
[...]
>
>
>>[BRUCE]
>>>>>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.
>
>Not for anyone else. It is for me. I don't intend the argument that you
>(Marcos) and I are going in opposite directions to _convince_ anyone that I'm
>right and you wrong; I only state it to _explain_ why I am unwilling to accept
>that plan.
 
I'm not even sure about the different directions. It depends to some extend
where the viewer's standing.  From where I am it looks more vaguely
parallel directions - but certainly not something to argue about.
 
>When I was 11 years old I created my first IAL. It had -o/-a/-e as sex markers
[snipped - but noted]
>a language if I were starting from scratch, I am not about to change it, or to
>look kindly upon someone else's plans to change it. Does this make my views
>any clearer?
 
On -a/-o/-e, yes.
 
[.....]
>>On the other hand, both James Chandler & Jay Bowks do seem to be going in
>>an opposite direction, i.e. towards "more naturalism".
>
>I have not seen enough of James' changes to tell if this is true of him. He has
>_argued_ in favor of keeping more of the changes toward naturalism that the
>LJN introduced in the 1930s. But the language I see emerging from James looks,
>to my eyes, _closer_ to what we are producing than Marcos' proposed language
>does. James has adopted a few of the same changes we have (merging -u and -im
>adverbs under -im, for example) and kept most of the same endings we did.
>
>Jay, however, _does_ want a more naturalistic language. He is a partisan of
>Interlingua, and it shows. I think that when we compare Jay's (and Phil Hunt's,
>BTW: he is also in our group even as he continues to elaborate Eurolang)
 
Interesting - I've never understood how a partisan of one system can work
in a constructive way on a similar conIAL which would, if successful,
clearly be a rival.  (I can understand a partisan of, say, Ido working on
something like Voksigid, but not on a potential Euroclone rival.)
 
>suggestions, which go toward naturalism, with Dave Harris', which go further
>toward schematism than _I_ really want, it becomes clear that in our group,
>my positions are rather middle of the road: what changes we make go toward
>more schematic in most cases, in the other direction (such as adopting {z})
>in others.
 
...which has, quite frankly, made me wonder if sometimes your group are not
getting the worst of both tendencies, rather than the best.  I think if I
were involved in a "group-produced" project I'd feel a whole lot more
comfortable with some pretty clear parameters laid down first.  However, I
mustn't get involved in the internal politics of the N98 group.
 
[.....]
>>>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.
>
>>Basically because no natlang has felt the need for this.  Also, while the
>>traditional Graeco-Latin division of words into the traditional "parts of
>>speech" more or less still works for modern European languages (English, at
>>least, IMO is certainly straining it), they seem less than satisfactory on
>>a global basis.
>
>As I've never felt that attempting to cater to the whole world can possibly
>lead to a feasible IAL, and speakers of "modern European languages" are the
>primary ones I want to accommodate, this argument is not valid in my own
>efforts. But in any case, I've heard it said that even Chinese distinguishes
>between nouns and verbs,
 
It does indeed - but not with PoS.  I suspect the distinction between verb
& noun is pretty universal.  What I'm thinking of are things like, e.g.
adjectives, which in both Chinese & Japanese (*not* related languages) have
more in common with verbs, whereas in our western langs they have more in
common with nouns.
 
>(traditional Chinese grammar considers only 2 parts of speech: full words
>and particles).
 
I agree this is not an adequate description of modern Chinese grammar.
 
>>The argument put forward for PoS marking is that they provide 'sign-posts'
>>to the 'sentence landscape'.  I think the judicious use 'particles' and
>>'pointer words' can do this better.
>
>I think this is a possibility. I would like to see someone try to do it.
 
I'm feeling tempted.  I have occasionally toyed with the idea of producing
a Euroclone on such lines as an intellectual exercise.  Maybe....?
 
>I think Glosa tries, but I don't find that it works very well.
 
I agree.
 
Ray.
 
 
=======================================================
Written in Net English
Humor not necessarily marked
No intentional misreprsentation of another's statements
 
Gerasko d'aei polla didaskomenos (SOLON)
=======================================================