Print

Print


Bruce Gilson skripted:
 
> There are some ways in which JC makes changes that I _personally_ would like,
> though _we_ as a group went differently. One of these is -e replacing -u for
> concrete neuters. I actually feel N30 (and GN) make too many distinctions, but
> there are members who _like_ the precision that this gives, and I have tended
> to accept that any decision that _someone_ thinks worth making ought to be
> capable of being made. As a result this is one place where our decision allowed
> for personal flexibility.
 
Actually, the multiplicity of sb endings really isn't the worst thing about
-u.  The worst thing is that it deprives you of the infinitive marker.
In my experience there will always be someone asking for some distinction or
another, and my job is to try to get the right balance.  -um has the advantage
of forming compounds like VAKUUM, so I wanted to keep it, but I didn't want
three endings.  Kjell seems to think we only need one, but I hope he can
accept -um if it is optional (and in a few derivatives), and I'm glad Bruce
can agree with this particular point.
What is GN?  Group Novial?
 
> One place James and I differ diametrically, I note, is his desire to increase
> the proportion of verbs with -a stems, while I think that it ought to be, if
> anything, _decreased_. But this is an issue about which the NRG is sharply
> _divided_, and as a result, GN will have very few stem-vowel changes as compared
> with N30.
 
Perhaps you feel freer to use endings other than -a because you have the -r.
I don't know if I'd do things differently in your position, but I don't
want to go into this any further at this stage.
 
> All in all, I do not think James' language to be a very bad idea. I could
> probably live with it as well as I could live with N30 unchanged. I am rather
> critical of the large number of places where he provides for optional forms,
> but I have to remind myself that Jespersen himself believed in providing
> options and letting usage work the issues out. I'm willing to concede James'
> system more legitimacy as a Novial variant than he is willing to concede
> ours, I believe.
 
Of course I'm grateful to Bruce for these reasonably complimentary remarks.
As Ray Brown recently said, it is not that we *want* to criticize your
project.  Indeed, if I felt I could sincerely heap praise upon every change
you've made, I wouldn't be bothering with my own development at all.
All I hope for is that we can still discuss the points we disagree on, that
we can learn from each other's projects, and that eventually the two projects
can get to the point where a closer collaboration could be contemplated.
 
James Chandler
[log in to unmask]