Print

Print


>Dear friends,=0D
=0D
Mea amiko skribis:=0D
=0D
<<=0D
Once the grammar and dictionary are available, we will be using the langu=
age much
more.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
So not now, but I understand your point of view.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
There is, especially in a group project, a need to express subtle distinc=
tions.=20
These cannot yet be expressed _in_ GN, because one of the points under di=
scussion
is _how_ to do so. We do not, as Zamenhof did, have anyone with the power=
=0D
to decide on the precise distinction between (in GN) -ione and -nse words=
. So if
I were using GN and not Eng., I could use a word in one of those endings=0D
and be misunderstood because the other person makes a different distincti=
on. As more
and more group decisions are made, this problem becomes less and less acu=
te. We _are_
already using the language to some extent. The weekly status reports, for=
 example,
are entirely in GN. Some of the ongoing discussion is as well.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
There is a use in Novial about Novial but not as I understand it about th=
e outside
world (poetry, novels, etc.)=0D
=0D
<<=0D
We don't have quite the same situation. Every new decision produces a sli=
ghtly new
version, but not a majorly new one. And our decisions are made by vote,=0D
not by fiat.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
I understand that the language may be then very difficult to use, as new =
changes
make obsolete every texts or studyguides in that language (Novial).=0D
=0D
<<=0D
But the reason they _could_ use Ido in Progreso is that Beaufront's gramm=
ar had already
appeared. We haven't reached that point. The Delegation did not receive t=
he Ido proposal
_in_ Ido. (Weferling _did_ produce his standard grammars _in_ Intal. At l=
east 21
different=0D
versions!)=0D
>>=0D
=0D
I am speaking not about the Delegation (however this is an argument in yo=
ur favour),
but about the Ido community that use(d) the language to make reforms juge=
d necessary,
i.e. while some years in the beginning of this century.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
When the language is issued to the public in _defined_ form, we will prod=
uce texts
in it. Now is hardly the time. The two Bible translations I've produced a=
re already
obsolete, and it's hardly two months since I produced them.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
But the Novialists around the years 40 did use the language making change=
s in it.
 
=0D
<<=0D
No, Interlingua was mostly used for _scientific_ material, not novels. I =
don't want
to translate novels, because I don't _read_ novels, even in English!=0D
I have a great distaste for works of fiction, in any language. This does =
not mean
that _nobody_ can produce GN translations of novels, but only that _I_ wi=
ll=0D
not do so. And I _have_ already produced some Bible translations (Psalm 2=
3 and Isaiah
2:4), but clearly they will need to be reworked as the language changes.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
Interlingua was used not only in scientific material, but also in works o=
f poetry
and fiction. A glance to the Bibliographia de Interlingua suffices just t=
o show how
outside the track this assertion is.  The scientific texts are clearly in=
 minority
and equals (in quantity) the spiritual books.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
And I do not think _any_ translations appeared into Esperanto, Ido, or In=
terlingua
before a grammar or dictionary appeared. I think there is a question=0D
of timing here. We are talking about a language _under_development_: like=
 E-o in
the years before 1887, or Interlingua in 1948.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
Well we have the book _An International Language_ by Jespersen at least? =
 May it
not be a basis for the time being?=0D
=0D
>>Play in your little wordly world if you do not want >>to listen.=0D
=0D
I was too sarcastic here. Sorry about that.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
If you were presenting this advice _after_ the dictionary and grammar had=
 been publicly
issued, it would be sound. Those people, like Kjell, who have a=0D
well-defined language to propagate have the luxury of grammars and dictio=
naries to
consult and an agreed-upon meaning for the words that they use. We do not=
.=0D
>>=0D
=0D
I was under the impression it was the case.  The changes you are making d=
oes not
modify 90 % of the language.  The international words just remains the sa=
me.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
Be aware that our situation is different.=0D
>>=0D
I understand: I use a language and you are molding one.=0D
=0D
<<=0D
You are not trying to _develop_ an IAL. That's the difference.=0D
>>=0D
Translating in Ido a novel or writing about our everyday life or creating=
 poetry
demands to=0D
-create proverbs=0D
-looking new expressions in order to render thoughts=0D
-create neologisms or new compounds=0D
So that's quite a change for a language. At=0D
=0D
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/8009/1ma-lektolibro.html=0D
which is to be found in=0D
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/8009/Listo.html=0D
=0D
a book of literary texts is there. I saw reading it how rich the language=
 Ido is.
 
=0D
I understand your point of using English as a tool to make changes while =
the language
is under development. I thought _An International Language_ of Jespersen =
could have
been that tool, but it seems that,s not the case.=0D
=0D
After all you are the Novialists, I am not one!=0D
=0D
Friendly,=0D
=0D
=0D
---=0D
Martin Lavall=E9e=0D
=0D
La internaciona linguo Ido=0D
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/8009/idolinguo.html=0D
http://yi.com/home/ChandlerJames/=0D
 
 
 
 
Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com