Print

Print


James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> skripted:
 
>Bruce Gilson scripted:
 
>> [My attempt to put it into N30:]
 
>If Bruce will allow me, I'd like to suggest a few improvements to the
>translation:
 
>> Personal remarko.
>> In lon novi libre "Un internationali lingue" <note 1> editet in anglum,
>> germanum, e danum,  prof. O. Jespersen skripte inter altres pri Occidental ke
>> per lumen sisteme de derivatione lum es li kontinuatione de Neutral e
>> spesialim Reform-Neutral de Rosenberger.
>
>> Disi <note 2> assertione es un fundamental e regretendi erore, kel apari
>                asertione
Sorry. Of course, no double letters in N30. I was looking too closely at the
Occ.
 
>> anke in li verke de prof. Guerard "A short history of the International
>                   da
True. There is a subtle difference, and James caught it here.
 
>> Language Movement" vor lo parla pri me kam <<joint author of R.
>                                         kom
Sorry. Those to I tend to confuse, and after I mailed it I too thought "kom"
was really the right word here.
 
>> Neutral>>.
>
>> On pove dikte ke li kontre de kel prof. Jespersen dikte es veri. Depos li
>                      kontrum? konterum?
Kontrum, yes. Not "konterum," because when a POS-converting ending is added to
a prep. in -er, the -e- drops (see AIL, for example). Here I was thinking of
the slightly looser rules for -e vs. -u/-um in GN, and no change is needed in
the GN version, but it should be "kontrum" in N30.
 
>> komenso de elaboratione del Neutral me plurifoy refusad tu kolabora in disi
>> direktione, basat non sur skriptiv internationalitate, ma aprioristi fonetikal
>             fondat         skriptal                        apriori
Here I disagree with James. "Basa" is an e/a transformation of the noun "base"
and I think is the right word in N30. We want "based on," not "founded on"
here. Neither "skriptal" nor "skriptiv" appears in NL, and I used the form
closest to the Occ, but I re-examined the meaning of -iv in Nov and James is
probably right here. While "apriori" IS in NL, I don't think that is simply
what the original author meant, he really meant something more like "objection-
ably a priori," or "dogmatically a priori," which justified my word I think.
 
>> prinsipes de Schleyer, pro li non-siential metode de kolektiv laboro kun voto.
 
So I accept most of James' corrections, but request that 2 of them not be made.
 
                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)