Print

Print


James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>Cheradenine Zakalwe (Phil Hunt) wrote:
 
>> > Tu pos pensar toton qui tu am, but it no causara los lernar it.
>> > In realiti, est necesa qui tu acept persons como los est, et no
>> > probe facar los estar perfecta.
 
>I haven't pulled apart a Eurolang text before, but today I'm just in that
>sort of mood:
 
>TU.  Certainly a natural form for "you"; but given that this is the only
>form available, won't it be hard for Romance speakers to get used to
>addressing complete strangers with TU?
 
Well, in CZ's defense, is that any worse than addressing dear friends as "vu"
in Novial?
 
>POS.  We have POT-, POD- and POV- as natural forms for this, so why on
>earth choose POS- ?
 
I suspect from "possibility" and its relatives.
 
>BUT.  I think all but the Northern British will find this a very
>unfortunate choice.  Why not use Ido-Novial MA?
 
I agree this was a poor choice. EL uses a lot more English forms than it
ought to, as I've commented myself.
 
>NO.  If it were up to me, I would use NON for the adverb.
 
NO is good Spanish, so...
 
[...]
 
>NECESA.  Are we supposed to pronounce this [nekesa] ?
 
I think CZ has commented before that he's looking for visual, not auditory,
recognizability.
 
[...]
 
>ACEPT.  And we are supposed to say [akept] ?!
Again, visual, not auditory, recognizability.
 
                                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)