Print

Print


>Kjell Rehnstroem
> wrote:
>
>>  ... Il non noce
>>(hurts) si on etiam usa _insect-science_ illo es comprensibile, ma illo es
>>un explication del verbo (word) entomologia.
>
>Given that, with which I agree, why has there been such a long attack on Ph=
il
>Hunt's choice of words?
>
>I tend to believe in having a relatively rich vocabulary, which helps the
>writer
>say exactly what he means, but burdens the reader with more learning. Phil
>believes in a sparser vocabulary, which allows the reader to gain a fuller
>command sooner, but in many cases means that precision in writing requires
>more
>words. I happen to agree with Kjell that a word like "entomology" is intern=
a-
>tionally enough known that some form, with the appropriate ending for the
>structure of the language, of this word would not be a significant burden i=
n
>learning. But there is some merit in Phil's philosophy of limited vocabular=
y,
>and "insect-science" (being composed of elements of great internationality)=
 is
>a reasonable word in a limited-vocabulary IAL.
 
Si, ma le morphema vermente international es -logi- non _science_.
Il ha in quasi (nearly) omne (all) linguas europee pro exemplo:
psychologia
psykologi
psychologia
psychology
psixologia
sikoloji
 
astronomia
astronomy
astronomi
Astronomie
 
Si on imagina un equivalente a _insecto-science, a saper
star-science
es isto plus comprensibile que
astronomia?
 
In plus le pronunciation _skienke_ NON ES USATE IN UN SOL LINGUA MODERNE
CON EXCEPTION DE EUROLANG!
 
astronomia de altere latere es pronunciate in le mesme maniera in tote Europ=
a.
 
Un poco in anglese:
As for simplyfied vocabularies I think this is the wrong way to attack a
language. You use the words you need, and by definition you will use a
simple vocabulary when you are a beginner.
 
My experience is that in the beginning you use very simple vocabulary, but
you don't try to limit the vocabulary to a certain amount of words. you
work by enlarging the vocabulary all the time.
 
I mean the difficult thing for me is not to understand _ice_ if the word
for -ice_ is derived from a word that means _glacial_. When I study Finnish
I will find words like _j=E4=E4_ (I have to learn that, but _glasiaali_ is
clear at once? Why, because I have it in my own language: glacial, and you
have it in English as well.
 
Whan we have in common in the whole of Europe is words in -logia, -logi,
logy, not in _science_ (sajens, or skienke_). Pardon me, but this is
ridiculous. And is then zoology _animal-science or perhaps _best-science_.
If I know that the international words might be used, then I would go for
_zoology_, _soologia_ or something like that.
 
If I were to make a language I would probably try something like an
eclectic _logia_ and say that this is teaching, or science. And then I
would get:
logia =3D science =3D vetenskap =3D nauka =3D tiede =3D Wissenschaft etc.
 
I am only trying to give some helping input here. As far as I am concerned
entomology could be _bug-doktrine_ or _myggskap_. After all it is not my
project.
 
 
Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden