Print

Print


Special sugar-frosted edition: Mike compares Turkish and Hungarian
(having learned a little of the former several years ago and more of the
latter more recently).
 
Robin Turner wrote:
 
> Kjell wrote:
 
Some stuff that has nothing to do with Turkish or Hungarian so I edited
it out. So sue me.
 
> I agree to a large extent.  My ideal IAL would have a very simple
> basic syntax and vocab, but a host of optional elements (e.g.
> different tenses/aspects).  For this reason, and others, I prefer an
> isolating language. However, there's isn't that much difference
> between isloation and agglutination as one might think -
 
I agree. A lot depends on presentation. I don't think Eo's plethora of
endings is all that bad and could use a few more [ -es possessive, -el
manner, -om amount] (especially if they're optional). Just treat them as
separate words for speakers of languages that don't let you do that sort
of stuff.
 
> agglutination tends to occur as a result of isolated particles
> running together.  Take Turkish, the classic example of an
> agglutinating language.
 
Now we're getting to it. Turkish, here is a much better example of an
agg. lang.than Hungarian, where you get three lousy ending slots for
nouns (1.number/2.possesion (sometimes mergedwith number) and 3.case (15
or more whopping cases next to Turkish's paltry six) and two for verbs
(1.tense-mood, 2. subject(which sometimes includes the object). You
actually do get lots of interesting derivational stem-forming suffixes
that are productive in varying degrees before the  tense-mood (only
four). Lots of cool stuff in Hungarian, but it's not like Turkish where
you can verbalize nouns and nominalize verbs back and forth again till
your heart's content.
 
Score so far
Turkish - 5 points for agglutination Hungarian -2  points
Turkish - 3 points for cases Hungarian - 5 points
Turkish - 1 bonus point for verbalization
 
> The progressive aspect suffix -Iyor- comes
> from the Old Turkish stem yoru- (Modern Turkish y=FCr=FC-) meaning
> "walk".
 
Cool, so that's why no vowel harmony there (Hungarian and Turkish are in
different leagues in the vowel harmony game, Turkish just has two types
and until recently often changed loan words to fit with vowel harmony.
Hungarian does much less of that but you get at least five types of
vowel harmony)
 
Turkish - 3 points for vowel harmony Hungarian 5 big points
 
> Similarly, "askerdi" ("He/she was a soldier") can also be
> written as "asker idi".
>
 
Verbalized nouns rule! Down with Hungarians pasty copula 'van' 'volt'
etc.Turkish 2 more verbalization points Hungarian - zip
 
Katona volt (he was a soldier, literally Soldier was .... yawn)
 
But Hungarian does have complex, frustrating interesting word order
whereas Turkish goes with rarely broken SOV (yawn)
 
Turkish - 3 points for cool but monotonous SOV Hungarian 5 points for
creative chaos
 
> You also see this process at work in conlangs e.g. in Lojban (chop,
> chop)
 
> n affix, as someone pointed out in this list a while
> back (e.g.in Turkish the passive of "dinle-mek" ( =3D listen) is not,
> as one would expect, "dinle-n-mek" but "dinle-ti-l-mek" (actually a
> passive causative) because "dinlen-mek" is "to rest").
 
Now homophony doesn't both Hungarians, no indeed. The all-important
definite/indefinite conjugation is neturalized in a few places latok (I
see - general) latom (I see it - specific) past tense both lattam.
 
Turkish does with cases what Hungarian does with verb endings.
 
Result - scoreless tie.
 
Now let's add things up.  Turkish -17 points Hungarian - 17 points  ( I
smell a fix!)
 
Result, learn either (or both), both are much cooler than any IAL
around.
 
 
Amike
Mike (thinking maybe he should take a break from this list)