Print

Print


A 06:41 AM 11/27/98, tu ha scribite:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> >still, I wish the grammar of Ia were more restrictive,
>> >defining where the bl**dy unmarked adjectives go.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "unmarked adjectives."
>
>It could have been decided that adjectives follow the
>noun, or precede; or there could have been a mandatory
>distinction made by an adjectival ending, or something.
>It is not normal in any non-case-marked-to-the-hilt
>language to allow such liberties ... I hope!
>I don't like puzzling it out by omnipotent "context".
>More regular Ido/Esperanto win heavily on this point.
 
I do like the Ido system. We tended to put the long
adjectives after the nouns and the shorts ones before.
And I think it was Louis de Beaufront who suggested that,
if you have two adjectives, you could put them on either side
of the noun.
 
Beaufront was one of the "geniuses" of Ido, although
he is controversial in some quarters. Andreas Juste,
a kind of Ido poet laureate, sees Louis de Couturat
as being much of what de Beaufront only claims to be.
We rarely used case-marking, and this was alright with me.
I guess some folks prefer more determinism, while others
prefer more freedom. I lean toward the "freedom" side, but
there's room for everybody. :)
 
But Interlingua is so similar to Ido in these respects!
Long adjectives tend go after, short ones before, etc. etc.
Rare case marking, it's even rare in the pronouns, as it is
becoming rare in Ido, or at least it was when I was an active
Idist. So I guess I'm not sure where the distinction lies.
I often think about those times in the "Idistaro." I wonder
how everybody's doing?
 
>> I think there's at least one Interlingua dictionary with
>> more than 100,000 entries. I'm not sure if it's out yet,
>> but soon! The larger dictionaries also have large numbers
>> of word combinations, in addition to actual entries. IED
>> says that there are potentially several hundred thousand
>> international words. Enough?
>
>Um, both too many and not enough. These are not international
>in the sense of being at-sight-recognizable to over 50%
>of us Americans, let alone other non-European non-Americans.
>It only really works well in Europe and Latin America,
>judging by raw numbers; granted, no other root stock has
>as much potential; but I observe it isn't quite "global".
 
I have just one small point here. Almost all of those new
words (more than some 95%) should be similar to the English.
In fact, the percent should be even higher than in the IED,
because now the grammatical words are pretty much taken care
of. The newest words tend to be technical, and these words
have the greatest international diffusion of all.
 
I'm sort of enamored by the WIN (a larger Interlingua-Dutch
dictionary). It has lots of new words. Here is a sample taken
randomly (eyes-closed technique) from the WIN. I've quickly
defined them in English. This one wasn't quite as transparent
as my last random sample, but I think most of the words reflect
the English pretty well--enough to be recognized.
 
anthropocentrismo anthropocentrism
cantabile         1. singable 2. (mus.) cantabile
condescendentia   condescension
disinfection      disinfection
exempte           exempt
notitia           notice, news
precari           precarious (also used in jurisprudence)
reimportation     reimportation
selector          selector, one who/that selects
unanime           unanimous
>
>Maybe it's good enough, I don't know. Esperanto uses a
>smaller but less at-sight-etc vocab and that works too.
>While you guys do the pragmatic thing, I hope others
>are off designing a better next-generation instrument.
>I imagine it to be culture-neutral, minimal, powerful,
>computer-understandable, and mathematically well-defined.
>And do my laundry.
:)
 
There's always room for improvement. I don't know if we
can make a language that's computer-parsabile but still
parsable by humans. But I'll keep an open mind.
 
>> >Nobody has tried it recently, but I think maybe
>> >a new class-hierarchical language is the Way;
>> >a dictionary would amount to a small encyclopedia ...
>> >and it would be easy to memorize and use the top-level
>> >words, which would be the shortest and most common.
>> >I imagine the WordNet noun hierarchy, relexed.
>>
>> You know, I think that's a great idea! Bravo, Charles! People
>> could learn as much as they felt comfortable with, starting with
>> the easiest words. The IED might give you some useful ideas.
>> It has a similar structure, if I'm understanding your concept
>> correctly.
>
>People gave up on that idea in a previous century, but
>playing around with WordNet (English and Euro versions)
>might tempt one to re-examine it. Not sure I understand
>"the concept" correctly, either. Still exploring.
>
All the best to you,
Mike R