Print

Print


In an earlier message I wrote:
> Even though I support the pronunciation _sts_ for _sc_ + _e, i, y_ -
>because it is clearer - I can perfectly well understand and endure if
>people say _siensia_ instead of my pronunciation _stsi'entsia_.
 
And I should have added: The two variants in pronouncing _c_ are optional,
meaning that according to the IED and the grammar you may pronounce _cento_
as _sento_ or _tsento_.
 
I have heard a person pronounce _cento_ as in Italian as well.
 
You can never be sure that my countriman were not joking, when he  said
_nechesejo_. :-)  But considering _sufiche_ and _sufficient_ in English, I
remember that it was hard to distinguish _sango_ from _shangho_ from
_songho_. I once taught a course in Esperanto where I had people who had
studied French, and for them it was difficult to change from _car_ with a
-k- to _char_ with a _ch_.
 
When I began writing letters in Esperanto I was often using a dictionary
just to be sure that I was using the correct pronunciation, if one could
put it like that!
 
The only thing I want to say with all this is that Esperanto's sound system
is relatively complicated, and one has got to do more work with it than we
who already know it care to remember.
 
I can well imagine situations when the pronunciation is more important of
any language than the graphic picture of it. Same for Interlingua.
 
I expressed this in a very silly way in my previous message. What I wanted
to say was that the phonetic base of Interlingua appears to me to be easier
to handle than that of Esperanto. But perhaps I am partial here.
 
But when you write:
>This is a truism: spoken language is _never_ affected by the orthography.
>Orthography doesn't even enter into the speaking aspect of a language.
 
To say such a thing really to be on slippery ice! Spoken language may very
well be affected by the written form. At least Swedish.
 
I wonder if _Thomas_ pronounced with a _th_ instead of a _t_ would be a
possible example, but I must formulate that as a question, as I am not
competent.
 
Don wrote:
>Again, of value in a language used passively, in written form, but not so
>much so in a language used actively. And not of _any use at all_ outside a
>certain linguistic area, and not of much use anywhere outside of certain
>classes of people (but perhaps those are all you want to talk to, anyway).
 
That is basically why I would prefer a more energical launcing of the
collateral spelling. You should be able to write without having to look up
everything in the a dictionary when you are learning Interlingua.
 
Outside a certain language group and class both Interlingua and Esperanto
have the same problem of convincing someone who can only be convinced by
your argument, whatever this may be.
 
Esperanto tries to solve the problem by a simple grammar without exceptions
and nearly 100 % phonetical spelling. While  Interlingua tries to make use
of a much of latent language capacity as possible. Both methods have their
pros and cons.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Svedia - Sweden