Chris Burd wrote: > But POS marking isn't important for active use; the writer > always knows the POS. Passive use is where it matters, and POS marking is by the writer/speaker for the reader/listener. It is a tactic for effective communication. Language isn't solitaire! > I don't think that all Occ'ers avoid -e(r) verbs. I'm having a tough time finding an example of a verb in -er that is also often used as a noun. But if I do, I'll avoid using the -e form as a verb, and go for a compound. Consider the word "tremer/tremble" (another bad one today in Turkey). I can write "li trem", "li treme", "trement", "fe tremer", "va tremer", or just allow semantics to decide. I wish it were -a for all simple verbs. > (Novial > has exactly the same problem: once you take the naturalistic > post-verbal endings seriously, you have to admit that > -e verbs are part of SAE - -o/-a/-e nouns are another > question.) The Novial reformers did move to -a for all verbs IIRC. It is also used in other systems, and very natural. > > -r -t -nt .... verbs > -a -e -i > ^^^^^^^^ > don't forget I avoid -e and -i as simple verbs, -a is cool and most common. > It seems that "constructive" POS marking looked like an > intrusion to the Occ'ers. Minimal, optional marking worked > out better. I thought I would mark everything, but laziness soon takes over. Now I drop -i and -e where the sense is clear. A good combination is a marked -i -al -ic adjective with an unmarked noun, or an unmarked adj with a plural -es noun. > > > I know you're a fan of POS marking, but Interlingua isn't fake anything. > > > > IA makes me *guess* what POS each word might be in a given context. > > There are implicit POS flags that once you've got a sense of the > usual word order, figuring out what is what shouldn't be so hard. OK, but it kept me from learning IA. Perhaps it could have been explained better. But I think the IA system is a bit lacking there. > > Just sticking meaningless affixes on words to make them sound pretty, > They're not there to sound pretty. Gode's concern was to devise > an objective method to standardise the international forms > of words. To see why this was necessary, check out the Folkspraak > list. The basic procedure of the prototyping methodology is to > take the etymological ancestor, drop any feature not preserved > in at least 2 of the four control languages, and add any other > feature common to at least 3 of the controls. > > So, because -o and -a are preserved in both It and Es/Pt as > the typical reflexes of Latin -us and -a, they > end up in Interlingua. You can suggest another methodology, > but you've got to understand what the actual methodology was. This is totally bogus, taking what should be a suffix and calling it part of the "prototype" root. The roots are like "trem-", plus thematic vowel "-e-". Then you add the inflection or suffix by separate rule: "trem-er, trem-es, trem-ore" etc. Gode for some reason avoided the universally understood concept of a root. > Don't demonise Gode. His views on IALs were much closer to what > people like you and me and Mike (among others) are working on > than those of the "systematisers" were. He didn't believe in > the practicality of a worldwide IAL; but he did believe > there was a future for "bridge languages" linking language > communities that had a common basis. He thought that this was > a common enough historical phenomenon to make an SAE-based > auxlang a practical proposition. Perhaps he came to believe this after his product was released. His statement before, and Martinet's, indicate differently. But we've already discussed this, and disagree. OCC is more "central" then, if by systematizers you mean schematic in the Ido sense. OCC is as systematic as Ido. My beloved POS endings are all there, though optional, and I've come to like it better that way. The step from Ido to OCC is small; OCC naturalized the suffixes, where Ido had already largely naturalized the roots, from its Idiom Neutral parent. > From what I can tell (i.e., from the International Language > Review) a lot of Occidentalists hated Gode quite passionately. > They may have hoped that IALA efforts would culminate in > a coronation for Occidental, or near clone that they could > live with. Yes, and with Martinet in charge of IALA's project it would have been thus. Martinet wrote beautifully in Occidental. Whatever changes he made would have been beneficial. He fell victim to a power struggle with the cynical Gode. That's how I see it; it resulted in a disastrous schism. > So you may be picking up one-sided accounts. You > have to read what the man himself said. I suppose I should > really put some of that stuff up on the web. I will certainly read whatever you think is appropriate. But I am much more favorably impressed by living IA-ists; I think they are making a silk purse from a sow's ear. -- As they say in Tepa: hike waipettu.