Print

Print


"Donald J. HARLOW" wrote:
 
> You should go to the author of this passage -- Martin Lavalee, I
> believe -- for an explanation. I am assuming that this means the
> same as "usabil pro to". Occidental's syntactic structure is
> somewhat less flexible than that of some (ahem!) other languages
> because of its lack of POS marking.
 
More disinformation from a biased-against-Occidental source.
The "to" means just the demonstrative "that", and isn't used
nearly as much as "ti = this". So, "usabil pro to" means
"usable for that", a rather awkward phrase but understandable.
The 100 short grammatical words of any language must be learned,
though OCC's are certainly much more recognizable than EO's.
 
Of course OCC *does* have the part-of-speech marking that I
like so much in Ido, but it is optional. One can generally
add -e or -es to mark singular/plural epicene nouns, and
use -i, -al, or -ic to mark adjectives. But the tendency is
for nouns to shed unnecessary baggage, so -e often drops.
What ruins Interlingua for me is the difficulty of easily
distinguishing adjectives from nouns; no problem in OCC.
 
Like nearly every other natural language in the world,
OCC uses different affixes to mark the multiple varieties
of adjective and noun that a naive understanding of grammar
lumps together. Linguists agree there are more than 5 POS.