[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- magomagno2 skrzypszy: > I'm working on my own ideal international Romance lang. I'm just > calling it Neo-Latin for now(I know, not very original) Here's some > of the basic stuff. Tell me what ya think. Well, for what it is worth, I agree with Yitzik and Padraic that terms like "ideal" and "international" should be avoided in our context. This list is basically about languages created for artistic purposes, and as such, we don't cover the "ideal" and "international" aspect of a language. Which BTW does not mean that its linguistic or artistic aspects cannot be discussed here. Nevertheless, welcome to the list! Yesterday, I already started to write a reply, but since it requires a completely different mindset to give sensible advise about a language like yours, I got lost half-way and threw away my message. But since the discussion has now started without me, here I am. > Nouns end in a, e, o, or u, according to their ablative singular > ending in Latin. Why the ablative? We all know that modern Romance nouns are based on the Classical Latin accusative, minus the -m, but with the plural ending -s. > Aqua Fratre > Filio Fructu > The plural is formed by adding -i. > Aquai Fratrei > Filioi Fructui I agree with my esteemed colleagues Yitzik and Padraic that "-s" would be a more logical choice. Just look: - aqua > aquas - fratre > fratres - filio > filios - fructu > fructus (I have my doubts about the last one, though) > The definite article is il. The indefinite is un. No gender, obviously. Well, let me just give you something to consider. For whom are you making this language? If you want to include the Chinese, the Africans, the Polynesians, in short, the whole world population, then you must understand that simply eliminating grammatical irregularities is far from enough. For example, you should in that case eliminate all sounds that could be a problem somewhere: consonant clusters, r/l, etc. But however easy you make it, a Chinese who doesn't know Latin will not be able to understand it anyway, so what's the point? On the other hand, if you want to make a language that could be understood by all Romance-speakers, or even by all Europeans, then please don't forget that almost every European language (including all Romance language) actually do have gender, and you won't make it easier for them if you eliminate gender and some other irregularities that everybody is used to. > De + il = Di. This is the only contraction in Neo Latin. Why this contraction? In a language that claims to be as easy as possible, such a feature would be redundant. Of course, I like contractions, but indeed, as Padraic suggests, why not make more of them, like "al", "col", etc.? BTW "di" is a bad choice indeed. I suggest "del" or "dil". > All adjectives end in the last remaining vowel, -i. That would be highly confusing for people who actually know Latin or another Romance language. And as I said, a person who doesn't know them won't be able to understand Neo-Latin anyway. > The compartive is formed by adding -or. > The superlative is formed by adding -ssimo Since comparative and superlative are adjectives themselves, I would expect "-ori" and "-ssimi". > All adjectives can change to adverbs by dropping the i and adding - > emente. Well, that's at least on feature borrowed from Vulgar Latin and not from Classical Latin. Does it always work like that? Even in sentences like: "[I paint my car] blancemente" or "[You have done your job] bonemente" ? > Pronouns [...] These seem to be almost completely borrowed from Italian. Why? > Verbs > Verbs have 4 tenses, Present, Past, Future, and Conditional. (Padraic:) > > You call Cond. "tense"?!!! Dog my cats! > > Yep. Pretty common to just lump the conditional > with the other tenses in modern Romance language > texts. I consider the cond. a tense in Kerno; > clearly Andrew considered it such in Brithenig. In Wenedyk it is a mood rather than a tense, but that is basically because it merged with the conjunctive. However, there are plenty of natlangs where the conditional is a tense, including Dutch, where we call it "(im)perfect future tense". > Present > Amam Amami > Amat Amati > Amas Amasi "Amat" for the second, and "amas" for the third person? I would strongly advise against that, because this is going to cause lots and lots of unnecessary confusion. > Present Participle Amante Shouldn't that be "amanti", as the participles are adjectives, too? > Well, what do ya think? I'm open to any comments or suggestions. I > know you'll probably tell me to get rid of the verb conjugations, but > I think they're easy enough to keep in. Well, I won't be harsh on you, because you seem to be quite young, and these might be your first steps into the wonderful world of conlanging. For many of us conlangers, playing with Latin was the beginning. Perhaps you haven't discovered the treasure of possibilities yet. Of course, you can pursue a "carreer" as an auxlanger. But then you must realise that already hundreds, if not thousands, of languages like yours exist, including parodies like "Romaklono" or "Desperanto". And every single one of them claims to be more "ideal", more "perfect", and more "international" than the others. While a few of them, notably Esperanto, have indeed gained some support, the odds of your success are extremely small. On the other hand, you might consider turning Neo-Latin into something more personal; just add features of languages you like, create words because they look and sound beautiful to you, and not because they are dictated by a hardly definable internationalism; play with regularity and irregularity, because irregularity is the sauce that makes a language taste; make a language that is fully and completely yours, and come visit us for applause ;)) . Just shove the idea of auxlanging aside for a moment, and take a look at languages like Brithenig, Kerno, Aingeljã, Ninfeano, Jovian, or my own Wenedyk. Most of these languages are hypothetical, in the sense that they show how Latin would have evolved under different conditions; they are examples of unique languages that follow an interesting idea, and a pleasure to look at. Perhaps these and other languages can inspire you to turn Neo-Latin into something more personal, or to drop Neo-Latin altogether and start something new. Best regards, Jan ===== "Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer