[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@hidden.email>
wrote:
> 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.
Well, I really don't want any language _excluded_
just because it's not "artistic". Compare with
the whole Iggiddy mess over on Conlang a while
back. The problem wasn't the conlang as such, the
problem was the author's insistence on pressing
the hotbutton vocabulary like "ideal" and
"international" and "better than" and all those
other things nonauxlangers find so distastefull.
Frankly, I don't care how artless Neo-Latin may
be: so long as its auxlang aspects are discussed
in the appropriate list, the language itself and
the process of creating it ought not be stifled
here. Nor should an auxlanger be turned out just
because he's creating an auxlang. He must be made
aware of the Line, though, and should be reminded
of it if he cross it too many times! :)
> Which BTW does not
> mean that its linguistic or artistic aspects
> cannot be discussed here.
Absolutely.
> 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?
It's got all the oral vowels on the end, without
any funky -m or other consonants. That the plural
is derived from the nominative is odd, given the
above! Neo-Latin's plurals _should_ be in -is (or
else -ibus) if the scheme is followed properly!
> We all know that modern
> Romance nouns are based on the
> Classical Latin accusative, minus the -m, but
> with the plural ending -s.
Not Kerno, which of course retains the nom/acc
split.
> > 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)
Naturally, Romance languages have subsumed the
-e, -i and -u stems into some other declensions.
Of course, this is _Neo-Latin_, a language
purportedly based on _Latin_ noun stems. The
creator is therefore free to retain the full
fledged declensional array.
> > 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.
It also solves the wrong problem! What's
irregular for a Mandarin speaker may well be
totally normal and regular for me.
> 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?
Of course. The best argument against words like
"ideal", "international", etc.
> > 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.
A good point. Why pick on the -i stems! I stems
of the world unite! Fight the Iron _Turri_ of
Anti-I-ism with _vi_! Together, we can bring a
_fini_ to this mad _insapienti_!
Anyway, adjectives have traditionally been of the
same stem forms as other substantives. In other
old IE languages, they aren't restricted to -a,
-o and consonant stems either.
> (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,
Obviously it's a mood! In both Kerno and
Brithenig it's a mood. The point is that it's
easier to introduce it amongst the tenses - as if
it were just another tense - rather than try to
introduce yet another mood. It's a matter of
economy. The British Romance languages have a
number of difficulties that are more important to
impart (Brithenig with its mutations, Kerno with
its case structure); a learner would simply be
burdened with having to learn it as a mood, in my
opinion.
> > Present Participle Amante
>
> Shouldn't that be "amanti", as the participles
> are adjectives, too?
Or nouns. I guess they'd have to change from -i
(or -e) to some other vowel when so used?
> 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.
Hear hear! And anyway, only _I_ have created the
perfect auxlang. Of course, I simply haven't
published it as of now, lest it cause unnecessary
shame amongst all other auxlangers, depression
amongst Esperantists (because they've been
wasting their time) and would naturally make
newish auxlangers like the Great Wizzard quail in
abject terror and fall prostrate in pantaloon
dampening worship of the AUXLANG TO END ALL
AUXLANGS!!!!!!
Ahem. Anyway, the world just isn't ready for it,
yet....
Padraic.
=====
Passe lê tempeor po rizer; passe lê tempeor pois Ddé.
-- per tradicièn Niponor
.