Roy McCoy | Re: First Comments about EuroPidgin

• Autor: Roy McCoy (“Mr_Roy_McCoy”)
• Tema: Re: First Comments about EuroPidgin
• Data: 2002-09-18 22:21
• Mesaje: 151 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Alexandro scribin:

> la parolantos de tiniko, risersan la unasiono ei la ekumenismo

e:

> las parolantos de tinico risersane la unasiono mas la ecumenismo

Mi yam provin persuadi Alexandro ce "mas" ne estan bona vorto por "e",
pensigante pri la "mas" de hispanengo, al cia lia tinengo tiome similan.
Ju eble alias nun faron simila provo? Almene mi mem multe preferan "ei"
(qancam lo signifan "ovo" en nederlandengo).

I've already tried to persuade Alexandre that "mas" isn't a good word
for "and", as it makes one think of the "mas" of Spanish, which his Tino
so strongly resembles. Will others perhaps now make a similar attempt?
I, at least, greatly prefer "ei" (though it means "egg" in Dutch).

Victoro scribin:

> (1) I think "K" is better than "C" as a phonemic representation of /k/.

Iele lo estan. Sed la uso de "c" estan juste tio cio igan LFN aparta
e do interesa. Se oni forigun de lo tio, lo perdun sua ple elstara e
elstariga eso.

In some ways it is. But the use of "c" is precisely what makes LFN
different and thus interesting. If one took that from it, it would lose
its most outstanding and distinguishing characteristic.

> (2) I think all verbs should end in -ar to be consistent. It seems
> a bit crazy to have -ir, -er, and -ar.

Plene consentite. I agree completely.

Bjorn scribin:

> However, I know that a very common criticism against NOVIAL is that it
> replaced "c" by "k" and "s".

Ciele iulo rimarcigin al mi, e mi legin pose, Jespersen antisipin tia
critico e mem proponin la eblo, ce oni povun scribi per "k" en norda
Europo e per "c" en suda Europo.

As someone remarked to me, and as I read later, Jespersen anticipated
this criticism and himself proposed the possibility that one might
write with "k" in northern Europe and with "c" in southern Europe.

George scribin:

> Your second idea is perhaps based on a misunderstanding:  The ending for
> infinitives (not for verbs in general) is -r, and not -ar, -er, or -ir.
> There are no specific endings for nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc., as
> there are in Esperanto.

Tio semblan memcontredira (char vi jus scribin ce la infinitiva finaso
estan -r), sed ne tiol mi volin diri. La puncto estan ce con finaso -r,
chia verba radico (e haban tiome multas!) isan unu litero pli longa,
e la lerno de tia litero - cia varian de vorto al vorto - aldonan signife
al la peno lerni la lengo, ju la litero estan parto de la radico, ju lo
estan parto de la finaso. Ne vere gravan, do, al cio lo apartenan.

That seems to be self-contradictory (as you just wrote that the infinitive
ending was -r), but that's not what I wanted to say. The point is that with
the -r ending, every verbal root (and there are so many!) becomes one
letter longer, and the learning of that letter - which varies from word
to word - adds significantly to the work of learning the language, whether
the letter is part of the root or of the grammatical ending. It doesn't
really matter, then, to what it belongs.

Roy