Paul O. BARTLETT | Re: [europidgin] Re: Tenses and plurals (was: general comments)

• Autor: Paul O. BARTLETT (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [europidgin] Re: Tenses and plurals (was: general comments)
• Data: 2002-09-19 01:00
• Mesaje: 152 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, George Boeree wrote:

> I basically agree with Bjorn that the -va/-ra system is easiest in that
> it is consistent and reduces the numbers of particles floating around a
> sentence.¿ In this case, I think is is also best to make it "required,"
> even if other words also indicate past or future.¿ The same thing would
> apply regarding the plural -s.
> [cut]

    Indeed, some people have argued that a handful of reegular flexions
(usually suffixes in many west European tongues) are no harder to
handle than a handful of free floating particles.  As for a plural
marker (here, -s), I have changed my views.  I think that using it in
all instances of plurality is no more difficult than remembering to
leave it off if there is some other indicator (such as a numerical
form).

    In general, history seems to show us that with respect to auxiliary
languages, mere "simplicity" is far from the whole story.  Aramaic,
Akkadian, and Koine Greek were not exactly "simple," but they were
widely successful for long periods across areas as auxiliary languages.
I think we have to beware that in our quest for "simplicity" we
overlook what else is involved in getting an IAL into use.  After all,
one person's Necessary Feature is another person's Fatal Flaw, but much
of the world does not care about hair-splitting linguistic arguments.
They are more concerned about what the effort of learning a language
will bring them.

--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett@...
PGP key info in message headers