cgboeree | Re: [LFN] deutx ma Deuxland
Hello, Carlos! Glad to see you are still around!
There are a number of problems: The name of a country is not always the
same as the name(s) of (all) the people in it; the name of the language
is not always the same as that of a country, and may be shared with
several ethnic groups, each with their own name! For example, Spain is
country; Spanish is a language, tho not of all of Spain, nor is it
restricted to Spain. Spain is not "spanish-land" nor is Spanish
"Spain-language." Nevermind how the Catalans, Galegos, and Basques feel
about all this! They are Spain-people, but certainly not "spanish!" Or
what about Castillian? is that Spanish? are they Spanish? what? See
what I mean?
My overall feeling was that people should name themselves as a people,
their language, and their nation. The list I made was suggestions
only. I tried to compromise in many of the names between phonemic
transcriptions and ones that kept some of the original spelling for
recognition purposes. I also pushed some of the names a bit to make
them easier to remember, such as using some suffixes consistently even
when it wasn't there. Engles is a good example: It captures the
spelling (which goes back 1000 years), a bit of the pronunciation (LFN
doesn't have a short I, so e is as close as i), and the -es in common
with a number of other languages (intead of the idiosyncratic -ish).
I believe that sometimes good politics should take a backseat to auxlang
principles!
George
Carlos Thompson wrote:
> In my own opinion, naming languages and countries should have two
> main approaches in an a-posteriori IAL: be as close as possible to
> the original or be as close as possible to the base languages. The
> first brings us close to doitx/Doitxland while the second approaches
> us to aleman/Alemania. Given that LFN is not IALA Interlingua, the
> second should not be too strong an argument.
>
> There are two other factors to consider: to be as close as possible
> to what native speakers want or to be as close as possible to what an
> IAL speaker needs.
>
> The first of theese factors might lead us to doitx/Doitxland, getting
> close to the original in German. The second would bring us close to
> doitxes/Doitxlan (assuming an "unofficial" -es suffix for language
> names, and a -lan suffix for -land).
>
> In my honest opinion, I would like to see more regularization. The
> point being a LFN student not having to memorize each root and each
> ending for each language/Country pair: deutx/Deutxland,
> nederlandes/Nederland, svensce/Sveria, espaniol/Espania, etc.
>
> root + 0 / Root +land : deutx / Deutxland
> root +es / Root + 0 : nederlandes / Nederland
> root1+sce / Root2+ia : svensce / Sveria
> root +iol / Root +ia : espaniol / Espania
>
> The approach would be: 1) use a native root, roots that the refered
> people would not find offensive, etc., 2) use
> regularized "unofficial" suffixes to derive the name of
> languages/countries/peoples, 3) allways allow for expresions
> like "lingua de ", "poplo de ", "pais de ", etc.
>
> -- Carlos Thompson
> ci vole ce la nom de se pais es ColOmbia e no Columbia
>
>