Paul O. Bartlett | Re: [LFN] Re: “Imajinar”

• Autor: Paul O. Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Re: “Imajinar”
• Data: 2005-05-05 01:03
• Mesaje: 1143 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Roy McCoy wrote (somewhat excerpted):

> George Boeree wrote:
>
>> The purpose of LFN is to become the single international auxiliary
>> language for the world.
>
> Wow. I'm glad to see this serious, if audacious, statement of intention,
> and I hope it will be constantly remembered.

     Audacious, yes. :-)  But it doesn't hurt to think big.

>                                              In line with this, I go back
> to George's earlier defense of "imajinar":
>
>> as for "imajina" and "relijion," it is simply a matter of keeping to
>> LFN's phonemic principle -- spell it as you say it!  [...]

     One matter I think is often overlooked in internet discussions of
IALs.  Internet discussion groups are predominantly written media.  In
the first cut, languages are spoken and (conceptually) only later
written down.  Some languages, of cojurse, have no written form at all.
Fora such as these reverse things, giving a predominance to written
forms.  Yes, 'religion' is closer in *written* structure to widely used
*written* forms (including English), but, as George points out,
'relijion' is closer in *spoken* structure to *spoken* forms (including
English, in my opinion as a native speaker).  Do we go with speaking or
with writing?  LFN goes with speaking, and requires that writing
conform to speaking.  A defensible position.

> Here, however, in the case of "g" versus "j", I don't see that such
> a possibly unsolvable problem exists, and I'll stand by what I stated
> before: that Esperanto here demonstrates that pronunciation may conform
> conveniently to orthography rather than vice versa. Indeed, one isn't
> yet "saying it" much in LFN, and different languages pronounce the "g"
> differently anyway.

     True, but a constructed IAL has to pick some form and go with it.
Again, which conforms to the other, speaking or writing?

> Moving back to the stated purpose of LFN, I note that a natural look
> is certainly a strong plus in the selling-it-to-everyone department.
> One can supposably accept "disionario", for example, though such a form
> conforms in neither orthography nor pronunciation

     It may not conform strictly to source languages, but it does
conform to basic LFN syllable structure.  One thing that I would say
in LFN's favor if it is truly aimed at being an *international*
auxiliary language is that it avoids a lot of consonant clusters, which
are difficult for adult learners from many language groups.  (We who
speak Germanic and Slavic languages may tend to forget this.)  So I
think this sort of choice of form is defensible.

>                                                   - because it's somehow
> inoffensive. "Imajinar" and "relijio", on the other hand, are jolting.

     That is not a universally held opinion. ;-)  Joltingness may be in
the eye and ear of the beholder.  The forms are clear to me, even if
they do not conform strictly to the *written* forms of some languages.

--
Paul O. Bartlett