George Boeree | Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa

• Autor: George Boeree (“cgboeree”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa
• Data: 2005-05-13 13:18
• Mesaje: 1181 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Hi, Paul.

Just a couple of responses to your points:

On May 12, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Paul O. Bartlett wrote:

>      First, as I have mentioned before, I do think that Lingua Franca
>  Nova is a perfectly legitimate conIAL proposal, as much so as many of
>  the other "big" contenders.  There are a number of good things (in my
>  opinion) about it, such as a simple phonology and relative simple
>  phonotactics (although some of the syllable-initial consonant clusters
>  could be difficult for some learners), completely phonemic spelling,
>  possibility of correct spelling in the Cyrillic alphabet, and the
> like.

Thanks!

>  Its vocabulary is somewhat recognizable to speakers of many WENSA*
>  languages (although this feature may not seem as important to some
>  people as to others).

There are reasons for an effort to appeal to "wensa" speakers:  1. They
are the most likely group to adopt an international language; 2. Wensa
languages include a medical/scientific/engineering vocabulary that is
the world standard; 3. Add up all the wensa speakers, including ones
that speak languages such as english as a second language, and you have
covered close to half the world.
>
>  ...      There are always judgment calls in the engineering design of
> any
>  constructed auxiliary language, and not everyone will agree with each
>  decision.  However, some people might consider some items as actual
>  simplifications, at the same time that others might consider them as
>  complications.  The following are a few points that might be
> addressed.
>
>  1)  Remove the four existing inflections and go to a strictly analytic
>  morphology.

Syntax includes only one inflection: the plural.  All other suffixes
and prefixes are derivational.
>
>  2)  Distinguish inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns.
>  (Some people might feel as strongly about these as some Romance
> speakers
>  feel about a subjunctive.)

Quite unnecessary:  The meaning is usually clear from context, and if
needed can be precisely indicated with "me e tu," etc.
>
>  3)  Distinguish interrogative and relative pronouns.  (This seems to
> be
>  a somewhat typical Indo-European conflation that could seem illogical
>  and confusing to people from other language families.  Distinguishing
>  them might actually seem simpler to some people.)

Again, you argue for simplification, then ask for complexity.  The
distinction is always clear from context!
>
>  4)  Abolish the continuative verb forms.  Many languages get along
>  perfectly well without such forms.  If there is no perfect-imperfect
>  distinction, according to the grammar, then why in heaven's name are
>  there continuative forms, which are often a sort of imperfective?

There are no continuative forms, just as there are no perfect/imperfect
forms.  LFN is capable of expressing the continuative, if the speaker
desires, by using es and the active verbal adjective.  You are
literally saying that you have this characteristic, of being one who...
  This conveys the sense of continuity.
>
>  5)  Clarify the prepositions.  Conflating spatial, relational, and
>  temporal meanings could be confusing to some people and thus less
>  simple.  And be aware that some languages scarcely have prepositions
>  at all, so that some learners would have a hurdle to overcome in using
>  prepositions to begin with.

Whereas coming up with increasingly precise prepositions, requiring
more to memorize, would somehow benefit them?
>
>  6)  What about attributive nouns?  They are so common in English that
>  many monoglot anglophones can scarcely conceive of a language without
>  them, whereas the grammars of many languages do not permit them.
> Unless
>  I missed it, I saw neither allowance nor prohibition in the grammar.
> (I
>  presume, then, that attributive nouns are not permitted, and English
>  speakers will have to live without them, just as Romance speakers will
>  have to live without a fully developed subjunctive mood.)

Attributive nouns are not a part of LFN.  There are a number of ways of
making a noun adjectival, such as using suffixes (-in, -os...) or using
de..   There are some words that are both adjective and noun, such as
sircula, meaning circular and a circular thing, ie. a circle.  They are
easy to spot, since they all refer to forms.

>
>       The point is not so much that the grammar must necessarily be
> this
>  way or that on the particular points above as that different people
> have
>  different ideas of what is "simple" in a language.  We have to be
> aware
>  of the possibility of our native language habits skewing our
> perception
>  of what is "simple" in a constructed auxlang.  What seems "simple" to
>  people from one language family may seem "complicated" or confusing to
>  people from another language family.

I think you underestimate us, Paul.  We are very well aware of all
this!  Not that it doesn't bear repeating.
"I like reality.  It tastes of bread." -- Jean Anouilh

"Cloquet hated reality but realized it was still the only place to get
a good steak." -- Woody Allen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]