Paul O. Bartlett | Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa

• Autor: Paul O. Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] La gramatica completa
• Data: 2005-05-13 23:37
• Mesaje: 1184 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

     One of these days I may genuinely try to reply in LFN. :)  At the
moment I'm too pressed for time, so I fall back on English.

On Fri, 13 May 2005, George Boeree wrote (here and there):

> 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.  [...]
>
> Thanks!

     I am trying to be fair.  Having been amongst conIALists for a
number of years, I do think that Lingua Franca Nova does have desirable
positive characteristics.

>>  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.

     Well, you had me fooled.  I would have sworn that the three verbal
endings -r, -nte, and -da were inflections.  If the endings for the
"ajectivo verbal pasiva" and "ajetivo verbal ativa" are not inflections,
I don't know what they are.

>>  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!

     The real point is that different people have different ideas of
complexity and simplicity.  Non-Indo-European speakers may consider the
I-E method actually being more complex than having separate series of
words on the ground that the I-E method overloads the words
confusingly.  And are we confident that the context always makes it
clear for people with much different language habits?

>>  4)  Abolish the continuative verb forms.  [...]
>
> There are no continuative forms,

     Say what?  There is a section of the Grammar clearly labeled
"Pasiva, continuante, e nonperfeta" (in the English version, "Passive,
Continuative, and Other Verb 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.  [...]

     Then this is specifically a continuative verb form, identical in
structure to the English progressive tense.  If it looks like a duck,
has feathers like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
chances are it's a duck, even if we call it a moose.  And again, there
are many languages which do quite well without continuative/progressive
verb forms, however built.

>>  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?

     Possibly.  Prepositions are some of the slipperiest critters in any
language which has them.  They are difficult for any non-native learner
to master in the target language.  Some people may actually consider it
a convenience and a benefit not to have semantically overloaded
prepositions.

     Again, I think that LFN is a perfectly legitimate entry in the
"conIAL sweepstakes" (if there were such a thing), as long as we
recognize that it is heavily weighted in favor of WENSA speakers and
might be considerably harder for non-WENSAns, especially non-I-E
speakers, to master.  For whatever it's worth, some conIAL designers
have tried to make their languages less weighted in favor of a single
language family in order to try to equalize the learnin burden.
(Whether they havbe succeeded is another question.)  It's just that
LFN "marketed" to non-I-E speakers will need a lot more
explanatory/descriptive/didactic material than it will to WENSAns.

--
Paul O. Bartlett

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