Antonio Fonseca | Re: [LFN] Freezing the basic grammar

Rio, 27/04/06.

Dear  Isaac,
Excuse for  comment your message in English, but
I feel that you are not proficient in LFN,  yet.
I hope  you be in shortest possible space of
time. ( Even English  has its subjunctive ;), not so easy, but subjunctive).

Your question, I´m sure, will be answered in a complete way  by Jorj.

I only want to show my standpoint about LFN, and its state of art.

>,,,,for that. I find myself though drawn to this project again and again,
>mainly because of its elegant design and sheer beauty.

I agree totally with you. The concept of LFN is
very, very good. Better, it  makes the language
spoken or written  seems like a natural one.

- Was there any discussion here about announcing the grammar of LFN
>to be "stable" at some point? Is such a thing planned? I do not mean
>as Esperanto's sacred "Fundamento",

I hope that Jorg doesn´t  issue a decree stating
that LFN grammar, lexicon and the much possible to be, be
frozen for ever and ever ;)

>but just as an agreement that
>the grammar will not be altered further, unless some new idea makes
>substantial improvement (unlikely). I believe such a formal
>announcement to be beneficial in the eyes of outsiders.

LFN has a very, very simple dialect, Lingua
Franca. Indeed was the beginning of all.
I consider LF important for the ones that just
start. It allows a very very basic level of
understanding and is perfectly usable for beginners purposes.

In my opinion, due to the very limited resources
of LF, LFN has to be created. It  is much more
powerful, not so creole ( for despair of a lot of
people  :) ), and I see that it has evolved not
so few, since a joined to the group about two  to
three years ago. The evolution was not easy, Jorg
is very tough in such questions and hard do
concede just a millimeter. In my opinion, for
him, have to be micrometer by micrometer.  He has his reasons and I respect.
In such aspect I would say that LFN grammar, in
its last version, is about to be stable. But, it is my opinion,
that it has not to be impeded of continuos evolution, as  needed.

The lexicon is another thing, as you say below.

>... I'm in the camp of "simplest grammar, widest vocabulary".
>I like accuracy and nuances, which I believe affixes and "context"
>can only make an approximation of, unlike "real" words. (Consider,
>"forgive" and "pardon", or "boy" and "son").

I agree totally with you.  It´s or not awful have
"fia" to "girl" and "daughter" ? I try to use "fia" only for "daughter"
and "fema joven" for girl, but it´s not the same thing.
I used to make (even English has an
"imperfect  past", complex but "imperfect past"
;) ), and still make, translations o various
kinds into LFN but its hard of doing. The nuances, as you say,
are so much important, and frequently makes the
difference between a flat sentence and a  deep one.
The nuances, and other minor elements of the
grammar are de salt of the language.

Salute

Antonio