dave5dave5dave | [LFN] Re: Freezing the basic grammar
- Autor: dave5dave5dave
- Tema: [LFN] Re: Freezing the basic grammar
- Data: 2006-05-06 18:08
- Mesaje: 2144 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
Heh. That just reminded me of that article on redundancy on uncyclopedia.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy
Here's a taste:
Redundancy
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Redundant)
(Redirected from Redundancy)
(Redirected from Redundant)
(Redirected from Redundancy)
Redundanciness
Repetitiveness
Being Redundant
Ditto
This article is about redundancy. For the state of being
redundant, see redundant.
Oscar Wilde cited on redundancy in a quote:
"I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy."
~ An Oscar Wilde quote, that quotes Oscar Wilde on his views on
Redundancy in a quote by Oscar Wilde. In the preceding quote, quoted
from Oscar Wilde in a quote, Oscar Wilde, who was quoted in this
quote, states his hatred for abhorring redundancy. Oscar Wilde.
Redundancy is the use of superfluous text, speech, or items,
repetitive text, speech, or items, that is more than what is required
or is superfluous, repetitive, pleonastic, or more than required. When
being redundant, it is common to repeat, sometimes with different
phrasing or items, the same idea or thought, thus making it
superfluous, repetitive, pleonastic, or more than required. This is
redundancy.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Redundanciness
* 2 Repetitiveness
* 3 Being Redundant
* 4 Ditto
o 4.1 Past and Previous History of Events (AKA Things)
Before This Point in Time (AKA Now) Regarding Redundancy (i.e.
Regarding Repetitiveness) That Happened and Took Place in This World,
on This Earth, or Terra as Some Call It
+ 4.1.1 Contents of the Correspondance Missive Letter
Message
o 4.2 The Department of Redundancy Department for Becoming
Less of a Rendundant Departments' Department of Redundancy
o 4.3 Results, Impact, and Effect
o 4.4 See also
o 4.5 Also see also
o 4.6 Also see also as well
o 4.7 Also see also as well additionally
* 5 Redundancy
* 6 Redundanciness
* 7 Repetitiveness
* 8 Being Redundant
* 9 Ditto
o 9.1 Past and Previous History of Events (AKA Things)
Before This Point in Time (AKA Now) Regarding Redundancy (i.e.
Regarding Repetitiveness) That Happened and Took Place in This World,
on This Earth, or Terra as Some Call It
+ 9.1.1 Contents of the Correspondance Missive Letter
Message
o 9.2 The Department of Redundancy Department for Becoming
Less of a Rendundant Departments' Department of Redundancy
o 9.3 Results, Impact, and Effect
o 9.4 See also
o 9.5 Also see also
o 9.6 Also see also as well
o 9.7 Also see also as well additionally
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Redundanciness
* 2 Repetitiveness
* 3 Being Redundant
* 4 Ditto
o 4.1 Past and Previous History of Events (AKA Things)
Before This Point in Time (AKA Now) Regarding Redundancy (i.e.
Regarding Repetitiveness) That Happened and Took Place in This World,
on This Earth, or Terra as Some Call It
+ 4.1.1 Contents of the Correspondance Missive Letter
Message
o 4.2 The Department of Redundancy Department for Becoming
Less of a Rendundant Departments' Department of Redundancy
o 4.3 Results, Impact, and Effect
o 4.4 See also
o 4.5 Also see also
o 4.6 Also see also as well
o 4.7 Also see also as well additionally
* 5 Redundancy
* 6 Redundanciness
* 7 Repetitiveness
* 8 Being Redundant
* 9 Ditto
o 9.1 Past and Previous History of Events (AKA Things)
Before This Point in Time (AKA Now) Regarding Redundancy (i.e.
Regarding Repetitiveness) That Happened and Took Place in This World,
on This Earth, or Terra as Some Call It
+ 9.1.1 Contents of the Correspondance Missive Letter
Message
o 9.2 The Department of Redundancy Department for Becoming
Less of a Rendundant Departments' Department of Redundancy
o 9.3 Results, Impact, and Effect
o 9.4 See also
o 9.5 Also see also
o 9.6 Also see also as well
o 9.7 Also see also as well additionally
Past and Previous History of Events (AKA Things) Before This Point in
Time (AKA Now) Regarding Redundancy (i.e. Regarding Repetitiveness)
That Happened and Took Place in This World, on This Earth, or Terra as
Some Call It
Lord Redund, shown here.
Enlarge
Lord Redund, shown here.
In 1734, which was called Seventeen Thirty-Four, or the Year of Our
Lord 1734, or the Year 1146 of the Islamic Calendar, or the 1734th
year after the supposed birth of Christ, Lord Alvin Redund wrote a
correspondance missive letter (or a written, authored, dictated or
typed message or statement addressed to one or more addressees, which
could include a person, man, woman, child, kid, retiree, criminal,
employee or organization, group, business, or some other existential
or non existential life form ...; I, myself, guess you, the reader,
knows, understands or comprehends what I mean here in this sentence)
that was excessively repetitive to the point that it repeated or
rehashed many of the already mentioned parts of the letter that was
written by his lordship Lord Alvin Redund (b.1701, d.1769, the year of
his death) in the year it was first written, which was 1734. The
wording was superfluous, repetitive, and more than required. In the
times following, and subsequently, and afterwards, all things, items,
speech, text, stuff, and things that are repetitive, superflous, or
more than required are called, named, or otherwise denoted as
Redundant, because, due to, and as a direct result of Lord Redund's
text contained within his correspondence missive letter.
Shown here, Lord Redund.
Enlarge
Shown here, Lord Redund.
Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, or Alvin Lord Redund, or
Alvin, or L. A. Redund, or the butcher of Saville, often dressed and
attired himself in an ascot, collar, scarf, and neckerchief, necktie,
as well as a cloak, coat, jacket, vest, overcoat, and greatcoat. This
meant that often and many times, that is to say frequently, he was
hot, searing, roasting and otherwise stuffy much, or most, of the
time. His clothing, vestments, and attire, were considered, regarded,
and thought to be excessive, superfluous, and more than required.
Contents of the Correspondance Missive Letter Message
Below and following is the text and transcript of the correspondance
missive letter written and penned by Lord Alvin Redund, also called
Lord Redund's Missive Letter.
Dearest, esteemed, important, and beloved colleagues, friends, and
comrades,
I, Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, am writing and penning
this missive letter in correspondence to you, my friends, colleagues,
and comrades, on March 15, 1734, this fifteenth day of March of the
year 1734 to request, inquire, and ask of you, my friends, colleagues,
and comrades, if it would be possible, feasible, or conceivable that I
might borrow, or obtain on loan from you a small, tiny, insignificant
amount of money, coin, or currency with which I might purchase, obtain
through sale, or buy additional paper, or parchment, with which I
could then write or pen more letters, missives, and messages unto you,
my friends, comrades, and colleagues.
Thank you. I am grateful, and much obliged.
Sincerely, Truly, and Earnestly,
Lord Alvin Redund, Lord of House Redund
--- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, "dave5dave5dave"
> <mithridates@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LinguaFrancaNova@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > [most trimmed for brevity]
> > >
> > > > Especially if this new language is
> hard to
> > > > learn, either because of difficult grammar, or because they
> have to
> > > > memorize (or look up) thousands of words.
> > > >
> > > > That is why I still believe that the key for a new IAL to
> surpass
> > > > Esperanto is that it must be extremely easy to learn to read.
> Part of
> > > > that is being able to memorize or print out a tiny word list
> > > > (500-1000) and with it to be able to read almost any non-
> technical
> > > > material.
> > >
> > > One of my disappointments with LFN has been this almost weed-
> like
> > > growth in the vocabulary. Having some familiarity with Romance
> enables
> > > me to read much of it at sight, but don't ask me for an active
> use of
> > > it for now. There is just too much of it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Bartlett
> > >
> > That's all well and good, but what is one to do with a sentence like
> > this when translating?
> >
> > the coordination and unification of the petroleum policies of [its]
> > member countries and the determination of the best means for
> > safeguarding their interests, individually and collectively;
> > [devising] ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in
> > international oil markets with a view to eliminating harmful and
> > unnecessary fluctuations; [giving due regard] at all times to the
> > interests of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing
> a
> > steady income to the producing countries; an efficient, economic and
> > regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations, and a fair return
> on
> > their capital to those investing in the petroleum industry."
>
> Actually, that isn't a sentence; it's a fragment that needs to be put
> out of its misery. The only sure way to make it intelligible in any
> language is to break it down into clauses of reasonable size. The
> authors will protest that doing so will destroy the meaning, but
> that's an obvious lie: it will require them to state what they mean
> openly, and with wording like that, they almost certainly are using
> verbiage as camouflage. (I used to edit government documents, and I
> got used to such things.)
>
> > In my opinion keeping a vocabulary too small is a waste of effort -
> > people use whatever vocabulary they need in their daily life,
> whether
> > large or small. Not knowing certain words doesn't make one any less
> > fluent, but not being able to express something as a language is a
> > fault. Here's a message from my brother telling me what he's been up
> > to lately:
> >
> [cut]
> > That's fine. But an IAL should have as much vocabulary as a natural
> > language; whether people use the vocab or not is up to them. People
> > don't have a large repetoire to work from anyway, usually only a few
> > thousand. People will do the weeding out themselves, and you can't
> > stop that. If it's too small they'll make up their own terms, and if
> > it's too large they'll just choose the ones they like to use and the
> > others will only be used in translating content and higher-level
> > discussions.
>
> But the point was (at least in Kevin's posts) defining a minimum
> vocabulary so learners know where to begin. To some extent they can
> do this on their own, but there are words they might not consider
> important that actually are necessary for normal communication. Also,
> if a language has a really large lexicon, it will generate mandatory
> distinctions that require everyone to learn more words.
>
> This is the problem. If a lexicon is well designed, niggling
> distinctions can be left to context or compounding. But if you have a
> word for everything (as Ido generally does, for example), then the
> learner's chance of using the wrong word mushrooms. On the other
> hand, if the base is generally well defined, and if there is a
> resistance to lexical bloat, the lexicon will remain small. It will
> take the pressure of actual need (not collective whim) to enlarge the
> lexicon. So it will become large enough to handle actual needs (as is
> the case with Esperanto) without producing needless yet mandatory
> vocabulary.
>
> Steve
>