Paul Bartlett | Re: [LFN] Use of the infinitive
- Autor: Paul Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
- Tema: Re: [LFN] Use of the infinitive
- Data: 2007-12-05 00:30
- Mesaje: 2451 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, George Boeree wrote: > Hi, Paul! Greetings. :^) I do read this list regularly, although activity has been light recently. > Nice to hear from you again (even if only to disagree!). Actually I have a great deal of regard for LFN. I think it has a lot going for it. I just think we need to be honest as to what we are about. I may not have mastered the language well enough to write in it (and that is my problem), but I still think well of it. > I still don't think that the infinitive and participles are > inflexions. In lfn, the infinitive is just a way to make a verb into > a noun, and the participles are just ways to make verbs into > adjectives. If you look at the continuative and the passive > constructions, they are literally a subject connected to an adjective > by a copula (he is working; he is beaten). [...] If these are not inflections, I do not know what they are. If it looks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck, even if we try to call it a parrot. > I think you are applying > traditional grammar to lfn literally, while I am only using > traditional terms for convenience. If we are using "traditional terms," then I think we ought to use them correctly, and not just "for convenience." Using them in the latter way only invites confusion. It is not somehow "wrong" that LFN has inflections -- depending on the design goals, of course! -- but let's be honeswt about what they are. Even Peano's Latino sine Flexione, Latin without inflections (the *original* Interlingua), retained some residual inflections, despite the name. > Also, I would add that ALL languages have "habits," and an IAL has no > choice but to choose a set of "habits" (i.e. grammar). Lfn uses some > of the habits of romance speakers (and none that are strictly > english!!!), reduced to a form similar to creole languages or others > such as indonesian. And I think that this is good. I just wish that some LFN writers (are there any real speakers?) could break themselves of native habits. I am in mind of Lancelot Hogben's Interglossa. Ron Clark took it over, created Glosa (which I definitely consider a different language), and turned it into something little other than relexified English. Lingua Franca Nova has promise. Just don't turn it into relexified English (or French or Catalan or whatever). > We could have gone to a purely isolating grammar (e.g. instead of V- > nte, we could have gone with "ce V"; instead of V-da, we could have > gone with "ce algun V"; instead of V-r, we could have gone with "lo > V"; instead of N-s, we could have gone with "las N"), but that is > just a matter of taste, not simplicity. [...] Here I have to disagree. I think that it is not just a matter of taste but of actual structural simplicity. I think that getting rid of the three verb inflections (and yes, I still insist on calling them inflections) for an analytic format would be better. > One more point: When people who speak a creole language, such as > haitian creole, need to talk about science or law or medicine, what > do they do? They go to the nearest european language, such as > french. Lfn was intended to be more than just a marketplace or > tourist language, but one that could easily handle sophisticated > topics. Hence some of the opportunities for complex constructions. Part of this may have to do with the intended uses of LFN. Asking where is the loo in an international airport is one thing. Writing an international treaty is rather another. How is LFN intended to be used? In the early days -- and I am reminded of the Eurocreole project -- I got the idea that the former was more the design goal. Now it seems to me more the latter. -- Regards, Paul Bartlett