George Boeree | Re: [LFN] LinguaFrancaNova
- Autor: George Boeree (“cgboeree”)
- Tema: Re: [LFN] LinguaFrancaNova
- Data: 2008-04-18 12:48
- Mesaje: 2752 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
I see now what you are looking for. I would be comfortable saying that lfn can be read quite easily by anyone who reads Spanish, Catalan, Italian, or Portuguese. It would be more difficult for someone who reads French. I quite disagree with Paul, though. While at first, some of our Spanish and Portuguese friends distorted some of the syntax (especially word order), they, like everyone else, quickly adapted. I frequently have let my English influence my lfn, but I too am getting better. We all do this with any language we learn. Jorj Nous sommes les étoiles filantes. *----------------------------- On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Mark Bailey wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the replies. > > Maybe I have misunderstood the origins of LFN? > > Maybe I am oversimplifying the creation of the vocabulary but isn't > it a > "best fit" approach from the source languages? > > Not wanting to be-little LFN in any way, I find it an attraction if > I am > right in what I am saying. > > I take Jorj's point that the grammar is different and I am aware > that there > maybe "false cognates" existing in the source languages but isn't > that where > Catalan comes in? > > Quote: > > "Catalan was included because of its centrality, both physically and > linguistically, which made it a useful "tie-breaker" when word > forms were > split (as they often were) between a French-Italian version and a > Spanish-Portuguese version" > > Although the ideal of a world language is a glorious one, I feel > that for > some languages it is one step too far resulting in something that is > incomprehensible by anyone. > > I am currently on a mission to communicate with as many people as > possible > with as little as effort as possible. To achieve this goal I > started my > linguistic journey by trying to find a 'simplified/pidgin or > creole' of the > major 5 languages: English (my native language), Spanish (LFN), > Arabic, > Russian (Slovio/Ruskio) and Mandarin. > > I was hoping that LFN would fit the (Spanish) bill! > > This was the reasoning behind my question, but as I said thanks for > the > replies! > > Regards > > omarko > > On 18/04/2008, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, George Boeree wrote: > > > > > Hi, Mark. > > > > > > I wish I could say that lfn is the road to international > > > understanding... but I can't. Knowing lfn vocabulary might help - > > > many words are close to their Spanish counterparts -- but the > grammar > > > is nothing like Spanish, and they are likely to look at you > like you > > > are from outer space. The same would be true for any of the other > > > Romance languages. Someone who speaks one of them would pick up > lfn > > > very quickly, but not so much the other way around! > > > > This is a serious problem with constructed international auxiliary > > languages (conIALs) whose vocabularies closely resemble Romance > > vocabularies: native Romance speakers persist in trying to pull the > > languages to make them more and more Romance and less and less > globally > > international. I have witnessed the same phenomenon with IALA > > Interlingua. I for one do not want a supposedly "international > > language" which is Yet Another Romance Language. Why don't I just > > improve my rusty French and have done with it and forget Lingua > Franca > > Nova if it is going to be Just Another Romance Language? (Or let > us go > > with Latino sine Flexione, which is unashamedly a form of Latin > before > > the uprising of the Romance tyranny. Or maybe Richardius Dominicus's > > Simplified Latin.) > > > > -- > > Paul Bartlett > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]