Paul Bartlett | Re: [LFN] Re: La letera H / The letter H

• Autor: Paul Bartlett (“bartlett22183”)
• Tema: Re: [LFN] Re: La letera H / The letter H
• Data: 2008-12-14 22:52
• Mesaje: 2992 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, George Boeree wrote:

> Hi, Paul.
>
> Please note that Simon did not claim that LFN has no inflections

I know that Simon himself did not make such a claim.  I was not saying
that he did, only that others had done so in the past.

>                                                                  - we
> accepted your argument long ago!

Thank you.

> But regarding our "mimicking" of English, I quite disagree.
> Certainly, the English speakers among us have some tendencies of that
> sort, as is only natural.

Admittedly, there is a widespread tendency among conIAL users to
relexify their own native languages.  I suppose this is almost
inevitable.  Still, I think that it is a tendency that users should try
to work against, as relexification may hinder comprehension by others.

>                            But the progressive construction is a part
> of LFN, not an imitation of English.

It certainly looks like an imitation to me, especially considering that
the progressive construction actually seems to be quite rare among the
world's languages, at least according to professional linguist John
McWhorter in his recent book "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue" (Gotham
Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-592-40395-0).  I really see no need for it and
consider it an unnecessary (and undesirable) complication in a conIAL.

>                                       Likewise, indication of tense
> is the norm in LFN.

It may be the norm among many of the current users of LFN, again it is
an unnecessary complication for potential learners and users whose
native tongues are not so obsessive about marking tense.  Nothing need
be changed as such in the structure of LFN: just don't teach it as s
primary form or use it in general.

>                      LFN often resembles English simply because LFN
> reduces the morphology of the Romance languages to a level similar to
> the morphological reduction English has made vis a vis its Germanic
> origins.

However, I think it could be reduced more.  In the particular matter of
tense marking, again there is no need to change anything in the
structure of LFN: just don't be so obsessive about marking.  Leave off
the markers when the reference is clear.

--
Regards,
Paul Bartlett