Re: Uusisuom's influences

Hi Padraic,

Thanks for your interest and support.

Uusisuom isn't 'based' on any real world language, therefore it is unique
and neutral.

Daniel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Padraic Brown" <pbrown@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Uusisuom's influences


> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Daniel44 wrote:
>
> >I think it's inaccurate to say that Uusisuom's influences are very
> >'european'.
> >
> >It's major two influences have been Finnish and Lithuanian:
>
> Can't get much more European than a European country!
>
> >Finnish = one of the oldest modern languages in Europe;
>
> Oh?
>
> >ties to Saami
> >nomadic languages, arguably the most beautiful natural language in the
> >world.
>
> Arguably, to be sure!
>
> >
> >Lithuanian = highly prized for its Indo - European roots. Many of its
words
> >can be traced back to ancient India and the Sanskrit language.
>
> Traced back to IE, surely; but Sanskrit?
>
> >
> >It is also worth mentioning that Uusisuom's grammar system is more
similar
> >to languages such as Urdu, many African language systems and other WORLD
> >languages than to simply 'European' ones.
> >
> >Ultimately, it's a distinct and unique language. It has influences
because
> >every language has influences, and it's not absolutely perfect because no
> >language is. There have been members of this list complain that the
> >language's words do not include enough Finnish. But they miss the point:
the
> >language is unique and distinctive in its own right.
>
> Indeed! It is turning out to be a neat conlang.
>
> >The last thing anyone can call Uusisuom is a 'Euroclone'.
>
> I'd agree here.
>
> >In terms of being
> >an international auxiliary language, it has a hell of a lot going for it:
>
> Try Uuisuom out in Auxlang, if you haven't already. If so, what's been
> the reaction?
>
> >beautiful design, inherent simplicity, uniqueness and distinctiveness and
> >complete neutrality.
>
> Beautiful? In the ear of the beholder, and ultimately inarguable.
> Inherently simple? Probably not. (I don't think _any_ langauges are
> inherently simple.)
> Unique and distinct? Undoubtedly true; but no more or less than any
> other tongue.
> Neutrality? Probably not. Once you decide to base your auxlang on one
> or more realworld languages, you throw "neutrality" out the window.
>
> I'd also lose the auxlang angle around here. The two lists "CONLANG"
> and "AUXLANG" exist for very good reasons and we want to keep it that
> way. Apart from that, please continue to update us on your language's
> progress!
>
> Padraic.
>
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Daniel
> >daniel44@btinternet.com
>

Replies