Re: Uusisuom's influences

At 11:23 pm +0200 31/3/01, daniel andreasson wrote:
>Daniel44 wrote:
>
>> It's major two influences have been Finnish and Lithuanian:
>>
>> Finnish = one of the oldest modern languages in Europe; ties to
>> Saami nomadic languages,
>
>Well, if I understand things correctly, the Finns originally spoke
>some Proto-Indo-European language, but later took over the language
>of the proto-Saami when the Finns came to what is now known as Finland.
>So I'd say it's more than "ties" to Saami ;-). Finnish is Saami with
>a PIE substrate.
Yes, and I thought the development of adjectival declensions in Finnish
(and Estonian?), which is not found AFAIK in other Finno-Ugric langs, was a
comparatively recent development.  I think the claim that it is one of the
oldest modern languages in Europe is controversial, to say the least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At 1:43 pm -0500 31/3/01, Padraic Brown wrote:
>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!
In this case - _two_ European countries!

>>Finnish = one of the oldest modern languages in Europe;
>
>Oh?
Indeed - well may you say 'Oh'.  I think quite a few other languages have
more well-founded claims to that title.

[snip]

>>
>>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?
Of course not.  The vocab of Lithuanian can no more be traced back to
ancient India than can the vocab of English or Welsh.  Lithuanian, nearly
all the languages of Europe (Saami, Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian & Basque
are AFAIK the only exceptions), modern Persian, Pashtoo (Afganistan) and
the languages of northern India & Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, are all
ultimately derived from Proto-Indo-European.  Lithuanian just happens to
have changed less than, say, English, Welsh, modern Perian or Urdu.

[snip]
>>The last thing anyone can call Uusisuom is a 'Euroclone'.
>
>I'd agree here.
Yes, there'll be nor argument that Uusisuom is not one of the
Esperanto-Novial-Interlingua-Eurolang clan, collectively known, a little
derogatively maybe, as "Euroclones".

>>In terms of being
>>an international auxiliary language, it has a hell of a lot going for it:
That, to put it mildly, is controversial.  But I quitted Auxlang two or
three years back because I was sick & tired of the petty quarrelling over
what is and is not a "good Auxlang", and the naive touting of that, that or
the other IAL as inherently simple, neutral etc (whereas, of course, its
rivals weren't!).  I have no wish to re-enter those futile arguments or go
over that ground here.

>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.
Of course.

>Inherently simple? Probably not.
Indeed not - the distinction between (some) long & short vowels, single and
gemminate consonants will cause problems for very many.  The grammar
presented so far, tho as regular as Volapük and Esperanto, seems to fall
between those two in order of difficulty.

>(I don't think _any_ langauges are inherently simple.)
Amen.

>Unique and distinct? Undoubtedly true; but no more or less than any
>other tongue.
Amen.

>Neutrality? Probably not. Once you decide to base your auxlang on one
>or more realworld languages, you throw "neutrality" out the window.
Indeed, the only way, as far as I can see, that one can be completely
neutral is to take the a_priori approach.

>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.
AMEN!!

I quit Auxlang for very good reason.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
At 12:35 pm -0500 31/3/01, Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Daniel44 wrote:
>
>> I think it's inaccurate to say that Uusisuom's influences are very
>> 'european'.
>
>I don't know the languages in question, that was just the impression I got.
..and I do know something of the languages in question, and I got just the
same impression as Yoon Ha.

>> Finnish = one of the oldest modern languages in Europe; ties to Saami
>> nomadic languages, arguably the most beautiful natural language in the
>> world.
>
>Not knowing Finnish, I can't agree or disagree; but that's an aesthetic,
>not an objective, judgement.
Of course it is.

>Of the languages I know, I find Japanese the most beautiful.  :-p
Some find Finnish bland, rather than beautiful - others, probably most, are
indifferent to it.

>> 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.
>
>Ah.  This was not obvious to me.
Nor is it obvious to me.  I suppose Uusisuoms noun suffixes are comparable
to Urdu's use of postpositions, but they reminded me more readily of
Finnish case endings.

[snip]
>> language's words do not include enough Finnish. But they miss the point: the
>> language is unique and distinctive in its own right.
>
>Heh.  I like it just fine as an artlang;
..and I have said just that also.  That seems to be generally agreed on
this list.

[snip]
>a quasi-regular basis.)  Truthfully, as far as the IAL aspect goes I
>looked at Uuisuom from a Korean POV (which, other than the American one,
>is the only one I reasonably have): the problems a Korean-speaker might
>have learning Uuisuom look a lot like the problems a Korean-speaker might
>have learning English, which is to say, not inconsiderable.
Yes, I think the point is very pertinent.  It is IMHO naive to claim that
any language is "inherently simple".  IME a language's simplicity means the
degree it is similar in structure to one's own language; the more
different, the more difficult.

>OTOH, Korean
>is a pretty useless language if you're not Korean,
But a very interesting language, nevertheless  :)

>so that's not a very helpful perspective.  <shrug>
I disagree - I think comments like yours are a salutary anti-dote to
assumptions too-readily made by those of us who come from a European
derived cultural milieu.

>I will shut up now before this turns into an IAL-vs.-artlang flamewar.
I too - as Padraic said there were very good reasons for having two
separate lists: CONLANG and AUXLANG.

Ray.








=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================

Replies