Re : Re: Re : Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answes&proposal

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 25/08/99 14:25:02  , Artyom a =E9crit :


>  >i believe the most important criteria for a winning ial is aesthetics
>  >though.
>  YES! And  I think nothing eclectic is aesthetic, conlangs too! Therefore =
I
>  prefer to create a Romance conlang.

of course, if you only want to simplify grammar
of a language and take the wole vocab from it,
you don't need to make your own vocab.
but if it comes to making the whole
bunch of the vocab through logical derivation,
then i want to make my own a priori vocab.
i tell you why :
through wordnet, basic english, j=F4y=F4kanjis, etc.
we know that you can make up a vocab from around
1200 roots, provided you use reverse, factitive
or transitivation and lexical derivations (not compound -
that's another issue) to refer to main kinds of actors
(agents, instrument, place, time, action-state).
but these are root concepts that are never matched
as word-per-concepts in any natlang. so trying
to make a natlang vocab into 1200 roots will have you
struggle to de-form that natlang vocab. make "speech"
into "tell" for example. or distort derived natroots into
plain ones like "con-tent" into "con_tent".
romance langs are maybe the worst to make an auxlang
vocab from because most verbs and abstract nouns
already derive from very vague roots like 'tend-/ting-" + at-, ex-
con- etc.
i personally think combining together 2 fuzzy roots makes
twice as fuzzier compound words.
on the other hand, take a japanese jooyookanji list
and you'll get 1200 often very practical and precise roots
that are usually artfully combined in fuzzy compound nouns
though ! ;-) but it's up to you to take the one roots you feel
useful and list and combine them.
better have a plain root "to consider as" (kanji "kan") than
to make this concept from "think else has quality of".

mathias

> =20
>  >i even know a french conlanger who finds esperanto beautiful.
> =20
>  I now him too!:-)
> =20
Christophe Grandsire. but i think he thinks Dutch is
even more beautiful than E-o by now.

can you believe that ?

>  Artyom Kouzminykh
mathias