Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answes&proposal

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

Not so important, if so many languages (even Romance languages) lack
>it. Knowing the sex of the "something animate" is often useless and
>sometimes creates bad reactions (think of sexism). No, for such a
>useless category, an adjective is enough.
>
How? "Femala patro" for "mother"? "Vira fratro" for brather and so on?


What I meant is the use of patr- for both
>the neuter and the masculine, whereas you used madr- for the feminine.
>If you have endings for the masculine and the feminine, using different
>roots is useless (and even, using the same root for masculine and
>neuter, opposed to a different rule for the feminine is somewhat sexist
>- and I am an anti-politically correct -). So if you really want gender
>endings, use only one root (maybe patr-) meaning "parent" and put the
>endings on it. Using different roots for different genders add a
>gender-distinction in the roots themselves and renders the gender
>endings even more useless.
Well, we still can have patra & madra as synonyms for mather, can we? With
"madra"'s meaning being more sentimental (mummy)...


>         For more than a hundred years, people have tried to make IALs
>based on
>Romance languages, and the most successful was Esperanto which is the
>least Romance one. Don't you think it means something?
I personnaly don't think that Esp (as a IAL) is better than (for instance)
Interlingua (and Occidental). You said that "the most successful was
Esperanto", but Esperanto was the most successful from ALL IALs, and from
them only a few was strictly Romance.

         Yes, if you have regular accent falling always on the same
syllable.

I think it's not so difficult for everyone (even for one who don't know any
Romance lang at all) to remember 2 (only 2!) esceptions: infinitive & worfs
with "ico" (mEdico, sinthEtico), "ica" (athlEtica).


> > > 3) The third lang is the same that the 2) but this is strictly
> > > > "phonetical", regular and logical lang, as ex. Esp-o-Ido, so it can
> > be
> > > > proposed as an IAL, too.
> > > >
> > >
> > >         With such basis, I doubt it can be considered a candidate for
> > IAL.
> >
> > Probably not such bad as Esp-o.
> >
>
>         Oh yes! (I am the French conlanger who finds Esperanto beautiful,
>so
>let me be as partial as I want :) )
Well, I still think, that "With such (i.e. Romanic) basis" this conlang
would be "not such bad as Esp-o" IAL FOR ROMANCE WORLD. An IAL for different
Romance nations is still IAL,isn't it? Thus I-a could be (may be I'm wrong)
better IAL (than Esperanto) for Frenchmen, Spaniards, Italians, Portugueses,
Rumanians etc. Even if only 2 people of 2 different nationalities speak to
each over any conlang, this conlang IS IAL. "International" doesn't mean
"all-Earth", it may either have meaning "2-or-more-nation"!

Artyom Kouzminykh


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com