Re: Universal Translation Language

Marcos Franco wrote:

> I posted this message to the auxlang list, but since there's not much
> activity there, and I think this can be interesting for conlangers
> too, I post it here.
Good idea; AUXLANG has indeed gone to the dogs lately.
Now it appears some artlangers are exacting revenge
against the very idea of logic in language design ...
obviously a self-stultifyingly invalid argument. Anyway,
as an admirer of Ido and some of its intentions,
I've tinkered quite a bit with it and can show a few
of my own experiments, perhaps best to be avoided ...

> I'm developing a logical language (that is, an unambiguous,
> full-expressive one) which relies on western world vocabulary and
> syntactics. To make it, I'm taking advantage of Esperanto/Ido
> structure and lexicon.
The Ido vocabulary is really a good starting point;
using under 4000 roots it still has the feel of a fully
developed and usable language. The syntactics are still
(I think) a bit rough, being too inflexible and irregular.
The central issue is ambiguous-direct versus precise-indirect
derivation. I'd keep the "ambiguous" -o noun ending but allow
also the more specific -ilo, etc. and go for consistency.
I like the proposed -ao / -oa type of endings and I've
been trying something similar.

> Part-of-speech endings are -o (noun) -e (plural noun) -a (adj) and -am
> (adv).
Can all adverbs be derived from adjectives? Hmm.
Mandatory number on nouns may be a bad idea, and something
that Anglo-Euro speakers could easily learn to do without;
"five sheep" sounds more logical than "no cows", IMO.
It is tempting to use -s for a perhaps-optional plural.
Also, it is not really necessary to tense every verb.
Some logical grammar simplifications borrowed from Asian
languages could only help ease of learning, I think.

> Verbs work as in Esperanto: -i -as -is -os -us -u
>
> -ant- -int- -ont-, -at- -it- -ot- forms are not used. Active
> participle is derived directly from verb (e.g. reganta homo is said
> rega homo). Passive verb is made by the suffix -at-.
Ido has a passive but I'd rather make that a true inverse voice.
Currently, "me havas lu" is legal but "lu havesas me" is not.
So I suggest adding -at, -it, -ot as verb endings. Also, keep
-r infinitive; -z imperative, "-u" reserved for something better.
Where did that -s for active voice come from, anyway? Prefer -n.
Needless to say (?) there should be no accusative ending at all.

> Well, and now the direct derivation table.
> -io: action of -i
> -ia: which is the action of -i
> -oa: which pertains or is part of -o
> -oi: to pertain or be part of -o
>
> (this is not definitive though, since I'm studying the possibility of
> using an alternative adjectival ending -oy -ey for possesives, and let
> -oa -ea for other purposes)
> I recommend you to apply real words to this system to better
> understand how it works; e.g. take "bona" (good) or "broso" (brush)
> and take from the table the meanings of their derivates.
As stated above, these are very interesting ideas.

> I think this system gets at once rid of Eo system's impreciseness and
> inconsistency, and of Ido system's rigidity.
I'd like to eliminate the inconsistencies remaining in Ido,
such as adverbs with non-conforming endings, and pronouns
(personal, deictics, etc.) which are not well-designed.
How about something more like Rick Morneau's comprehensive set?

        1:      s-                        Pers:   -p  Gen:    -x
        2:      p-    Singular:     -a-
        3:      g-                        Dem:    -d
        1+2:    v-    Plural:       -i-
        1+3:    j-                        Loc:    -z
        2+3:    l-    Unspecified:  -u-
        1+2+3:  m-                        Tem:    -k

Next, I wish to inflict upon you my conlang's (custom) BNF syntax.
It is only about 2 hours old, so ... The notation below uses
(0 or 1), [1 or more], and {0 or more}, for repetitions.

>> VOWEL ::= a | e | i | o | u
>> CONS  ::= b | c | d | f | g | x | j | k | l | m | n | p | q | r | s | t | v | z
>> CV    ::= CONS - VOWEL -
>> MORPH ::= [CV] - CONS -
(Makes "closed" roots without consonant clusters or diphthongs,
suitable for unambiguous compounding, unlike Ido's.)

>> VOICE  ::= i | u
>> VERB   ::= [MORPH] -  VOICE
>> ADJECT ::= [MORPH] - (VOICE) - a
>> ADVERB ::= [MORPH] - (VOICE) - e
>> NOUN   ::= [MORPH] - (VOICE) - o
(The "i" is for active voice, "u" for inverse.
It can be infixed to each part-of-speech.
A diphthong at the end of a word is easy to recognize.
I also like the French way of stressing the final syllable,
otherwise English speakers mangle the final vowels.)

>> OBLIQUE    ::= ADVERB (NOUNPHRASE)
>> PARTICIP   ::= ADJECT (NOUNPHRASE)
>> PREDICATE  ::= VERB   (NOUNPHRASE)
>> NOUNPHRASE ::= {ADJECT} NOUN {PARTICIP}
>> SENTENCE   ::= (NOUNPHRASE) PREDICATE {OBLIQUE}
So the result is something like this, generated randomly:
"Zopa xesizedqoloca zezapuo padteza digpuzabospupu fasuo."
Gorgeous, eh?