Re: Tempus

Hi!

Mefistofeles <mefistofeles@...> writes:
> We =
> came to the conclusion that either Chinese would be the perfect =
> auxiliary languages or a constructed language with similarly structure, =
> any comments?
I found it extremely hard to start thinking in Mandarin structures,
partially because things are mentioned at totally different places in
the sentence and in different structures than in my mothertongue.  It
is so difficult to plan a sentence.  So even if it is simple, I don't
think there is a perfect auxlang that suits everyone, because being
different often is the main problem, not the simplicity.  But being
simple is a good starting point I suppose. :-)

*But*, I did not feel that Mandarin is especially simple:
  - The unit words are hard to remember.
  - When composing words, parts often drop due to the tendency
    to be bisyllabic (feiji + chang -> jichang (`feijichang' is
    acceptable, but I also have to understand `jichang'),
    hanyu + deyu (cidian) -> han-de cidian).
  - Monosyllabic words are also hard to learn: look up `yi4' or
    `shi4' in a dictionary.
  - The usage vs. non-usage of `de' is quite difficult for me
    (`hen hao', `zhen hao' but `zhen de hen hao'.
    You say `wo yao hong putaojiu' without `de', but when
    you say `wo yao putaojiu' then someone might ask `hong de ma?',
    using `de').
  - Accordingly, the usage of other particles (like `le', `guo', ...)
    is so complicated for me that I usually make a lot of mistakes.
  - Pronunciation?
  - Writing?

For these reasons, wo3 qu4guo4 Tai2wan1, ke3shi4 wo3 Zhong1wen2 shuo1
de bu4 hao3. :-(

I'm also currently working at a language that is supposed to be
simple, but it won't be easy, because I think it can't be for
everyone.  The structure was indeed inspired by Mandarin, but actually
now it turned out to be totally different. :-)

**Henrik