Re: Li Lingue Modern
|From:||Robert J. Petry <ambassador@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, October 31, 1998, 16:31|
"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:
> At 8:49 am +0000 31/10/98, Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> >Robert Petry wrote :
> >I wonder how many have ever read this before?
> >> "LI LINGUE
> >> li max moderni forme del Lingue International. Li analytic gramatica
> >> basat sur 76 annual scientic explorationes es li max simplic e facil
> >> possibil, e per su construction representa li summation e coronation
> >> del anterior experienties. Li regulari scientic derivation de omni
> >> international paroles compensa li aprension del desfacil Latin."
> >> And, I wonder how many can read and understand it now?
> >Yes, Interligue is impressive in the way that it sums up the international
> >language of international congresses (conglang :-) after culling all
> >non-latin words.
> Yep - and what does it prove other than that an educated person from an
> Anglo-Romance culture can read it fairly readily. Difficulty would likely
> increase as one moved eastward across Europe; and when one moves into Asia
> not only is education needed but a knowledge of Latin-based occidental
> Indeed, why even bother with a conlang? I could read the above just as
> readily in Italian.
So can a Frenchman, a German, a Rumanian, an American, A Spaniard, A Port.
speaker, Swedish, Russian, etc. And, they all don't have to know two or more
"romance" languages to read or hear it to understand it. That's a major start.
Then, with a little work the Orient, etc. can be added over time. See, you start
with something and step by step work from their.
> >Now I'd like to read in Interlingue :
> >I'm scooping leek soup from my plate with a spoon and I'll take some more
> >coq-au-vin from that pan.
> >I watch deers in the clearing at dawn when dew still pearls on grass tufts.
> So would I :)
Nice negative thinking here. Why? Why is this kind of response called for? I'd
like to read it in French, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, German, etc. and Chinese.
Besides, I recognize that this is the way we talk and communicate to each other
every day. Very practical material we share in our everyday minute by minute
conversations. This is no argument at all, it is sniipeing at its worst if I
understand your and Ray's implication. Is this how you talk everyday? If so,
then maybe it needs to be translated into something else.
> >Also prepositions are tricky in auxlangs : you must learn by heart the
> >verbs and substantives with their different abstract prepositions :
> >'es basat sur'
> >'es per su construction'
> >'derivation de'
> >Most prepositions are like cases in the eyes of Chinese, Japanese and
> >Eastern Asians who use nouns, verbs or adverbs as prepositons.
I guess that's why many of them decide to learn English, and other "Romance"
languages so they can complain about this. I only hear the eurocentric, romance
arguments from those who are european, american folks. Why are europeans and
americans so against their own roots? Are we too embarrassed to admit that what
we use today, English, etc. actually works in spite of all their inaddakawzies.
And, INTERLINGUE was not developed by an Englishman or American, thank goodness,
or it never would have gotten done in the first place!
> Yep - 'sur' is hardly a literal use in the above example. But fortunately
> the same metaphore exist in English :)
> >So I value Interlingue is a good Latin auxlang. But I still prefer Latin
> >Sin Flexion which took the stance to claim and accept its Latin filiation.
> Yep - and I've certainly never found Interlingue more readily
> comprehensible than Interlingua (of either variety :)
Funny, I find just the _exact_ opposite. Does my opinion then outweigh your
opinion? Opinions are just that, opinions.
Others do, others don't. But, Li Lingue still works and has a history that could
be used to help new conlangers decide on what they want to use and what they
don't want to use. What works, and what doesn't.
Principal characteristicas, de Is, sine computar suo justo consortio de
naturalita' cum regularitate, es formatione derivativ ex un thema general de
verbo (ne ipso supino), usque obtener, per desinentia, participio generator,
quasi semper correcto, et inde, suo normal derivatos; et applicatione de
principio decompositivo-selectiv in formatione de le'xico.
Now, that's a real neo-Latin language. Any conlangers developing a similiar
> Why do we need these competing forms of neo-Latin?
Li Lingue t isn't neo-Latin. I don't see them competing on this list or any
other for that matter. And, to put something up in fun certainly is not
In any case what is this doing on CONLANG? I thought we were concerned
> with _constructing_ languages. It seems to me inappropriate on this list
> to be pushing the claims of an _auxlang_ constructed decades ago. Isn't
> that what the AUXLANG list is for? Or have I misunderstood something.
No, I asked a question in English about a constructed language to see if I would
get the same old rut thinking answers again. And, I did. Same old rut pattern to
stop any major progress. Seems this is also what keeps those with other great
conlang projects from progressing much. They get stopped in their tracks by the
negative responses hanging on to an old and overused argument about eurocentric
hang ups. And, the overused but erroneous arguments about only Romance speakers
can read this language, or any like it. And, it's on CONLANG because I am on the
list, and I thought it might be fun for some of the new folks who haven't seen
it before. It is also a good example of at sight readability if someone is
working on a conlang that they want to have that attribute. I did not ask for a
history of it, or a negative criticism. I just asked, I wonder how many had SEEN
it before, and how many could READ it. No more, no less. If I wanted negative,
but old criticisms that have been the same arguments since Volapu"k, I would
have asked, what do you folks think of this, how about a critique, and a debate.
Don't we need some NEW thinking in this field? NEW questions? More, ok this
works so let's see how much better we can make it and our own conlang. Why
should someone stop just because someone else who is European or American can't
stand their own language sources. IMHO it is time to move on beyond these
standard old arguments and come up with NEW and positive ones that move us all
along in the direction we want to go.
Al l sue,
Un vive inutil es un morte antecipat. -- Goethe
Qui ne es curiosi save necos. -- Goethe
And, all's well that ends well. -- ??;--))