Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

THEORY: Re : Universal Translation Language

From:From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>
Date:Friday, May 28, 1999, 20:22
Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 28/05/99 10:04:11  , Charles a =E9crit :

> Now it appears some artlangers are exacting revenge > against the very idea of logic in language design ... > obviously a self-stultifyingly invalid argument.
Hi Charles ! Good to read you again. Come on, nobody exacts revenge here on=20 anything. You know that most artlangers would be delighted to hail the first=20 perfect IAL, and some of us (like you) are also log- and auxlangers. Maybe w= e=20 are too hard on Marcos. Myself i feel sorry for that. My apologies. The=20 reason for that is that i couldn't find out how to proceed, most certainly=20 because i'm neither a linguist nor a computer engineer and maybe Marcos will=20 eventually succeed (or Dr Zamenhof or John Cowan have already). I found out something with you a few months ago but it's too complicated and=20 no natlang could be modelled on that. As for the simplest human language, i think all available auxlangs are just=20 not worth a natlang i've learned. instead of treading on Esperantist path,=20 one should consider the ingenuity of Asian languages and pidgins and stop=20 speaking of "adjectives and adverbs" and try to make an easy system of 5 or = 6=20 resumptive pronouns (he, it, who, which, it, that, etc. with specific=20 syntactic reference) - but maybe not 17 in a row ;-) : "man he talk address me regard problem-this but mother-me she no already kno= w=20 it and you no future say it address her no time, ok ?" Just one example among hundreds : it's just very disturbing that auxlangers=20 never design a model of integration using all roles like : who know -=20 know-ing - know-er - know-ed - know-ee, etc. why not rather stick to SVO order : one (he) know - one (he) be know - one (he) get know fact of know - fact of be know - fact of get know and stick an article meaning it is a lexie, not a subclause. 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 ... > =20
why that ? why not clearly explain what you do : your "inverse" pattern and=20 the derivation of prepositions from simple verbs are very handy. [snip]
> > Part-of-speech endings are -o (noun) -e (plural noun) -a (adj) and -am > > (adv). > =20 > 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.
but some asian languages do well with collective, abstract, result and=20 instrument words. they seem "illogical" at first glance but are very easy to=20 learn. i mean nouns of instruments derived from each type of transitive or=20 ditransitive verbs instead of fuzzy ones derived from one plain verbal root.
> 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. >
ditto. "adverbs" auxlangers love so much they never use them for that=20 purpose. why that ? Tense in integrated derived or compound verbs are just=20 useless : a "passenger" (one he be transport) is not future or past. =20
> > 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-. > =20 > 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. >
[snip - i think this is basically Tomato] How do you "inverse" a 2nd object of a ditransitive verb ? "me say it address you > you addressed it said you" ?
> So the result is something like this, generated randomly: > "Zopa xesizedqoloca zezapuo padteza digpuzabospupu fasuo." > Gorgeous, eh?
not bad indeed. i find it better than "pro-g^ofajn-er-ilo" or anything like=20 that (HUMOUR NOT MARKED - DON'T SHOOT AT THE ARTLANGER). Mathias