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=
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 =
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=
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.
> 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 ...
why that ? why not clearly explain what you do : your "inverse" pattern and=20
the derivation of prepositions from simple verbs are very handy.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
[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).