ural_li-@hotmail.com wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/conlang/?start=29193
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> But then why do you use this adjective "natural"? It means
nothing! If
> you want a Romance conlang, use the adjective "Romance", not the
> adjective "natural", because what seems natural for you may be
unnatural
> for others.
>
I agree, I used a wrong word! Don't kill me for that:-(...
> I agree that the distinction animate-inanimate is interesting
and more
> useful than the distinction masculine-feminine and even
> masculine-feminine-neuter. But why using mandatory endings for that?
> can't you use adjective like in English "male" and "female"?
I prefer to use mandatory endings in order to create a Romance conlang
(not IAl really). By the way endings -o and -a already indicates that
the word meens something animate, and which is important too - they
indicate the sex of this "something animate"!
> The problem with your example is that it misses your goal.
Giving
> "patres" the same origin than "patro" vs. "matra" shows no neuter
gender
> for me. It is just like other languages where the masculine gender is
> the default one.
It shows! The ending -e IS (as I propose) the ending of neuter !
Therefore patre (ex.) is one of the parents, and patro - is father. The
neuter should be
default gender.
> The problem was not about necessity of tense or not, but
about the
> necessity of tense endings on verbs. If you want to have tense, why
not
> using auxiliaries, like spoken French that using "avoir+participe" for
> the past tense.
Using "have" for creating tenses is ridiculous even for Romance! What
_logical_ connection is between having something and (past) tense!
> It is not because you don't see why imperative or infinitive
can be
> difficult for someone else that it cannot be! Ask a native Arab
knowing
> no other language and he will have much difficulties to understand
what
> is the infinitive. If you want a real IAL, you must take care of that
> and remember that there are NO universal categories in speech
(whatever
> others can have told you) apart maybe for the opposition between nouns
> and verbs (and sometimes it is not so easy to make). Moreover, you
used
> a bad example as imperative is not difficult. But mandatory tenses can
> be for speakers of Chinese.
>
>
> But then it is not an IAL. Don't forget that a phonetic
writing is a
> condition sine qua non to define an IAL.
Sorry, saying that I didn't meant IAL, I meant just an artlang (of my
own).
> Sorry but your judgement is meaningless. Who are you to
decide what is
> shocking or not? I am French, so I certainly can decide better than
you
> about Romance languages.
NOT ABOUT MY ROMANCE ARTLANG ! I meant only it!
> But if you say you want a conlang for you, why do you say you
want an
> IAL? Those are two completely different things. A personal conlangs
> doesn't have any requirement of internationality or even regularity!
I understand that, but I still believe that IAL (good or bad...)can be
constracted on a base of a romance artlang.
> It is more important than you think. Often ununderstanding
between
> people speaking the same language come from different accentuations (I
> myself lived such case).
OK, but it is still possible to create rather simple accentuation rules
without exclusion.
>
> Not less necessary than gender-marked endings, plural endings
or
> tense-endings. Why having some and not the others.
Bec. cases are much seldom in contemporary world's langs than genders,
and genders are much rare than plural endings.
>
> No need? But no need for whom? And if I want MY conlang that
fulfills
> MY aesthetic requirements? Stop talking as if you were talking for
> everybody. You're talking about your own preferences, that's all.
I was misuderstood.
> > 2) The second is "law" or "popular" speech, based on the first one,
but
> > grammatically strict as Esp-Ido, Novial etc. Well, "one grammatical
> > ending for one part of speech", no any cases of nouns and pronouns,
> > only 3 tenses (+participles, inf., imper.), perhaps a priori
> > auxiliaries, affixes and so on. It is "orthographical" lang, too.
This
> > conlang must really be created by simplifying the "noble" speech.
>
> Here again, who needs it? What is your purpose?
I do. Fun (not creating peace on Earth).
> > 3) The third lang is the same that the 2) but this is strictly
> > "phonetical", regular and logical lang, as ex. Esp-o-Ido, so it can
be
> > proposed as an IAL, too.
> >
>
> With such basis, I doubt it can be considered a candidate for
IAL.
Probably not such bad as Esp-o.
> > As I still don't see much difference between auxlang and conlang
lists,
> > so I send this letter to all lists just to be sure.
> To give you an example, I myself created six languages (and
am in the
> state of creating a seventh one), with no intention at all to make
them
> IAL.
So do I!
>All I am interested in is about their beauty, through my own eyes.
So do I!
> And when I share what I do to the list, I don't ask them to like what
I
> do, but at least to find it interesting.
So do I!
Why are you so evil here? We're still samlistani (samlistanoj) if not
samideani. We have one hobby - conlangs. Don't be so unkind, I'm just a
novice and speak English quite bad. I don't even know that this IMHA
is! Somethimes I use wrong words and am being misunderstood. Uff, an
IAL is really needed!
Artyom Kouzminykh
P.S. Sorry for my poor English - I have not any practice here!
P.P.S. Why is it the way it is?