Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Goals?

Expand Messages
  • siderespector
    Trying to compare the goals and philosophies of diverse auxlangs with what I perceive is most acutely needed, I cannot exactly find the goals of
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Trying to compare the goals and philosophies of diverse auxlangs with what I perceive is most acutely needed, I cannot exactly find the goals of linguadeplaneta in Lingwadeplaneta.Info except maybe "prepare for the universal language of mankind that historically-inevitably will come". If this interpretation of mine is correctly perceived, I must disagree because English is becoming the "universal language", and the lexis of English is spreading like a virus to all other languages. What are the goals of LdP? Are they still under discussion?

      In my opinion the spread of the lexis of English is not exactly a good thing â€" for colloquial communication, tourism, travelling, trade and such English will suffice very well â€" however, when we start to get technical and scientific, the troubles increases with the level of complexity of the reasoning. I don't know how to explain this simply, but human interaction is ranging across the interval of peaceful/understandingâ€"enemetic/disunderstanding among others as a consequence of the level of mutual comprehensibility in a potentially competitive situation. Now consider two potential collaborators/competitors from separate genres with separate scitech jargons of a certain degree of similarity in an encounter of information exchange, take f.ex. me (computer science) and a psychologist, a real case where we were to negotiate forth some kind of definition of a hitech project. Now the outcome of such negotiation will very much depend on the common ground, the similarity of the lexis and the working models of the respective sciences. In the factual case mentioned, I and the psychologist got in a shouting match about what is the definition of a "system", and it didn't help very much that I tried to get his attention to that we used conflicting jargons and had to define a provisional middle-ground jargon â€" the emotions were too high-strung to allow a convergence to a common ground. This negotiation failed â€" it didn't help very much either that we both speak Swedish perfectly, a very orthogonal language allowing for on-the-run word inventions; by "orthogonal" I hereby mean that one can easily adjoin two, three, four or more words and so create a new word with somewhat clear meaning even if the word has never been uttered before. (The term "orthogonal" was originally coined in computer science when designing Algol 68).

      So now when the population of Earth is growing, the energy resources and climate will be going to fail (D*rn! Incoative in futurum of "fail"! All natlangs sücxk!!) the choice of humankind might be to research inter-scientially and trans-scientially in order to save (the bacons of) itself. When science per sociological processes fragments into island universes without outside contact, we have a pathological process counteracting what humankind needs.

      The practical problems with English are:
      • it uses too many stems, such as author/write/read/pen/text when it could be (just an example) scribtor/scribere/*scribvide/*scribum/*scribandum
      • the word formation capability is unclear, for example we don't know whether "school book example" is a temporary formulation, a phrase or a term. We dont know if "school book example" means an example fetched from a school book, i.e. (school+book)+example (in Sw. this is "skolbok+s+exempel"), or a example fetched from books, which is normal in schools, i.e. school+(book+example) (in Sw. this example would have been *"skolbok+exempel"), there are similar examples where French is superior to germanic examples, but the point is that on-the-fly creation of words that are intelligible would be a necessary capability of a pacificating language usable for all purposes,
      Also, watch The Great Planet Debate, based in the IAU definition of planet debacle, where "dwarf+planet" erroneously is defined as "a planet sized body that has irregular orbit", while claiming that a "dwarf+planet" is not a "planet". C.f. "dwarf+elephant".

      My ideas on conlang is in general very different from the usual rationales:

      Grammar doesn't matter much: six cases is neither better nor worse than zero cases, it's just a matter of training. Personally I would prefer some four to six cases. Beside that, such grammar rules must be logical, clean (no exceptions whatsoever) and pretty minimalist. Western gender systems, masculine and feminine are idiotic: we absolutely need to keep the difference between terms, descriptions and flexible phrases, we don't need to keep strict cultural sexist taboos in order to keep a static backward iron-age society. What a positive surprise if the professor actually is a woman!

      Naturalness is bad: (the Novial, Occidental and Interlingua philosophy) if a language is too similar to the surrounding languages, there is a risk that the surrounding languages' bad habits seeps over to the auxlang. Esperanto's artificialness requires the speaker to be careful when translating a certain phrase into the language. Same for Lojban, which have a very strict four step import process in order to borrow words.

      Sci/Tech need: we don't need a tourist language (even though tourists should be able to profit from using it), that language is already English, we need a better science and technological language than English. The language should preferrably be developed by repeated test-translations of scientific article into the different versions of the language.

      There are other things to say about languages, f.ex. that there must exist ways to express oneself vaguely in order to be able to negotiate, and of course to be able to express oneself painfully exact. Also I think a language should be developed in many subsequent versions: this is how real languages develop.

      cheers / Tomas
    • siderespector
      ... wrote: ...[snip]... I forgot: I believe a usable language should be designed according to utility, not according to taste. Many
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "siderespector"
        <siderespector@...> wrote:

        ...[snip]...

        I forgot: I believe a usable language should be designed according to
        utility, not according to taste. Many translation experiments!

        And determined articles of western languages suucqxs too!

        cheers / Tomas
      • Dmitri Ivanov
        Hi Thomas, thanks for an interesing message. The goal of LdP is simple: to help a global language to appear, through presenting an example/model of what it can
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 15, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Thomas,

          thanks for an interesing message.

          The goal of LdP is simple: to help a global language to appear, through presenting an example/model of what it can be like. In a certain respect LdP goals have already been met, as we now have a more or less workable language with an original idea and structure. It should be further developed but what we have already is not bad as it is.
          The future is not written yet and it would be silly to argue about it, but English becoming the world language is only one of the possibilities. The current crisis shows that political situation in the world is not stable, so it's not a clear road. Actually, many people say that our society is ill; recent senseless shootings and mass killings of children demonstrate it. It may well be that a series of crises is going to make humanity reorganise itself completely. In the current circumstances I don't see much possibilities for the spread of LdP or any other planned language; however things may change in the future. I know even people who predict that in 300 years English will be almost completely forgotten :)

          > When science per sociological processes fragments into island
          > universes without outside contact, we have a pathological process
          > counteracting what humankind needs.

          I'd add that sociological processes are such that every individual tends to become an island. Fundamentally this is due to the ideology of individualism and competition which has long since become a mortal struggle between countries and individuals. Humankind does need a sort of reboot on principles of cooperation and mutual contact.


          > The practical problems with English are:
          >
          > * it uses too many stems, such as author/write/read/pen/text when it
          > could be (just an example)
          > scribtor/scribere/*scribvide/*scribum/*scribandum

          That's debatable. I know languages where you get sick from repetition of the same elements, actually too much of the same thing makes you understand situation worse. Just as an example, if "rain" is coded as "water go down" and there are other occurrences of water, go and down in the same phrase, then it'll take you a little more time to understand things. In general I prefer to look at natural languages: if most of them have specific words for a notion, then I think it's better to have a specific word.

          I'll continue soon. Cheers
        • Dmitri Ivanov
          ... Yes, it happens to English. Especially strange are sometimes headlines where they try to put it as short as possible and you have to guess what actually is
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 15, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > * the word formation capability is unclear, for example we don't know
            > whether "school book example" is a temporary formulation, a phrase or a
            > term. We dont know if "school book example" means an example fetched
            > from a school book, i.e. (school+book)+example (in Sw. this is
            > "skolbok+s+exempel"), or a example fetched from books, which is normal
            > in schools, i.e. school+(book+example) (in Sw. this example would have
            > been *"skolbok+exempel"), there are similar examples where French is
            > superior to germanic examples, but the point is that on-the-fly creation
            > of words that are intelligible would be a necessary capability of a
            > pacificating language usable for all purposes,

            Yes, it happens to English. Especially strange are sometimes headlines where they try to put it as short as possible and you have to guess what actually is meant, what is the subordination between words. However English has ways of making things clear: to be precise, one could say "an example from a school book" or "school's example from books". In LdP we can insert "ney" in the same way as the English 's.


            > Also, watch The Great Planet Debate
            > <http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/debate/debateStream.php> , based in the IAU
            > definition of planet debacle, where "dwarf+planet" erroneously is
            > defined as "a planet sized body that has irregular orbit", while
            > claiming that a "dwarf+planet" is not a "planet". C.f. "dwarf+elephant".
            >
            > My ideas on conlang is in general very different from the usual
            > rationales:
            >
            > Grammar doesn't matter much: six cases is neither better nor worse than
            > zero cases, it's just a matter of training.

            This may be true, esp. for European users. But maybe for Easterners six cases would require too much training. LdP has no cases but a special accusative particle to be used in non-direct word order. In general we prefer to keep things simple enough but not too simple, e.g. I don't like doing without possessive pronouns.


            > Personally I would prefer
            > some four to six cases. Beside that, such grammar rules must be logical,
            > clean (no exceptions whatsoever) and pretty minimalist. Western gender
            > systems, masculine and feminine are idiotic: we absolutely need to keep
            > the difference between terms, descriptions and flexible phrases, we
            > don't need to keep strict cultural sexist taboos in order to keep a
            > static backward iron-age society. What a positive surprise if the
            > professor actually is a woman!

            LdP has possibilities to express gender, but this is not obligatory. So "profesor" is professor in general, gin-profesor is female professor.

            > Naturalness is bad: (the Novial, Occidental and Interlingua philosophy)
            > if a language is too similar to the surrounding languages, there is a
            > risk that the surrounding languages' bad habits seeps over to the
            > auxlang. Esperanto's artificialness requires the speaker to be careful
            > when translating a certain phrase into the language. Same for Lojban,
            > which have a very strict four step import process in order to borrow
            > words.

            I think there should be measure in everything, so too much of naturalness is indeed bad. Interlingua is naturalistic to the extent of being extremely difficult. But Esperanto is not that artificial as one could think. I think that it's its usage of Latin vocabulary that led to its relative success.

            >
            > Sci/Tech need: we don't need a tourist language (even though tourists
            > should be able to profit from using it), that language is already
            > English, we need a better science and technological language than
            > English. The language should preferrably be developed by repeated
            > test-translations of scientific article into the different versions of
            > the language.

            It's because the language of Science is English today that the bulk of LdP vocabulary is Latinate. I think that scientific articles in LdP will not differ too much from those in, say, Novial.
            What I don't like about English as a scientific language, is its pronunciation, contrary to Latin and all the other langs. So they have [bai@sfi@] instead of biosfera!


            > There are other things to say about languages, f.ex. that there must
            > exist ways to express oneself vaguely in order to be able to negotiate,
            > and of course to be able to express oneself painfully exact.

            It's one of our principles. E.g. it is not obligatory to use tenses or plural form, but for precision or stress it is possible.


            Also I
            > think a language should be developed in many subsequent versions: this
            > is how real languages develop.
            >

            Can you clarify that?

            > cheers / Tomas
            >

            Swasti!

            Dmitri
          • siderespector
            ... Thanks for listening! (Not easy to find anyone that want, really!) ... Oh, I would say it has gone as far as to be the world language *now*, but it won t
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 15, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "Dmitri Ivanov" <lingwadeplaneta@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Thomas,
              >
              > thanks for an interesing message.

              Thanks for listening! (Not easy to find anyone that want, really!)

              > The goal of LdP is simple: to help a global language to appear,
              > through presenting an example/model of what it can be like. In a
              > certain respect LdP goals have already been met, as we now have a
              > more or less workable language with an original idea and structure.
              > It should be further developed but what we have already is not bad
              > as it is.
              >
              > The future is not written yet and it would be silly to argue about
              > it, but English becoming the world language is only one of the
              > possibilities.

              Oh, I would say it has gone as far as to be the world language *now*,
              but it won't go very much farther than this. It's like a lingua
              franca counterparting Latin of old, used for trade, science and a
              diversity of international cooperations, such as f.ex. the standard
              communication language for air traffic, and so on. That doesn't mean
              that the native usage necessarily will increase, nor be a good idea.
              Now my idea of a "world language" is more limited: like a lingua
              franca that can tackle communication problems better than English.

              > The current crisis shows that political situation
              > in the world is not stable, so it's not a clear road. Actually,
              > many people say that our society is ill; recent senseless shootings
              > and mass killings of children demonstrate it. It may well be that a
              > series of crises is going to make humanity reorganise itself
              > completely. In the current circumstances I don't see much
              > possibilities for the spread of LdP or any other planned language;
              > however things may change in the future. I know even people who
              > predict that in 300 years English will be almost completely
              > forgotten :)

              Depends. Does the documentation of the 1900:ies and 2000:ies remain
              in the 2300:ies? If so, it will probably remain, otherwise the matter
              is more complicated. Doesn't matter much however, since we're speaking
              English now, and by 2309 we're most probably dead (?) also (?).

              > > When science per sociological processes fragments into island
              > > universes without outside contact, we have a pathological process
              > > counteracting what humankind needs.
              >
              > I'd add that sociological processes are such that every individual
              > tends to become an island. Fundamentally this is due to the ideology
              > of individualism and competition which has long since become a
              > mortal struggle between countries and individuals. Humankind does
              > need a sort of reboot on principles of cooperation and mutual
              > contact.

              I agree with that, in every respect. But cooperation contains a
              rather continuous process of negotiation. Based on all participants
              having a common "mindset" (see "mindset" in en.wikipedia) regarding
              the task they're about to solve in cooperation, they're evolving their
              common mindset by comparing individual "assets" (assumptions, a.s.o.)
              to the observed outcome of their individual acts, negotiative
              communication between the collaborators, and the hardest: in order to
              get the cooperation work as intended, the cooperating individuals need
              a certain level of empathy ~ some sort of realistical imagination
              about what the other individuals are experiencing. When those
              cooperation tasks are becoming harder and harder, the more preparative
              exercises would be needed, and that includes purely philosophical
              questions, as well as a certain knowledge about how to avoid certain
              systemic kinds of collaboration errors (circa: "no person does any
              real error, but the communications hinders facts from reaching the
              right person in the right moment"). I'm not sure that English will be
              able to communicate such teachings to people in an easily
              comprehensible way. Or what terms are there for different kind of
              communication glitches that communicators should be aware of? Maybe
              quite a few in a very elaborate language, or a large set of
              three-letter-acronyms which only make sense for decision theory
              academics...

              I think it is when the topics get complicated that the deficiencies of
              natural languages become more obvious.

              > > The practical problems with English are:
              > >
              > > * it uses too many stems, such as author/write/read/pen/text
              > > when it could be (just an example) scribtor/scribere/
              > > *scribvide/*scribum/*scribandum
              >
              > That's debatable. I know languages where you get sick from
              > repetition of the same elements, actually too much of the same
              > thing makes you understand situation worse. Just as an example, if
              > "rain" is coded as "water go down" and there are other occurrences

              Not what I'm after: I'm not after limiting the number of stems used.
              Instead I'm imagining kind of "human systemic limitation" on how many
              stems an individual can learn to recognize. Using different stems for
              small variations in meaning is quite OK by me, but using a quite
              different stem for the same meaning, just that it is a verb not a
              noun, is for me an unnecessary waste of brain capacity. C.f. the
              Semitic languages that somewhat nicely reuse the root meaning for
              many words with related meaning (Arabic, root "KTB"):
              "kataba" - write,
              "kita:b" - book,
              "muktib" - writer/author,
              "maktab" - school, etc..
              But the trouble with Semitic languages is on the other hand it's
              limited capacity to adjoin word roots to create new words. That seems
              to have little to do with this kind of root system, however...

              > of water, go and down in the same phrase, then it'll take you a
              > little more time to understand things. In general I prefer to look
              > at natural languages: if most of them have specific words for a
              > notion, then I think it's better to have a specific word.

              Oh, I disagree very much about the naturalness of natural languages
              and the utility of naturalness. (And if so, why not propone a natural
              language as an intauxlang, maybe English? :)) Natural languages are
              evolutionary products, usually nonsystematic mixes of
              this-and-that-from-anywhere ordered in a
              grab-the-nearest-one-and-insert-randomly order, just about fit for
              their purpose, as long as the reasoning not becomes too complicated
              and patience of the listeners is enough. I'm vindicating that
              languages should be designed in order to save the listening effort of
              the listeners. The idea is to redistribute word stems, so that what
              refers to the same meaning get the same stem, what is differing -
              little or much - get different stems. This probably doesn't matter
              very much if the listeners have all the necessary base knowledge to
              understand a sentence, i.e. know all words, their meaning and how the
              things represented by the words really work. Then it doesn't matter if
              the roots are different or same. But if the words are actually unknown
              to the listener, sharing the stem/root can actually enable the
              listener to *guess* the meaning, while differing in roots is a
              hindrance to such guesses. As much as I can estimate matters, much of
              communication concerns topics which are unknown for either dialogue
              part - much of the communications is fact or act negotiation processes
              where each and every individual is correlating his/her mindset to the
              mindsets of the other participants by extending the knowledge by facts
              and evaluating methods. A language so structured as to share a
              stem/root for many syntactic roles (noun, verb, etc.), would at least
              avoid the lack-of-recognition-of-word-error.

              > > * the word formation capability is unclear, for example we
              > > don't know whether "school book example" is a temporary formula-
              > > tion, a phrase or a term. We don't know if "school book example"
              > > means an example fetched from a school book, i.e. (school+book)+
              > > example (in Sw. this is "skolbok+s+exempel"), or a example fetched
              > > from books, which is normal in schools, i.e. school+(book+example)
              > > (in Sw. this example would have been *"skolbok+exempel"), there
              > > are similar examples where French is superior to germanic
              > > examples, but the point is that on-the-fly creation of words that
              > > are intelligible would be a necessary capability of a pacificating
              > > language usable for all purposes,
              >
              > Yes, it happens to English. Especially strange are sometimes
              > headlines where they try to put it as short as possible and you
              > have to guess what actually is meant, what is the subordination
              > between words. However English has ways of making things clear: to
              > be precise, one could say "an example from a school book" or
              > "school's example from books".

              Hmm, that makes phrases. Let's imagine how to make words from the
              phrases, using some imaginated LdP-derivative extended in a "French"
              way, using prepositions as glue:

              "an example from a school book" ==>
              example+[from]+(book+[used in]+school) ==> /fit with LdP-order/
              (school+[USED IN][1st]+book)+[FROM][2nd]+example ==>
              ((skol+ui+0+kitab)+ofon+es+exampl)+a ==>
              skoluikitabofonesexampla, or skolui-kitabofones-exampla /new word/

              Now, I'm very elaborate indicating compounding tightness by [1st] (0
              - no glue-fix), [2nd] (using "es" as a glue). The new compound is
              painfully detailed, and a real compounding system might be less
              precise than this and still work fine. Next:

              "school's example from books" ==>
              (example+[from]+books)+[provided by]+schools ==> /LdP-reorder/
              schools+[PROVIDED BY][2nd]+(books+[FROM][1st]+example) ==>
              skol+opp+es+(kitab+ofon+0+exampla) ==>
              skoloppeskitabofonexampla, or skoloppes-kitabofon-exampla

              Just an example - the glue-particles are not optimal. Using a fusional
              language mixing case with number and possibly also an aggregation
              glue, one might effectively and by habit create new words which are
              pretty precise. By aggregation glue I mean affixes signifying clusters
              of things such as: "ant"/"ant+hill", "mite"/"mite+swarm",
              "minor-planet/minor-planet-belt", c.f. Ithkuil's and Ilaksh'es
              "configuration and affiliation inflection" at

              http://www.ithkuil.net/ilaksh/Chapter_3.html.

              > In LdP we can insert "ney" in the same way as the English 's.

              That's a good start, but I would propose a series of glue-fixes
              which are patterned after prepositions and adapted to gluing level,
              such as:

              LdP 1st level 2nd level 3rd level (case)
              an +ana+ +ena+ +ina+ (+an)
              do +ado+ +edo+ +ido+ (+od)
              fon +afo+ +efo+ +ifo+ (+of)

              Just an example - the choice of glue-infixes and how to relate to
              cases and numeri would need a very thorough analysis, much more
              thorough than any I've ever seen for any (int+aux)+(con+lang).

              > > Also, watch The Great Planet Debate
              > > <http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/debate/debateStream.php> , based in the IAU
              > > definition of planet debacle, where "dwarf+planet" erroneously is
              > > defined as "a planet sized body that has irregular orbit", while
              > > claiming that a "dwarf+planet" is not a "planet". C.f. "dwarf+elephant".
              > >
              > > My ideas on conlang is in general very different from the usual
              > > rationales:
              > >
              > > Grammar doesn't matter much: six cases is neither better nor worse than
              > > zero cases, it's just a matter of training.
              >
              > This may be true, esp. for European users. But maybe for Easterners
              > six cases would require too much training. LdP has no cases but a
              > special accusative particle to be used in non-direct word order. In
              > general we prefer to keep things simple enough but not too simple,
              > e.g. I don't like doing without possessive pronouns.

              "Simple enough but not too simple" is perfectly said. Esperanto's two
              case system is too simple. A possessive form/case is a must-have. Most
              natural languages has it for pronomina, and why then, in the name of
              regularity, not enhance it to nouns?

              > > Personally I would prefer some four to six cases. Beside that,
              > > such grammar rules must be logical, clean (no exceptions
              > > whatsoever) and pretty minimalist. Western gender systems,
              > > masculine and feminine are idiotic: we absolutely need to keep
              > > the difference between terms, descriptions and flexible phrases, we
              > > don't need to keep strict cultural sexist taboos in order to keep a
              > > static backward iron-age society. What a positive surprise if the
              > > professor actually is a woman!
              >
              > LdP has possibilities to express gender, but this is not obligatory.
              > So "profesor" is professor in general, gin-profesor is female
              > professor.

              Oh, but that is more like a derivation, not a gender. Derivations
              aren't obligatory, and doesn't use up much learning effort from the
              speaker/talker. If to be strictly feminist, we would say that
              "professor" is a male, female or a green guy from the Andromeda
              galaxy, "gin-professor" is a female, "man-professor" is a male, and
              "M31-professor" is a green guy from the Andromeda galaxy. But that's
              more like a cultural habit than a derivation rule.

              > > Naturalness is bad: (the Novial, Occidental and Interlingua
              > > philosophy) if a language is too similar to the surrounding
              > > languages, there is a risk that the surrounding languages' bad
              > > habits seeps over to the auxlang. Esperanto's artificialness
              > > requires the speaker to be careful when translating a certain
              > > phrase into the language. Same for Lojban, which have a very
              > > strict four step import process in order to borrow words.
              >
              > I think there should be measure in everything, so too much of
              > naturalness is indeed bad. Interlingua is naturalistic to the
              > extent of being extremely difficult.

              Oh, Interlingua doesn't even deserve the label "language" by my
              thinking!

              > But Esperanto is not that artificial as one could think. I think
              > that it's its usage of Latin vocabulary that led to its relative
              > success.

              Hmm, maybe. I think foremost its right-in-time-ness (right after
              the collaps of Volapük) is the first reason, secondly its
              Europeanness (mostly by Latin), thirdly its unnaturalness and design
              clarity: the fact that the grammar rules are exactly 17, that the
              rules are exceptionless and that the grammar books are very clear
              about these qualities. 17 and "exceptionless" are very attractive
              qualities for any prospective learner.

              > > Sci/Tech need: we don't need a tourist language (even though tourists
              > > should be able to profit from using it), that language is already
              > > English, we need a better science and technological language than
              > > English. The language should preferrably be developed by repeated
              > > test-translations of scientific article into the different versions of
              > > the language.
              >
              > It's because the language of Science is English today that the bulk
              > of LdP vocabulary is Latinate. I think that scientific articles in
              > LdP will not differ too much from those in, say, Novial.

              I would design a language using *any* available free international
              conlang vocabulary, but successively substitute words till the
              language is compact so that "substitution" is substituted for "swap",
              "information" for "info" or whatever. What word should require a
              one-syllable-stem should be a matter of how important the word is.
              The Idea of mixing in Arabic and Russian and Chinese is a good thing,
              if it fits the pattern and suits the purpose. If the base vocabulary
              would be based on Latin, it would be easy to recognize, but sadly
              Latin tend to overflow with lots of syllables. Compare "northeast" (2)
              with "*boreo-oriens" (6). I think it is acceptable that the language
              is a little bit ugly, if its effectiveness weights this up, but I'm
              inclining *from* Latin as a base, towards some earlier Indoeuropean,
              maybe Sanskrit, that has some root variations similar to the Semitic
              languages, and otherwise a general word-composition habit similar to
              that of the Germanic languages. Borrowing the grammar from Sanskrit
              would however be a quite insane idea.

              > What I don't like about English as a scientific language, is its
              > pronunciation, contrary to Latin and all the other langs. So they
              > have [bai@sfi@] instead of biosfera!

              I agree mostly. Skipping the "e" at the end is OK, using diphtongs
              is OK, but the pronunciation rules disable them from being able to
              pronounce unstressed syllables freely. That is a heavy pronunciation
              handicap. One of the worst thing is that they're almost unable to
              pronounce the constellation names like they're pronounced in Latin.
              The spelling system is not very good either to say the very least.

              > > There are other things to say about languages, f.ex. that there
              > > must exist ways to express oneself vaguely in order to be able
              > > to negotiate, and of course to be able to express oneself
              > > painfully exact.
              >
              > It's one of our principles. E.g. it is not obligatory to use tenses
              > or plural form, but for precision or stress it is possible.

              Good. Case is however different: the roles of "I" and "the duck"
              aren't interchangeable in "I ate the duck", so if case is omitted
              there must exist a rule that says that if no case is given, the word
              order is SVO. In most cases ducks don't eat humans (that afterwards
              still are able to utter sentences), but "Jill hit Jim" could easily
              be confused by "Jim hit Jill" if both case and word order are
              undefined.

              > > Also I
              > > think a language should be developed in many subsequent versions:
              > > this is how real languages develop.
              > >
              >
              > Can you clarify that?

              Oh, like Novial28, Novial30, Novial98. Successive standard versions,
              set by committee decisions. My parallel to real languages was not
              well chosen, instead imagine program versions.

              swasti! / Tomas
            • Zein-elabidein
              ... I think knowing some scientific expectations like studing Futurology (Futuris) can be very important . ... If English disappeared then what will remain !
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 16, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "siderespector" <siderespector@...> wrote:
                >> > The future is not written yet and it would be silly to argue about
                I think knowing some scientific expectations like studing Futurology (Futuris) can be very important .


                > Oh, I would say it has gone as far as to be the world language *now*,
                > but it won't go very much farther than this. It's like a lingua
                > franca counterparting Latin of old, used for trade, science and a
                > diversity of international cooperations, such as f.ex. the standard
                > communication language for air traffic, and so on. That doesn't mean
                > that the native usage necessarily will increase, nor be a good idea.
                > Now my idea of a "world language" is more limited: like a lingua
                > franca that can tackle communication problems better than English.
                >
                > > The current crisis shows that political situation
                > > in the world is not stable, so it's not a clear road. Actually,
                > > many people say that our society is ill; recent senseless shootings
                > > and mass killings of children demonstrate it. It may well be that a
                > > series of crises is going to make humanity reorganise itself
                > > completely. In the current circumstances I don't see much
                > > possibilities for the spread of LdP or any other planned language;
                > > however things may change in the future. I know even people who
                > > predict that in 300 years English will be almost completely
                > > forgotten :)
                >

                If English disappeared then what will remain !
                maybe the robotic language will take over :)

                > Depends. Does the documentation of the 1900:ies and 2000:ies remain
                > in the 2300:ies? If so, it will probably remain, otherwise the matter
                > is more complicated. Doesn't matter much however, since we're speaking
                > English now, and by 2309 we're most probably dead (?) also (?).
                >

                Wel ! I think English will gain more importance if compared with other languages. What makes English important is USA people. They are 300 million now. They will become 400 milion .Germans are decreasing in number ,and unfortunatly This will decrease the power behind their language . And more than that is the beatiful Italian which I am speaking. The world is going towards a big demographical change. Actually it is the continuation of population booming started in the last century. This will diminsh in the next centuries .
                These relative changes will start to diminsh because we know that every contry in history saw two phases ,one for increase of population and the second after the population get educated and get to more work ,the population start to decrease. So developing countries will not continue for ever with booming population . they will start to decrease at some point. USA increases population because it recieves more immigration. I think we should take these things in mind ,because you can find expectations of population in the web ,therefor we would know which languages will be majore in the future . If our language ignores Bengali ,then we will fail in the future ,because bengali is important and will be very important in the future. Things like that.



                > Not what I'm after: I'm not after limiting the number of stems used.
                > Instead I'm imagining kind of "human systemic limitation" on how many
                > stems an individual can learn to recognize. Using different stems for
                > small variations in meaning is quite OK by me, but using a quite
                > different stem for the same meaning, just that it is a verb not a
                > noun, is for me an unnecessary waste of brain capacity. C.f. the
                > Semitic languages that somewhat nicely reuse the root meaning for
                > many words with related meaning (Arabic, root "KTB"):
                > "kataba" - write,
                > "kita:b" - book,
                > "muktib" - writer/author,
                > "maktab" - school, etc..
                > But the trouble with Semitic languages is on the other hand it's
                > limited capacity to adjoin word roots to create new words. That seems
                > to have little to do with this kind of root system, however...
                >



                Arabic can create new words ,although it has too many roots ,but compund words are very rare. we use two seperat words as one word For example
                Hasep aly = computer
                or we use one word which is Hasoop.

                Also you have talked about Minimalism.
                Yes minimalism cannot be in a language that wants to be used officially around the world. But I think in Ardano I will not let the idea go without a look.
                I am convinced that minimalism is very essential for teaching children and encreasing their mintal development ,because it makes them think.

                I think your dialogue here is very beautiful.
                Have you seen the goals of my language Ardano
                I think you should see it and include it in your research , I call it the language of the endless advantages
                It's the only auxlang that can help endangered languages
                Ardano not just works to help solving the IAL problem ,but also other problems.
              • Dmitri Ivanov
                Hao aksham Thomas ... btw. have you ever done it? seems like yes ... That s actually one of the things I am thinking about. So far we have been preferring
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 16, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hao aksham Thomas

                  I think I can't answer to all points of your another-interesting-message right away (due to lack of time), but I must reply to this passage:

                  > I would design a language

                  btw. have you ever done it? seems like yes

                  > using *any* available free international
                  > conlang vocabulary, but successively substitute words till the
                  > language is compact so that "substitution" is substituted for "swap",
                  > "information" for "info" or whatever.

                  That's actually one of the things I am thinking about. So far we have been preferring recognizability but I'm dreaming about more compactness. However those long Latin words are already so widespread and used everywhere in science that it seems that they'll stay anyway as stable terms if even we cut them apart in our newly invented language or find a short substitution for them.
                  What can be done is to have them as little as possible in the basic dictionary.

                  > What word should require a
                  > one-syllable-stem should be a matter of how important the word is.

                  Exactly.

                  > The Idea of mixing in Arabic and Russian and Chinese is a good thing,
                  > if it fits the pattern and suits the purpose. If the base vocabulary
                  > would be based on Latin, it would be easy to recognize, but sadly
                  > Latin tend to overflow with lots of syllables. Compare "northeast" (2)
                  > with "*boreo-oriens" (6). I think it is acceptable that the language
                  > is a little bit ugly, if its effectiveness weights this up, but I'm
                  > inclining *from* Latin as a base, towards some earlier Indoeuropean,
                  > maybe Sanskrit, that has some root variations similar to the Semitic
                  > languages, and otherwise a general word-composition habit similar to
                  > that of the Germanic languages. Borrowing the grammar from Sanskrit
                  > would however be a quite insane idea.

                  Have you looked at Sambahsa by our friend Dr. Olivier Simon? It is quite compact and based initially on Proto Indo European but with lot of words from all over the world:
                  http://sambahsa.pbwiki.com/

                  Hao nocha!

                  Dmitri
                • cafaristeir
                  Spasibo dorogoj Dmitry! ... Sanskrit, which I have studied on my own, is very interesting to understand how Indo-European did work, for Sanskrit, from a
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Spasibo dorogoj Dmitry!

                    >
                    > > The Idea of mixing in Arabic and Russian and Chinese is a good thing,
                    > > if it fits the pattern and suits the purpose. If the base vocabulary
                    > > would be based on Latin, it would be easy to recognize, but sadly
                    > > Latin tend to overflow with lots of syllables. Compare "northeast" (2)
                    > > with "*boreo-oriens" (6). I think it is acceptable that the language
                    > > is a little bit ugly, if its effectiveness weights this up, but I'm
                    > > inclining *from* Latin as a base, towards some earlier Indoeuropean,
                    > > maybe Sanskrit, that has some root variations similar to the Semitic
                    > > languages, and otherwise a general word-composition habit similar to
                    > > that of the Germanic languages. Borrowing the grammar from Sanskrit
                    > > would however be a quite insane idea.
                    >
                    > Have you looked at Sambahsa by our friend Dr. Olivier Simon? It is quite compact and based initially on Proto Indo European but with lot of words from all over the world:
                    > http://sambahsa.pbwiki.com/
                    >
                    Sanskrit, which I have studied on my own, is very interesting to understand how Indo-European did work, for Sanskrit, from a grammatical point of view, has remained "transparent" compared to Latin and Greek. Its name comes from the fact that it has been "refined" and that its grammar was precisely codified by Panini. That's why there was a legend according to which it had inspired NASA engineers to create a programming language for computers.
                    Nevertheless, Sanskrit is still full of unpredictable forms, so it must take several years for someone to master it...
                    On the contrary, Sambahsa is far simpler with a fully predictable grammar!
                    The ablaut system has been mainly kept for conjugations, because I regret that nearly all auxlangs have long past tenses compared to languages as English, or even Russian and French.
                    For new words, whether people are using Sambahsa or LdP, the facts are the same. Facing a new concept, people will surely be more inclined to adopt a loanword that to coin a compound or a derivate. That's why the language has to be capable of adopting loanwords easily.

                    Hao aksham a oles!
                    Swasti!

                    Olivier
                    http://sambahsa.pbwiki.com/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.