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

Re: [lingwadeplaneta] Expanding the dictionary

Expand Messages
  • Michael Everson
    ... There were social reasons for that, having to do with the imposition of foreign rule on the people of England. That s a bit different from conlang
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2 Dec 2012, at 15:35, lingwadeplaneta <lingwadeplaneta@...> wrote:

      >> But it wouldn't be Lingwa de Planeta any longer, would it?
      >
      > The only difference would be that a large stock of *rare words* would appear, so that making translations you wouldn't have to invent new words but would simply look them up in the dictionary.
      > English absorbed a huge amount of French vocabulary, still it isn't a Romance language.

      There were social reasons for that, having to do with the imposition of foreign rule on the people of England. That's a bit different from conlang engineering, I should think.

      On 2 Dec 2012, at 17:56, Stephen Rice <ansrith@...> wrote:

      > One of my former professors, Dr. Michael Krauss (who is on Wikipedia, yet:
      >
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Krauss ),
      >
      > liked to stress this point: vocabulary has little or no bearing on a
      > language's identity.

      And he'd be right, in a lot of ways. But Lingwa de Planeta has a particular ethos about how it derives its roots, and that's a different kind of ethos than the one which Interlingua uses.

      > So I don't see why this proposal has generated so much drama.

      Because it feels like... cheating.

      Michael Everson
      who is also on Wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson

      ;-)
    • Stephen Rice
      ... Nonsense. If the English had wished to reject foreign linguistic influence completely, they could have done so. But the terms that came in were high level,
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 12/2/12, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
        > On 2 Dec 2012, at 15:35, lingwadeplaneta <lingwadeplaneta@...> wrote:
        >
        >>> But it wouldn't be Lingwa de Planeta any longer, would it?
        >>
        >> The only difference would be that a large stock of *rare words* would
        >> appear, so that making translations you wouldn't have to invent new words
        >> but would simply look them up in the dictionary.
        >> English absorbed a huge amount of French vocabulary, still it isn't a
        >> Romance language.
        >
        > There were social reasons for that, having to do with the imposition of
        > foreign rule on the people of England. That's a bit different from conlang
        > engineering, I should think.

        Nonsense. If the English had wished to reject foreign linguistic
        influence completely, they could have done so. But the terms that came
        in were high level, having to do with law, scholarship, and the like.
        There was never any danger that English would become Romance. Do you
        think this a unique case? It isn't. I'm not aware of a single instance
        of a language changing type. It would be easier to exterminate it and
        substitute something else.

        In _The Island of Dr. Moreau_, Moreau basically used plastic surgery
        to make animals look human, and that somehow made them act human, even
        to speaking. More recent film adaptations have changed this to genetic
        tinkering because we know full well that changing form doesn't change
        essence. Yet the argument here is that a superficial change will
        effect a fundamental change. It doesn't. It can't.

        Now, this doesn't address the argument from principle, only the
        hand-wringing about making LdP a Romance clone.

        > On 2 Dec 2012, at 17:56, Stephen Rice <ansrith@...> wrote:
        >
        >> One of my former professors, Dr. Michael Krauss (who is on Wikipedia,
        >> yet:
        >>
        >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Krauss ),
        >>
        >> liked to stress this point: vocabulary has little or no bearing on a
        >> language's identity.
        >
        > And he'd be right, in a lot of ways. But Lingwa de Planeta has a particular
        > ethos about how it derives its roots, and that's a different kind of ethos
        > than the one which Interlingua uses.

        That's true, but I'm not convinced that it's relevant. Interlingua
        follows its derivational scheme and overall ethos throughout; LdP
        would continue to derive most of its roots by its usual methods.
        Dmitry's talking about special cases, and there's a strong chance that
        the usual methods would arrive at the same results by more tedious
        means: these are typically areas where western terminology
        predominates anyway. The terms in question would not be used by most
        people, just as the terms in a technical dictionary aren't in common
        use and may as well not even exist where most people are concerned.
        But they must be there for specialists.

        >> So I don't see why this proposal has generated so much drama.
        >
        > Because it feels like... cheating.

        To me it feels like a heuristic. It's not the same thing.

        > Michael Everson
        > who is also on Wikipedia
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson

        I was simply surprised to discover that Dr. Krauss was listed. I guess
        I shouldn't have been: he was pretty much the public and academic face
        of the Alaska Native Languages Center for a few decades.

        Your case is interesting as well; there's apparently an answer
        available to a question I asked you a few years ago. You were
        publishing a Cornish New Testament, I think, and I asked what kind of
        Cornish was involved--original or one of the revival schemes. I looked
        into the revival attempts back in the late 80s, but I wasn't
        impressed. I'm not sure what has happened since. Anyway, there are
        relevant links on the subject on the Wikipedia page, so I'll check
        that at some point.

        Steve
      • lingwadeplaneta
        ... Yes, but, as Steve wrote, in the case of technical terms the result is likely to be very close. However, Interlingua terminology does need a second closer
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
          >
          >But Lingwa de Planeta has a particular ethos about how it derives its roots, and that's a different kind of ethos than the one which Interlingua uses.

          Yes, but, as Steve wrote, in the case of technical terms the result is likely to be very close.

          However, Interlingua terminology does need a second closer look. "Disveloppamento" alerted me a little bit.


          > >So I don't see why this proposal has generated so much drama.

          > Because it feels like... cheating.

          It would be cheating if I had declared that it's me who invented Interlingua words and that I just took them out of my head.

          To import root(s) from a natlang or another conlang is not cheating. In fact, in Lidepla everything is imported, there is not a single "my" word that I just took out of my head. Importing is usual in our case.

          Also, I think that we should strive for optimality rather than "to look very different from others in every aspect". What we propose is an auxiliary language, so collaboration and interchange is only natural.


          > Michael Everson
          > who is also on Wikipedia
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson
          >
          > ;-)
          >

          Gratula!
        • Martín Rincón Botero
          I don t see what the problem is. An auxiliary language should be practical, nothing else. It would be shameful that at the end of this discussion somebody
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't see what the problem is. An auxiliary language should be practical, nothing else. It would be shameful that at the end of this discussion somebody starts talking about the "hao lingwa" citing Claude Pirón as the new model for Ldp! :-P

            In spanish we already use words like "marketing", "fashion", "bar", etc., and it's still far from becoming a germanic language. If Interlingua is the most practical source which scientists and doctors will most easily agree
            with in an auxlang, then we could start borrowing words from it. I only propose that we do it by fields of knowledge, just for the sake of measuring progress.

            Swasti!
            Martín. 


            2012/12/3 lingwadeplaneta <lingwadeplaneta@...>
             



            --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
            >
            >But Lingwa de Planeta has a particular ethos about how it derives its roots, and that's a different kind of ethos than the one which Interlingua uses.

            Yes, but, as Steve wrote, in the case of technical terms the result is likely to be very close.

            However, Interlingua terminology does need a second closer look. "Disveloppamento" alerted me a little bit.


            > >So I don't see why this proposal has generated so much drama.

            > Because it feels like... cheating.

            It would be cheating if I had declared that it's me who invented Interlingua words and that I just took them out of my head.

            To import root(s) from a natlang or another conlang is not cheating. In fact, in Lidepla everything is imported, there is not a single "my" word that I just took out of my head. Importing is usual in our case.

            Also, I think that we should strive for optimality rather than "to look very different from others in every aspect". What we propose is an auxiliary language, so collaboration and interchange is only natural.


            > Michael Everson
            > who is also on Wikipedia
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson
            >
            > ;-)
            >

            Gratula!


          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.