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

Re: Which Novial?

Expand Messages
  • Bruce R. Gilson
    ... The inconsistency. If you always used it, fine. But you _only_ use it when the base noun is a person. (Or, probably, an animate noun.) ... _You_ happen to
    Message 1 of 39 , Aug 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In novial-discussion@yahoogroups.com, "nov_ialiste" <nov_ialiste@...> wrote:
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > But his system works nicely. What's so awful about the suffix -ira?

      The inconsistency. If you always used it, fine. But you _only_ use it when the base noun is a person. (Or, probably, an animate noun.)

      > I happen to like it. Direct derivation of verbs must be done only
      > carefully when there is no serious possibility of ambiguity.


      _You_ happen to like it. _I_ disagree. This happens to be a point where we disagree.

      Actually, I agree with your comment that "Direct derivation of verbs must be done only carefully when there is no serious possibility of ambiguity." However, where I disagree with you is that when the _same_ semantic relationship exists between one set of two words as between another, it ought to be expressed with the _same_ morphological transformation. (And, as well, when a _different_ semantic relationship exists between one set of two words as between another, it ought to be expressed with a _different_ morphological transformation. Which is another reason I dislike -e/-a/-o having two completely different significances.) If one were to avoid direct derivation completely, it would suit me better tan the way it's done here.
    • Bruce R. Gilson
      ... You seem to think that the -e/-a/-o verb formation is the most fundamental distinguishing feature of the Novial language. I like Novial, for _other_
      Message 39 of 39 , Aug 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In novial-discussion@yahoogroups.com, "nov_ialiste" <nov_ialiste@...> wrote:
        >
        > [...]
        >
        > You say you dislike what are the very foundational distinguishing
        > features of the Novial language.
        >
        > Why do you bother with (and bother) the Novial language at all?

        You seem to think that the -e/-a/-o verb formation is the most fundamental distinguishing feature of the Novial language. I like Novial, for _other_ reasons:

        1. The Romance/Germanic vocabulary. (I haven't criticized that; perhaps others have, so why do you think IALA Interlingua would suit me better?)

        2. The verb pattern, using auxiliaries rather than either the very artificial vowel endings of Esperanto & Ido, or the over-naturalism of IALA Interlingua.

        3. The Novial pronoun system, which makes much more sense than any other IAL's system, _and_is_more_consistent_!

        > You should really find something else to reform which is closer to
        > your objective.
        >
        > Esperanto? Ido? IALA Interlingua etc. etc. etc. (There are
        > hundreds upon hundreds.)

        Esperanto? Geez, if you'd read all the posts I've made on Conlang and Auxlang since 1992, you'd know I _very_ much dislike Esperanto. Ido, perhaps, though Novial is closer to my ideal than Ido, and that too would be obvious if you'd read my posts on Conlang/Auxlang.

        No, my ideal is still nearer to Novial than any other proposed language I know of. And if you'd look at N98, which is very close to my ideal IAL, you'd see it is still closer to N28/30 than to Ido or anything else. "Something else to reform which is closer to your objective"? I don't know of any.

        > At least with IALA Interlingua you wouldn't have to banish lots of
        > Germanic forms as it is based on Romance languages (although
        > French has quite a lot of Germanic words from Frankish).


        Who says I want to banish all those Germanic forms? I'm perfectly happy with them. Find ANY post I've made in which I've said anything negative about a Germanic form in Novial and wanted to replace it with a Romance form (except ONE: disi/-o/-a/-e, and the reason is not that it is Germanic, but because I think that it is too heavy, and if ti/to/ta/te is monosyllabic, that the monosyllabic hi/ho/ha/he in parallel looks better to me)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.