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

Grammar vs. derivation

Expand Messages
  • hctr76
    Hi Risto, ... Interesting observation and good point. But I still think that a blend is best, a lang with a simple yet complete grammar along with a
    Message 1 of 288 , Oct 1, 2009
      Hi Risto,

      >
      > I can make only a superficial judgement but it seems that grammars of the
      > world are very different from each other whereas ways and categories of
      > word derivation are rather similar. That's why I think that the issue is
      > worth a good look.
      >
      > -- Risto
      >

      Interesting observation and good point. But I still think that a blend is best, a lang with a simple yet complete grammar along with a derivational system, in essence a creole type language, altho we hav to remember that as natlangs creoles may hav some features that ar not necessarily optimal for a worldlang intented as an L2. In other words, we shouldn't automatically assume a certain feature is desirable for a worldlang just becaus it simplifies the grammar and is a prevalent feature in most or all creoles. I think in certain cases, not all, if u try to make something too simple it ends up being more complex or difficult to lern to use as an L2. Take the absence of articles, for example, a feature in Creoles as well as in other natlangs for that matter. At first glance, it appears to make the grammar simpler, but is it? Correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i no languages that don't hav articles still hav ways to indicate whether something is new information or old information, for example, it's just that it's done in more complicated ways. So, my question would we, does not having any articles really make a worldlang (for advanced communication, as opposed to basic communication, and to be lerned as an L2) simpler? I'm not convinced, but I'm open to being convinced. I think Zamenhof's choice of one definite article was a wise one.

      -Hector
    • cafaristeir
      Sellamat quantims ! ... Indeed IE used *sewo- for each person when it referred to the subject, as it is still the case today in Slavic and Baltic. (I even
      Message 288 of 288 , Oct 19, 2009
        Sellamat quantims !



        > > Are you asking about the use of the term "one" to refer to people in general, or are you asking about the use of the word "own" in the phrase "my own" or "his own"?
        > >
        >
        > In phrases like "I do my job", "He's writing a letter to his mother", "Open your books at the page 10" English and some other languages specify the person every time (my job, his mother) while Russian and Hindi use a common pronoun (svoy, aapna).
        > If I'm not mistaken auxlangs follow the first pattern (Mi faras mian laboron) but I'm not sure it's optimal. Perhaps both ways should be allowed.
        >

        Indeed IE used *sewo- for each person when it referred to the subject, as it is still the case today in Slavic and Baltic. (I even advised C.Quil├Ęs to fix this point in his grammar of IE)
        For the third person, Sambahsa usually has the "scandinavian system" with "sien" if it refers to the subject and "eeys, ays, ids, els" fr the rest. But, theoretically, the reflexive can be used at all persons:
        ex: *meilo mien land = I adore my country".

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