BAZE NOMI - Nouns
Singualar : naturally created noun
sport, dinamika, olimpiada, diza, otec, mama, devica, junak, deta, zem, planeta, kosmos, mitologia, veda, radio, hiperbola,
Plural - is creating by suffix : - i
lumen - lumeni, otec - oteci, brat - brati, komputer - komputeri, sport - sporti
Noun ended in wovel is created as follows :
meno - meni, mama - mami, Zuza - Zuzi, auto - auti, televizia - televizii, radio - radii,
kamera - kameri, posta - posti, funga-fungi
I don't agree with the opinion that it is perfect. We need a single ending for nouns in singular nominative. Why? I will explain it:
If someone sees the plural "meni", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "meno" and not "men", "mena", "mene" or "menu"?
If someone sees the plural "mami", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "mama" and not "mam", "mame", "mamo" or "mamu"?
If someone sees the plural "oteci", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "otec" and not "oteca", "otece", "oteco" or "otecu"?
As you can see, when we form plural, we lose the information about the fact what the word looks like in singular. That's why there should be a unified ending for singular nominative. I have thought about it very much and I think that the "-a" ending would be the best. Why this and why not other possible endings?
- We could use zero ending: lumen, otec, brat, komputer, sport, men, mam, aut, televizi, radi, kamer, post, fung. However, this would cause difficulties in pronunciation: "st" and "ng" (post, fung) are not very well pronounceable at the end of the word; these clusters have to be "watered down" by a vowel. Moreover, this would cause problems with the words that end in two vowels in their most original form (televizia, radio). Those words would be (with the zero-ending system) rendered as "televizi" and "radi", which would create confusion, because one could think that they are plurals from "televiz" and "rad".
- We could use the "-e" ending: lumene, otece, brate, komputere, sporte, mene, mame, aute, televizie, radie, kamere, poste, funge. However, the "-e" ending should be reserved for "neutral number" nominative. (I will explain later what neutral number is.)
- I hope that it's sufficiently clear that we can't use the "-i" ending in singular because it has to be used in plural.
- I hope that it's sufficiently clear that we can't use the "-o" ending because it should be reserved for adverbs.
- We could use the "-u" ending: lumenu, otecu, bratu, komputeru, sportu, menu, mamu, autu, televiziu, radiu, kameru, postu, fungu. However, I think that we should reserve the "-u" ending for singular accusative.
That's why the "-a" ending seems to be the best solution to me: lumena, oteca, brata, komputera, sporta, mena, mama, auta, televizia, radia, kamera, posta, funga. However, the "-a" ending could be omitted if the root ends in a single consonant. However, it couldn't be omitted when the root ends in two or more consonants (sporta, posta, funga) or in a vowel (televizia, radia). So the correct singular and plural forms of the example nouns would look like this:
singular "lumena" or "lumen", plural "lumeni"
singular "oteca" or "otec", plural "oteci"
singular "brata" or "brat", plural "brati"
singular "komputera" or "komputer", plural "komputeri"
singular "sporta", plural "sporti"
singular "mena" or "men", plural "meni"
singular "mam" or "mama", plural "mami"
singular "aut" or "auta", plural "auti"
singular "televizia", plural "televizii"
singular "radia", plural "radii"
singular "kamera" or "kamer", plural "kameri"
singular "posta", plural "posti"
singular "funga", plural "fungi"
Did I explain it well, do you understand my thoughts?
I understand your process of thinking and your dropping of the i-ending. I hope you will soon realize that the less complicated plural ending is the (i)s one.
Don't rejoice, Eugeniusx, Slovio has got the same problem as Slavido.
How shall I recognise that the singular from "bebis" is "bebi" and not "beb", that singular from "paris" is "pari" and not "par", that singular from "hobis" is "hobi" and not "hob", that singular from "ragbis" is "ragbi" and not "ragb", that singular from "cunamis" is "cunami" and not "cunam", that singular from "taksis" is "taksi" and not "taks" etc.? Then I can't be sure if singular from "knigis" is "knig" or "knigi".
I don't think we can drop the vowels ... that designate the masculine, feminine, neuter. It would be too much of a change. Even Interlingua did not drop masculine and feminine. Only English does not use gender ... since it is a hybrid of two unilke languages ... and had to use this simplification.
So we can simplify the plural ending to "i" .... and drop the case endings, yet still retain the natural Slavic flow of the language.
==========
If someone sees the plural "meni", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "meno" and not "men", "mena", "mene" or "menu"?
If someone sees the plural "mami", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "mama" and not "mam", "mame", "mamo" or "mamu"?
If someone sees the plural "oteci", how can (s)he recognise that the singular is "otec" and not "oteca", "otece", "oteco" or "otecu"?
==========
I do not see a problem with this ... as the word would be understood from the context of the sentence. And if we eliminate the declensions there would only be a few possiblities.
You can recognize that by learning just the singular form [and that' s all, nothing else]. Creating is then very easy - just drop the last wovel
and add -i.
Anyway, you must to learn substantives [in singular form] in every language in the world and plural is then created differently in every language.
Anyway, you must to learn substantives [in singular form]
That's exactly the problem. With your system, Slavs will often replace the correct singular vowel ending of the noun with the vowel ending that the noun has got in their own language. They will have to memorise when our pan-Slavic language's noun has got the same ending as in their language and when not. When they see some plural noun for the first time, they will have to lengthy consult dictionaries in order to be able to use it in singular. Moreover, as I have already said, we haven't got enough vowels to be able to give singular nouns more than one vowel ending. (Singular nouns mustn't be confusable with other word types.)
That's why I think that singular nouns should have only one ending - -a (that could be sometimes elised). Our language then would be much easier. No Slav would doubt which ending to use - it would always be -a. Every user could use every plural form in singular with no difficulties. Isn't my system easier and better?
To je presne ten problem. S vasim systemem budou Slovane casto nahrazovat spravnou samohlaskovou koncovku podstatneho jmena tou samohlaskovou koncovkou, ktere prislusne podstatne jmeno ma v jejich vlastnim jazyce. Budou si muset pamatovat, kdy podstatne jmeno naseho panslovanskeho jazyka ma stejnou koncovku jako v jejich jazyce a kdy ne. Az uvidi nektere podstatne jmeno v mnoznem cisle poprve, budou muset dlouho hledat ve slovnicich, aby to jmeno mohli pouzit i v jedntnem cisle. A navic: jak uz jsem rekl, nemame dost samohlasek na to, abychom dali podstatnym jmenum v jednotnem cisle vice nez jednu samohlaskovou koncovku. (Podstatna jmena v jednotnem cisle nesmeji byt zamenitelna s jinymi slovnimi druhy.)
Proto si myslim, ze podstatna jmena v jednotnem cisle by mela mit jen jednu koncovku - -a (ktera by nekdy mohla byt vypustena). Nas jazyk by tak byl mnohem jednodussi. Zadny Slovan by nepochyboval, kterou koncovku pouzit - vzdy by to bylo -a. Kazdy uzivatel by bez potizi mohl pouzit kazde pluralove podstatne jmeno i v jednotnem cisle. Neni muj system snazsi a lepsi?
Я не знат как ми буду изделат склонение.
Сначала ми мусит изделат структури предложении(вети)[англ. сентенце струцтуре]
Тогд(потом) ми буду видет как ето изделат.
И также ми мусит знат как ето изделал булгарски луди с булгарски язик(им)
==================================================================
Ja ne znat kak mi budu izdelat sklonenie.
Snaczala mi musit izdelat strukturi predlozzenii(veti)[angl. sentence structure]
Togd(potom) mi budu videt kak eto izdelat.
I takzze mi musit znat kak eto izdelal bulgarski ludi s bulgarski jazik(im)
Sklonovani by mnelo byt co nejjednoduchsi, to znamena pouzit len to co je potrebne [nic vic], protoze pak by sme mohli ostat pri nasich puvodnich slovanskych jazykoch.
Trebars zvolme si nejake koncovky [z najfrekventovanejsich] a tie sa budu pridavat v jednotlivych padech ke slovum. Samozrejme, musime pozorne vyberat slova, aby nedoslo k nejake kolizy [ale to sa da - to by nebyl takovy problem].
kdyz nebude tam "pasovat" nejake slovo, tak tam dame jine - vhodnejsi [vdyt jich mame celou kopu].
Umely jazyk by nemel byt moc komplikovany, protoze pak by sme mohli kazdy mluvit tym svim jazykem a nevytvaret umely.
The [i]s ending is NOT OF SLAVIC ORIGIN !
It will be hardly accepted by millions of Slavs.
This ending is germano-romance origin so do not write here that this
ending is slavic.
Pervo cxitat, mislit i potom pisat ili gvorit! Ja nigde pisal zxe "i" koncenie es Germanikju!
Odnakuo, ne imajsx pravda: vo neskolk stranju slovis Germanju jazika upotrebijt "i", na primer: Modus – Modi, Konto – Konti.
Prirodju, Slavju mnogost es neregularju. Neskolk Slovio-kopirnikis es robitsju na vnov predstavenie neregularju mnogost. Dla uspeh!
Ja seba ne bu ucxastit na kopirenie piratju, ili na izdumanie kolo vnov i vnov.
Pozdrav
Eugeniusx
"Cxasto es dumanie slozxju, odnako,
Pisanie idit tosx bez ono"
If I wrote that so I can say that ending -s is of germanic origin
and NOT of Slavic. So it means plural -i [as it is in Sloveno is more
Slavic than that in Slovio [-s ending].
When I change all the foreign words in Sloveno for those of Slavic origin
so then SLOVENO becomes more Slavic than SLOVIO.
Grammar of Sloveno is then more Slavic than grammar of Slovio.
If I wrote that so I can say that ending -s is of germanic origin
and NOT of Slavic. So it means plural -i [as it is in Sloveno is more
Slavic than that in Slovio [-s ending].
When I change all the foreign words in Sloveno for those of Slavic origin
so then SLOVENO becomes more Slavic than SLOVIO.
Grammar of Sloveno is then more Slavic than grammar of Slovio.
Otvetijm:
simsalabijm libro Slavju buj: libri? knigis?
simsalabijm muliera Slavju buj: mulieri? zxenis?
simsalabijm kameloparda Slavju buj: Kamelopardov? zxirafis?
itd.
Sxto es bolsx Slavju: libri ili knigis, mulieri ili zxenis?
