Tut vremju gramatia om Slovio es perehodju. Zname zxe Slovio-gramatia esxte ne es idealju, i zxe mozxuo es plus dobrju resxenie ili neskolk plus dobrju resxenies, no mi potrebili i mi potrebime logikju gramatia dla komunikacia vo slavju jazikas TPER, i tak mi resxili prinat tut-vremju perehodju gramatia. Takak vi i mi vse esxte iskame plus dobrju resxenie. No do tot den gda mi naidime tot idealju i naidobrju gramatia mi upotrebime tut perehodju gramatia. Probijte so nams upotrebit dnesju Slovio gramatia, i probijme spol iskat plus dobrju resxenie. No ne spesxijme! Dnesju Slovio gramatia es dostacx dobrju dla jasnju komunikacia. Es plus dobrju cxekat i terplivuo iskat plus dobrju resxenie vzamen probit kazxd rocx novju i novju verzias gramatiaf. I tozx es plus dobrju komunikit vo Slovio tper, rovnuo esli vi ne soglosite so tut perehodju gramatia, i spol iskat plus dobrju resxenie.
Es plus hitrju upotrebit Slovio tper, vzamen upotrebenie inju ne-slaviansk jazikafs i vzamen cxekanie. Esli mi bu cxekat i cxekat, i dolgju rocxis sporit ktor jazika ili ktor gramatia es nai-dobrju, mi nigda bu imat spolju vse-slaviansk jazika i vse-slaviansk kultur. Podcxas mi bu sporit i borbat inju jazikas i inju, rovnuo plus primitivju kulturis, nams bu dogonit i predgonit.
Perv, ja omnijl zxe ti es korinthenkacker (de), nitpicker(uk), no tper znajm zxe ti ne razumijsx Slovio, ne hvatijsx jazika.
Pogledaj krasost om Slovio:
Gramat-ia (n), gramat-ju (a), gramt-uo (ad), gramat-nik
Vidij: grammat-ic (uk), grammat-isch (de), Grammat-iker (de).
Idij do tvoi novuo kreatitsju forum jazikju i kormit seba cxestuo, no i ne rusxij krugis nasx !
Here are some of the problems we have encountered during the development of the Slovio language. We feel we have to explain them again and again because again and again come the same questions on these subjects and enthusiasts, again and again, try to "reinvent" the language by repeatedly suggesting all those possibilities we have already considered.
ORTHOGRAPHY:
cx, sx, zx, gzx, - after trying many variants we have accepted this type of spelling, because the letter combinations "cx, sx, zx, gzx" don't exist in any major languages and thus don't create confusion or mix up with existing words from other languages. We felt is was important to give Slovio the ability to use and if need to absorb words from other languages while keeping the original spelling and not creating any confusion or conflicts with Slovio words.
cz, sz, zz, dzz, - this was another possibility being considered, however we felt that the dual use of letter "z" for two different sounds was confusing and that this type of usage could create conflicts with existing words from other languages for example "pizza" and thousands of other words.
ch, sh, zh, dzh, - once again, this is the spelling used in the English language, and just because it is used in the English language its use in Slovio would create thousands of possible words which would look the same yet have different meaning and pronounciation in Slovio and in English.
c', s', z', dz', - one of the problems with the use of apostrophy is that there are several similar looking characters, on various keyboards, which look the same yet have different code and would look different in different browsers.
j / y - the first version of Slovio instead of using "j" used "y" for the same sound, more or less in the same way it is being used in English. However for the Slavic speaking nations using the latin alphabet the letter "j" was more appropriate, and better known.
PLURAL:
-(i)s - despite the fact that the letter combination -is is not naturally occuring in Slavic languages, we felt that this usage created a more simple language, spelling and grammar and less conflicts. It did not require massive root-mutiliation in order to make the roots fit the other possible alternatives.
-i - it is true that one of the most common ways to create plural of nouns is the letter "-i". However this usage creates thousands of conflicts, because in order to use it one would have to change and amputate many naturally occurring and well known Slavic word-roots. The changing of thousands of roots in order to accomodate this type of plural formation was more negative to comprehension than the use of -(i)s plural ending. For example how do you create the plural of such words as Slavia, historia, guru, gora ... without mutilating the roots of these words.
ADJECTIVE:
-ju - after trying many other alternative adjective-endings we felt that this ending was the most natural and the most flexible for adjective. It can be just as easily added to roots ending with a consonant as to those ending with a vowel. This cannot be said about such endings as "a" or "e". And the adjective ending "-ju" occurs naturally in some Slavic languages.
-a, -e -y, - all of these ending are less suitable to use as an ending for a natural language such as slovio because they require that the root ends with a consonant - something that is not possible with a naturally sounding Slavic language. Slavic roots end both in vowels and in consonants and this fact has to be taken into consideration instead of amputating and mutilitating Slavic word-roots in order to fit imperfect grammar.
-ya, -yu - as explained previously the first versions of Slovio used "y" instead of "j" however this had been changed in later versions.
ADVERB:
-uo - the advantage of this ending is the fact that the letter combination "u+o" can be easily added onto word-roots ending both in vowels or in consonants. The other possible alternatives don't allow this kind of universal usage, and once again demand amputation of naturally occurring vowels from Slavic word-roots.
-e, -o, -om - once again these kinds of simple endings may be well suited for artificial languages with artificially amputated roots, all of which end with a consonant, but are absolutely not suitable for Slavic languages which have roots ending both in vowels and in consonants.
OBJECT:
-(u)f, -(i)fs, - this is the feature of Slovio gramar which has caused the most arguments. While we realize that perhaps these endings are not ideal, we had to accept them during the first stages of Slovio development in order to complete the language and the grammar. At the time we had accepted these endings it was not yet clear how would the language develop, but since the letter "f" is very rare in Slavic languages we felt that these endings created the least confusion and that they could be easily changed to a better to a more natural ending. Some of those other endings still being considered follow. However we felt that it was better to wait a little, until we and the rest of the Slavic speaking people were 100% sure about the best ending.
-(u)m, -(i)ms, - this is one of the other alternative.
-(u)f, -(i)ms, - currently we feel that perhaps this is the best alternative and the best replacement for "-(u)f, -(i)fs".
-(u)g - this is similar to usage in south-Slavic languages but it is difficult to pronounce and may create problems for roots ending with "g".
-(u)v - this is similar to usage in central-European Slavic languages and may create problems for roots ending with "v".
-(u)h - this is another possible alternative.
If you have other proposals or other ideas you are welcome to voice them here. But before you give us other "new and revolutionary" proposals how to improve Slovio, you should keep all of the above mentioned arguments in mind, and you should keep in mind that Slavic word-roots end just as frequently with a vowel as with a consonant. This is not Esperanto, this is Slovio - a natural fusion of modern Slavic languages.
Nice points. It's good to share your expirience. I'm ok with the cx, zx... combinations, but still, the - IS endings are not ok. Can't we just use infinitive for starters? Or let people use what ever ending they like until a solution comes up by it self.
-uo - the advantage of this ending is the fact that the letter combination "u+o" can be easily added onto word-roots ending both in vowels or in consonants. The other possible alternatives don't allow this kind of universal usage, and once again demand amputation of naturally occurring vowels from Slavic word-roots.
----------------------
The "UO" will in time inevitably change into just O! Or U, maybe even VO.
You are forgeting that people are lazy beings and they will try to simplify.
Slovio by doing no "word amputations" is becoming difficult to create
other words from certain word stems. Or these stems are so difficult
to pronounce.
You are quoting only a few examples where your "perfect" endings -e -o etc fit. But consider the entire 40 thousand vocabulary of Slovio, in hundreds or thousands of cases your "perfect endings" won't fit and would require root-amputation a-la Esperanto, Ido and other failed languages. Once again this is not an artificial language which can nobody understand, this is a natural fusion of naural languages and it has been proven over and over again that close to 400 million people understand it, even without all those suggested and planned improvements. So let us just use it the way it is and let more people and scientific institutions get into the act and then let us decide. Two or three ex-Esperantists are no enough to decide.
If Esperanto is a failed language according to your criteria, what is Slovio then? You might argue that Slovio, unlike Esperanto, is understandable for 400 million people. But Esperanto is an international language that intends not to be understandable (at the first sight) for anybody so that no language discrimination (a la today's English) could happen. Our pan-Slavic language has got different aims, hasn't it?
Sorry Gabriel, just a joke (vic), but you are provocating me.
Gabriel pisal:
But Esperanto is an international language that intends not to be understandable (at the first sight) for anybody so that no language discrimination (a la today's English) could happen.
otvetijm:
At the first sight!!! But at the second it is Slavic, Italic and Germanic patchwork. Dla me ni miaso ni riba!
cx, sx, zx - Completely non-Slavic and odd-looking.
cz, sz, zz - What conflicts do you speak about? Why to spell "pizza" as "pizza" and thus break the basic rule of phonetic spelling? Yes, extremely local and internationally unknown words may remain in original spelling (with pronunciation added in brackets) but this isn't the case of such common meal like pizza. Why not spell it phonetically as pica? Let's not drown in thousands foreign unaltered words whose spelling and pronunciation have to be kept in memory separately. Yes, using of "z" for two tasks might not be ideal but we have no better option if we want to have a language that is both good and Slavic. You traded a good Slavic appearance of our language for the idea of nonconfuseability. However, confusions created by "z"-method would be so rare that they are not worth considering.
ch, sh, zh - Of course, I don't propose this type of spelling because all these three combinations are already commonly used in Slavic languages (at least in my native Czech) for different tasks.
c', s', z' - I understand the computer problems with apostrophe. But maybe this could remain an alternative spelling.
That's why I propose cz, sz and zz. If cx, sx and zx were the only bad feature of Slovio, I maybe wouldn't protest. But this isn't the case.
PLURAL
-(i)s - So non-Slavic and odd-looking that in even can't be considered as a plural ending, at least if the created language calls itself as "pan-Slavic". Again, you traded a good Slavic appearance and sound of our language for some idea of nonconfuseability. And this is too disadvantageous trade.
-i - Your system of preserving of natural Slavic endings (both vowel and zero ones) leads only to difficulties. Slovio learner has to memory that "woman" is "zxen" although Slavic languages use "zxena". Slovio creators seem to have decided completely arbitrarily if the Slavic natural vowel ending will be preserved or truncated. My system is much better, all singular nominative nouns end in -a which may (but doesn't have to) be left out if it creates no pronunciation or other problems. Thus almost all natural Slavic forms are preserved - but with no additional work for memory. This enables us to create plural simply by replacing of -a with -i because everybody will know how to change plural back to singular even without knowledge of the original singular noun. (I hope that you read my translations of Slovio developers' sentences, I explain it here in a more detailed way.) And the main advantage: it sounds good and Slavic with creation of no confusions. Thus plural from Slavia, historia, gor(a) and gurua would simply be Slavii, historii, gori and gurui. This is no mutilating of roots. Roots remain untouched, only declination endings are added to them. You might not like gurua and gurui but this word occurs in one of thousand sentences, while the completely odd -(i)s occurs in almost every sentence. Thus your statement that "the changing of thousands of roots in order to accomodate this type of plural formation was more negative to comprehension than the use of -(i)s plural ending" is not true.
ADJECTIVE
I propose other ending for adjectives than "-ju" in our future pan-Slavic language but only because it fits better to the structure of the language. I am not against "-ju" in Slovio.
ADVERB
In fact, "-uo" doesn't sound as oddly as for example "-(i)s" does. But with the structure of my language, the most Slavic -o can be used with creation of no confusions.
OBJECT
Again, with the structure of my language, -u can be used for singular accusative and -ov for plural accusative. Your endings "-(u)f" and "-(i)fs" are completely non-Slavic and odd-looking no matter if "-(i)fs" will be changed to "-(i)ms" or not.
You say:
"This is not Esperanto, this is Slovio - a natural fusion of modern Slavic languages."
If you are so incapable that you can't make a Slavic Esperanto, please let work those who can make it. Esperanto is the easiest language all over the world. No language with the same or better level of ease and with structure on principle different from that of Esperanto has been introduced yet. Esperanto is international and our future pan-Slavic language will be Slavic - this is the only difference.
Please don't talk about Esperanto. The reason it failed and will always fail is because it is made up of too many languages, and has artificially truncated roots. Slovio is at least as easy as Esperanto, yet can be understood by 400 million, and Esperanto only by a few hard-core enthusiasts. Please don't attempt to fit your Esperanto endings and Grammar onto Slavic languages, they just don't fit. How would you use in your language words as these:
Make an adjective, and adverb, a comparative and superlative (both adjective and adverb).
abece, azbukva, pole, dete, kanoe, serce, guru, iglu, Peru, tabu, tabla, taiga, smola, stopa, Tatra, zxila ... and thousands more
It is easy to talk when you have nothing, when you have only theory. The plural ending -is is the most widely recognized plural ending in the world. Why fight the current? Or do you want to make our Slavic language as dead as Esperanto? If you studied Slovio just a bit you would see that it is at least as easy, and for Slavs much, much, much easier than dead Esperanto, Ido ....
== First of all, I like both Esperanto and Slovio.
However, it is too bad that unsympathetic creatures like yourself feel the need to stamp down other languages so that Slovio is perceived as the only one standing.
Your continuous use of superlatives like "as dead as Esperanto" is annoying. It almost looks like you cannot find support within Slovio, so you need to destruct other languages. I know it is not so, Slovio is strong, but you do present your case so damn shitty.
== Secondly, Slovio and Esperanto are only partly comparable.
The language is not just a grammar+vocabulary. Very important is the community of speakers and their ideology. Without a community, no language. Without ideology, no attraction of new speakers.
One of the very nice things about Esperanto is it's deeper ideal of international equality and solidarity.
Slovio is a good language, but all that pan-slavic nationalism surrounding it makes it so unattractive. I read about "removing Hongarians from Budapest" and "supporting Yushenko" and "Milosevic is a victim of a secret conspiracy" and "We, Slavs, should form one might power and dominate the world. Now it is our time!". It says: "Hello, I speak Slovio and if you are no Slav, you will be stamped flat." Yughhhh!!
Because the ideologies are fundamentally different (international equality vs national superiority) you cannot compare these languages.
== Esperanto is very much alive.
In Europe alone, I stay a few days at around thousand addresses of people that speak Esperanto too.
The Slovio site mentions the possibility, but there is not 1 address to go too. Even worse, I do not think that you superior little Serb is welcome at the superior little Horvats house. Who's community is dead now?
== Slovio and Esperanto
I like Slovio and Esperanto. However, the Esperanto people seem to be more humane and nice. What I see of Slovio people in this forum for example is:
fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting fighting.
Maybe Slovio need a few things changed, maybe not. I think it is a very good language as it is.
But what you people first of all need, is a bit of decency towards eachother and towards non-Slavs. Just some morals, some behaving. You can do it. And if you still can't, then you really need that psychological help.
Slovio!
A language for everyone
(not only slav neonazi's)
Izvinij nams, normaluo mi es velm priatelju no neskolk razcxarovilju Esperantnikis stoianuo napadijut Slovio i hotijut znasilit Slovio posred Esperantju gramatia. Esperantju gramatia es pravdapodobuo dobrju dla Esperantio no ne es prinalezxju dla Slovio ni dla inju Slaviansk jazikas. Pravdapodobuo usled tot stoianju napadenie ot tot razcxarovilju Esperantnikis mi statili perehoduo mensx priatelju. Zdrav!
People of Slavic Culture and Tongue are by Nature Internationalists
No score for this post
March 30 2006, 7:31 PM
Monolog pisal:
Slovio!
A language for everyone
(not only slav neonazi's)
otvetijm:
you are right there are quite a few Nazis on this forum, but they are not writing Slovio and they are anti-Slavic racists (although many of them are of Slavic origin! [but this is another story]).
The word "slav neonazi" is a stupid and abusive insult like saying "Jewish neonazi". I am a convinced anti-Fascist. And my heart is bleeding and I have water in my eyes reading your lines.
The words you use like "unsympathetic creatures" for my friend Dusxan is a diction of Hitler.
If Slovio is surrounded by Slavic nationalism, day-in day-out, then it is the responsability of the Slovio-community to distance itself from that. Slovio should be politically neutral... unless, of course, you do not want Slavic social-democrats, academics, internationalists and non-Slavic among your speakers.
That's why I say about the beautiful language:
Slovio a language for everyone (and not only slavic neonazi's)
Eugeniusx pisal:
"The words you use like "unsympathetic creatures" for my friend Dusxan is a diction of Hitler.
A dictation of Hitler?!? Pfff... please. Am I calling for the destruction of Dusxan or the removal of a nation? If you don't know what fascism is, then don't name yourself a "convinced antifascist".
Eugeniniusx:
"... there are quite a few Nazis on this forum ... many of them are of Slavic origin ... The word "slav neonazi" is a stupid and abusive insult"
So what do YOU call a nazi of slavic origin then.
"... word "slav neonazi" is a stupid and abusive insult like saying "Jewish neonazi" ..."
If a neonazi is Jewish, then he is a Jewish neonazi.
You're just trying to use emotion (not ratio) as an argument.
(By the way, any convinced antifascist would have known that there are quite a few Jewish neonazi organizations who call for the total destruction of the Palestinian people and the ethnic cleansing and annexation of parts of Syria, Jordania, Egypt and Iraq by Israel)
Just to be clear here, I will repreat what i really said:
(1) It is unsympathetic to slogan "dead as Esperanto" while the Esperanto has over 1 million speakers competely build up on it's own, while a Slovio (with only 50 speakers) already started on a linguistic base of 400 million speakers. Except for grammar+vocabulary, it is not possible to compare these since they are connected to radically different ideologies: international equality vs nationalist superiority.
(2) Slovio should be for everyone, not only Slavic nationalists and neonazis.
You unsuccessfully and emotionally tried to twist my words into saying that a mistaken comparison between Esperanto and Slovio, is the same as saying the comparitor is a neonazi. Where is your logic?
What is the aim of Esperanto? To be a good international language for all people all over the world. The reason why English can't serve as such language is simple: non-native English speakers are discriminated. That's why Esperanto is understandable for nobody so that nobody could be discriminated. It has got about 100 000 - 2 000 000 speakers. If Slovio has got more speakers somewhen, you will have moral right to call Esperanto "failed language", but now you don't have it.
What is the aim of pan-Slavic language? To be a good language for communication of Slavs with different native languages and of foreigners interested in Slavic affairs.
You swear at artificially truncated roots. But compare these two systems, please:
1) Perfectly natural forms in singular nominative but completely artificial and unnatural forms in all other cases (accusative, plural).
2) Mostly natural forms of common words (in all cases - both singular and plural, both nominative and accusative), slightly unnatural forms of some rare words.
The first system is Slovio’s; the second one is mine (or ours). If you can read and count, you can simply realise that the second system produces fewer unnatural forms.
The plural ending -(i)s may be the most widely recognized plural ending in the world, but we are not creating a pan-world language, are we? Your language's name is Slovio, not Vsetio.
Slovio es tolk jazika. Vse jazikas es neutralju. Slovio es neutralju, Slovio es tolk instrument komunikaciaf dla vse. No mi ne mozx nitkof zabranit upotrebenie tut ili inju jazikaf. Ni Slovio, ni Angloio, Ni Esperantio, ni Germanio. Vse jazikas es rodilju neutralju bez politia. I vse jazikas mozx but upotrebitju ot demokratnikis, fasxistis, komunistis, pedofilnikis ili lib-ktor inju grup. Kak es, ili kak bu, tut ili inju jazika upotrebitju zavisijt ot nams vse, ot vse ludis. No nadeam zxe tut jazika nam bu umozxit podelit ideas i zxe mi vse bu profitit ot novju mislis.
