Bartosx pisal:
Simplicity is more important than naturalism, if you're going to learn foreign language. I understand Slovakian and Ukrainian but I'm scared to learn these language, because I afraid about complicated grammar. The same thing is with interslavic language, if grammar is too complicated nobody will want to learn it.
-------------
Bartosx is completely right. Nobody, neither a Slavic speaking or a non-Slavic speaking person will want to learn such a complicated, good-for-nothing language. What for? If I want lo learn a Romance language, why the hell, shall I torture myself and learn Latin?? So I better learn Spanish etc. or even more easier Lingua Franca Nova, these languages have scrapped the outdated cases and declination of nouns, adjectives etc.. And nobody will call these Languages non-Romance, or ugly looking or what ever has been said against Slovio.
Slovianski is more difficult than any existing Slavic language!
Jan pisal:
Keep in mind that nobody learns a language because it is easy to learn. There are hundreds of Esperanto clones which are indeed easier, and yet nobody learns them. I honestly don't believe in that. People learn a language because there is something in it for them. Some sort of profit. If a language would be readily understood by all 300 or 400 million Slavs, that would be such a profit.
------------
Well it is a nice dream. But it is you who already excluded millions of Slavs by reinventing 6 cases. To build a common Slavic language you have to look for the common denominator of all them. The simplification of languages is a natural process.
Look at Dutch, English and deutsch (German): German still has cases and gender and the other ones lost these scraps almost completely. Please also compare e.g.: Latin > Spanish, Polish > Bularian and Indo-European > old-Slavic.
-- iopq:
Case system: Two cases max! Nominative and you can only get ONE MORE. Just use the Dative everywhere else or something. We'll get by.
Jan otvetil:
And how about the accusative? Problem is this: every system has its own advantages and disadvantages. If you don't distinguish between nominative and accusative, you'll have to create other rules for making clear what is meant, for example a fixed word order.
-------------
Well Slovio does not have a fixed word order and only two cases.
-- Genders: No genders! If you really want them, only use them for people! Things shouldn't have to be memorized according to gender!
Jan otvetil:
...the closer a language is to one's own language, the easier it is for him to learn. Ergo, for someone who is used to three genders and six cases, it will be easier to learn if the target language has the same three genders and the same six cases (with the same grammatical forms).
-------
I do not agree with you. German and Dutch, are let me say, Sister-languages. But there are quite a view misunderstanding because they are so similar. And for a German speaker it is much easier to learn Dutsch than for a Netherlander to learn German. And that´s manly because of gender: (gb) the man, the woman; (nl) de man, de vrouw; (de) der Mann, die Frau.
-- Eugeniusx:
Well it is a nice dream. But it is you who already excluded millions of Slavs by reinventing 6 cases. To build a common Slavic language you have to look for the common denominator of all them.
Well, yes, by having cases I'm perhaps excluding Bulgarian and Macedonian (together 12 million max), but by not having them I'd be excluding some 300-350 million others!
-- The simplification of languages is a natural process.
It can be, for sure. But even then, that process causes new problems, new irregularities... In my opinion, it is very subjective whether cases make a language difficult or easy.
-- ...the closer a language is to one's own language, the easier it is for him to learn. Ergo, for someone who is used to three genders and six cases, it will be easier to learn if the target language has the same three genders and the same six cases (with the same grammatical forms).
-------
I do not agree with you. German and Dutch, are let me say, Sister-languages. But there are quite a view misunderstanding because they are so similar. And for a German speaker it is much easier to learn Dutsch than for a Netherlander to learn German. And that´s manly because of gender: (gb) the man, the woman; (nl) de man, de vrouw; (de) der Mann, die Frau.
Who told you that? I think there are a few misunderstandings here. First of all, Dutch dóes have gender. Masculine and feminine have pretty much blended together (just like masculine in neuter in most Romance languages), but the neuter is still completely separate. Secondly, even though Dutch has lost most of its former cases, they still exist in all kinds of sayings, fixed expressions, etc. In other words, even though we have lost our own cases in most places, we'd still recognise them.
Jan pisal:
Well, yes, by having cases I'm perhaps excluding Bulgarian and Macedonian (together 12 million max), but by not having them I'd be excluding some 300-350 million others!
----
You are excluding more than 100 million Slavs (why do you ignore Bartosx´s statement? Bartosx is representing tens of million Slavs living in the Americas). Alone in Germany, according to wikipedia, there are more than 5 million people, whose mother tongue is Russian. The same amount or even more speak a western Slavic language there. Many of the children of those Slavs will look for a easy to learn (in the beginning!!!) Slavic language to try to understand their roots and their relatives who did not leave their country.
Again and again, nobody especially no Slav, is interested in a naturalistic Slavic language!
Why don´t you create a naturalistic Germanic language with, say, only 4 cases and gender. Every speaker of a Germanic language will laugh at you!
Be exact, please. There are three versions of Slovianski:
Slovianski-N - a highly naturalistic language with not many simplifications, it has got genders, declination, conjugations etc.
Slovianski-P - a simplified but essentialy naturalistic language, it has got genders, but highly limited declination and conjugation
Slovianski-S - a schematic language, no genders, highly limited declination and conjugation, unified ending for singular nouns, essentialy Slavic Esperanto/Ido but (unlike Slovio) with Slavic endings
That what Jan advertises here is Slovianski-N.
("N" means "naturalistic", "P" means "pidgin", "S" means "schematic".)
-- Gabriel: There are three versions of Slovianski: [...]
Yes, that's correct. Or dialects, if you like... It's a very recent project, and we're currently merely investigating what works better: naturalism, pidginism or schematism. And Gabriel is right: I'm working on the naturalist version (Slovianski-N). I'm not really "advertising" it, by the way, merely sharing.
-- Slovianski-N - a highly naturalistic language with not many simplifications, it has got genders, declination, conjugations etc.
While that is mostly true, I wouldn't say it does not have many simplifications. Indeed, there are genders, declensions and conjugations, but all that is directly borrowed from the Slavic languages. I try to simplify it in so far, that each declension and conjugation is regular; I avoid irregularity. The problem with many natural languages IMO is not the fact that they have cases, nor that there are several declensions, but the fact that each rule has so many modifications and exceptions. It's those I'm trying to eliminate.
Jan pisal:
The problem with many natural languages IMO is not the fact that they have cases, nor that there are several declensions, but the fact that each rule has so many modifications and exceptions. It's those I'm trying to eliminate.
-----------------
The more declination, the more gender you have, the more modifications and exeptions you will produce.
Exeptions are very often not exeptions but the rule of the given tongue!
Nobody is excluding anybody by excluding cases! The lack of cases did NOT make English ANY HARDER TO LEARN. The presence of WORD ORDER did.
So if we have LESS cases then it is easier for EVERYONE.
Spanish was HARDER to learn due to genders even though I already KNOW TWO languages with genders. But it didn't make memorizing the word's gender any easier!
English doesn't have genders and it didn't make it ANY harder to learn it.
Many languages have irregular declinations and irregular spellings. Does that means we should add irregularities to Slovio/Slovianski/whatever to make it easier to learn?
In fact, many languages are HARD to learn. So let's make Slovio/Slovianski HARD to learn to accomodate those people. Then it will be easier to learn for those people whose languages are hard. That's YOUR logic. Just because some languages have FLAWS doesn't mean we need to design a language with flaws.
iopq pisal:
Nobody is excluding anybody by excluding cases! The lack of cases did NOT make English ANY HARDER TO LEARN. The presence of WORD ORDER did.
-----------
Slovinaski-N is excluding many Slavs, because it reinvented 6 cases and gender.
Eugeniusx
-- You are excluding more than 100 million Slavs (why do you ignore Bartosx´s statement?
Which statement?
-- Bartosx is representing tens of million Slavs living in the Americas). Alone in Germany, according to wikipedia, there are more than 5 million people, whose mother tongue is Russian. The same amount or even more speak a western Slavic language there. Many of the children of those Slavs will look for a easy to learn (in the beginning!!!) Slavic language to try to understand their roots and their relatives who did not leave their country.
I'm quite familiar with Slavic emigre circles myself as well. I'm aware of the fact that they often make mistakes with cases, especially those of the 2nd or 3rd generation (if they care to learn their parents' language at all).
Let me tell you this: IF these people are interested in learning the language of their ancestors, they will do so. They may experience problems with that, but they will eventually. Why on Earth would they be interested in learning some Slavic interlanguage at all? If they communicate with other Slavs in their country, they will much rather use the language of that country (English, German, Hebrew, whathaveyou). If they communicate with relatives in the country of origin, they will rather use bad Russian/Ukrainian/Polish/Bulgarian etc. than either Slovio or Slovianski!
-- Why don´t you create a naturalistic Germanic language with, say, only 4 cases and gender. Every speaker of a Germanic language will laugh at you!
Of course, because most Germanic tongues (except German and Icelandic) have almost completely lost them. A Germanic interlanguage should be based on what the Germanic languages have in common. I think Folkspraak is quite a good accomplishment BTW.
The comparison is rather pointless. In all Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian, cases are alive and kicking. And I suspect remnants of the old Slavic cases are present also in those other two: in expressions, saying and the like. That at least is the case in Dutch: while we have indeed lost most of the old case system, we will still instantly recognise a genitive or a dative when we see one.
-- Again and again, nobody especially no Slav, is interested in a naturalistic Slavic language!
Yes, you keep saying that. And you keep ignoring my arguments. Again, by "naturalistic" I do not mean a quasi-natural language. What I mean is a language fully based on Slavic material. I'm quite sure for Slavic people such a language will be
a) easier to learn, and
b) easier to understand.
So yes, I'm sure people may be interested. If well-written, such a language will make it possible to make yourself understandable to almost any Slavic person, and also to make it possible for you to understand a good bit of written text in any other Slavic language.
iopq:
-- So if we have LESS cases then it is easier for EVERYONE.
Depends what you replace them with. Prepositions, you say? Well then, let me tell you that my (Russian) wife speaks Dutch quite well, but she still is having problems with using those prepositions correctly. Instead, she tends to create case-like constructions without using actual cases. Same goes for articles.
-- Spanish was HARDER to learn due to genders even though I already KNOW TWO languages with genders. But it didn't make memorizing the word's gender any easier!
The difference is that Slovianski is in my view primarily designed to be a Slavic interlanguage. I.e. a language used by Slavs for the communication with other Slavs. The word stock will be based on existing Slavic words, so that people will already know the correct gender in advance.
-- Many languages have irregular declinations and irregular spellings. Does that means we should add irregularities to Slovio/Slovianski/whatever to make it easier to learn?
Not per se. Saying that, for example, the locative singular ending of masculine words is -e is not the problem. It becomes a problem when you start adding info like: ... but, when the root ends in k/g/ch/c/dz/etc., then the ending will be -u, except if that k/g/ch/c/etc. is preceded by an <insert characters>, with the following 63 exceptions to rule A and 240 exception to rule B: ....
It is thát kind of stuff that is characteristic for natural languages, and that kind of stuff I want to eliminate in Slovianski-N. Throwing away the entire locative is unnecessary for that. So, declensions yes, irregular declensions and spellings, no.
-- In fact, many languages are HARD to learn. So let's make Slovio/Slovianski HARD to learn to accomodate those people. Then it will be easier to learn for those people whose languages are hard. That's YOUR logic. Just because some languages have FLAWS doesn't mean we need to design a language with flaws.
I wouldn't take responsibility for the word "flaws", and it is certainly not my intention to make Slovio/Slovianski harder than necessary.
It's just that such a language should be based on what the Slavic languages are, not on what they should have been. I'm not interested in improving them. And, for what it is worth, a language with Slavic words but an un-Slavic grammar is only half-Slavic. Frankly, I don't see the need for creating the grammar of such a language at all: you might as well overlay a Slavic lexicon over a Dutch, German, English, Chinese or whatever grammar, and it will be understandable as well. But then, who needs such a language?
Jan pisal:
I'm quite familiar with Slavic emigre circles myself as well. I'm aware of the fact that they often make mistakes with cases, especially those of the 2nd or 3rd generation (if they care to learn their parents' language at all).
Let me tell you this: IF these people are interested in learning the language of their ancestors, they will do so. They may experience problems with that, but they will eventually. Why on Earth would they be interested in learning some Slavic interlanguage at all? ...
---
Ask Ondrej Recnik! I´m somehow disappointed.
Jan pisal:
Frankly, I don't see the need for creating the grammar of such a language at all: you might as well overlay a Slavic lexicon over a Dutch, German, English, Chinese or whatever grammar, and it will be understandable as well. But then, who needs such a language?
---
The source of misunderstanding is that we all use the grammar of Latin tongue, which does not fit to any existing language!
Or in other words: Is nominative, genitive, dative itd. Slavic?
Eugenusx
Updated Slovianski-S:
Novu ukrajinsku parlament delalo svojo sbiranio pervuo-razuo depos generalnu viberanio v marec. Tot-ktoro viberanio polučilo hvala jakuo naj-svobodnu i naj-spravedlivu, ktoro libo-kogduo bilo delanu v tot-ktor bilu sovietsku republika.
Opozicia daču podpora k Rusia vigralo naj-mnoguo glosi, aleno ono ne-imalo dost glosi dla pulnu vigra.
Se molvit, čo rozgovori jest više i više dolgu medžu partia ot Viktor Juščenko i inu partie daču podpora k zapad, ktori ješčuo ne-imali uspeh ob sozdanio ot koalicia.
Gabriel pisal:
Because by means of unified ending for countries (-ia) we can have a regular system.
===
I did not like geography at School, so could you please tell me where I can find the countries Organizacia and Maria on the map, Svobodia?
Gabriel pisal:
Using your logic I have to ask: As we have the country of Libanon, where is the country called kanon?
===
I used YOUR logic to show you that you are (were) wrong. Anyhow change your mind, dobruo! So Lebanon is Lebanon again.
Gabriel pisal:
The project of Slovianski, an inter-Slavic language to be better than Slovio, started in March 2006. (...) Bad grammar of Slovio, not bad vocabulary of Slovio, has been the main reason for creating Slovianski. (...) Gabriel Svoboda claims that a pan-Slavic language should be so easy to learn that both Slavs and non-Slavs could be able to learn it very quickly.
===
Dobruo, Gabriel let´s compare both plurals and let´s hear from the members of this forum which plural system is better and the easest one to learn.
Slovio
1.No indicator if other words make it clear that the noun is plural:
n.p. din dom, dva dom.
2.-(i)s ending, n.p.: dom, dom-is; okno, okno-s
Slovianski
1. Singular nouns have no special ending: muž, žena, slovo, more. Plural is formed by adding -i to the singular form (if it ends in a consonant) or by changing the last vowel to -i: muži, ženi, slovi, mori.
(For the purpose of this rule, i and u are considered to be consonants, i.e. the plural -i doesn't replace them: cunamii, iglui. This concerns especially foreign words with unusual endings, as it has been shown. In order to avoid confusion with other word classes, one should use an apostrophe at the end of such words in singular: cunami', iglu'.)
There are no definite or indefinite articles but there are four plural articles. Their using is not obligatory; it is strongly recommended, however. The rules about plural articles are following:
if the singular noun ends in a consonant (or in i or u), use ti as a plural article: ti muži, ti cunamii, ti iglui
if the singular noun ends in -a, use te as a plural article: te ženi
if the singular noun ends in -o, use ta as a plural article: ta slovi
if the singular noun ends in -e, use tie as a plural article: tie mori
The function of plural articles is that they show what the noun looked like in singular. They are also useful when one needs to pluralise expressions that are not easily pluralisable by a classical ending:
ti Gracchus
ta Cato
ti 8
ti x
tie ne
2. A plural article may appear only before the whole expression and it pluralises only the last word:
ti otec klobuki - father's hats
3. Ti priatel'i, ti Rimani, ti zemliaki! - Friends, Romans, countrymen!
In the case of vocative, the elision of the plural article is more tolerable:
Priatel'i, Rimani, zemliaki!
4. Adjectives end in -i and they don't change their form. They should generally precede the noun they modify. They can also follow it, but then one has to pay attention in order not to cause confusion in plural, as plurals of nouns end in -i, too. Therefore one has to keep this word order:
plural article + adjective(s) + noun
Examples:
ti malinki domi (if one used ti domi malinki, one could think that domi is an adjective and that malinki is a noun pluralised by ti)
spokojni noc
dolgi pismo
te veliki knigi
ti dobri pesi
novi pisan'e
novi vec
ta veliki peri
5. For euphony, the possessive pronoun may be contracted with the plural article or with the accusative preposition:
ta se = sea
te moj = moje
ti ogo = ogoi
tie svoj = svojie
tu ihni = ihniu
etc.
===
Forum members please comment.
As I said ... You compare numbers of rules but you don't compare Slavicity. If domis and oknos are more Slavic than ti domi and ta okni, then your zagrancju manipulitsju marionetnikis iz velvelju Germania have manipulated your brain far more than mine (bez tratit din kulka!).
Gabriel your Slovio es getting better from day to day, congratulation.
The point is not slavicty (what ever this racistic word means) but your intention to make a language easier.
Neither your most complicated plural, ever seen on this planet, nor the most easiest Slovio plural is 100% Slavic.
Fact is you did not do your job as you wanted it to do: your grammar is overloaded, so I would rather learn Russian than your construct. And it is everything but Slavic. N.p. Vi for 1. person singular i.t.d..
Neither your most complicated plural, ever seen on this planet, nor the most easiest Slovio plural is 100% Slavic.
Gabriel pisal:
Agreed. If we wanted to make a 100%ly Slavic plural, we would end somewhere were none of us wants to. However, which of these two is more Slavic?
===
What the hell is MORE Slavic what is MORE pregnat?
If you do not like the -s ending do not use it! Or even better if you have a system which does not work properly because one of the parts makes troubles, the best solution is often to eliminate this part.
So the most simplest and "Slavic" plural will be: din dom, dva dom.
your grammar is overloaded, so I would rather learn Russian than your construct.
Gabriel pisal:
I just try to explain things and give examples so that everybody, not only native Slav, could unerstand the description of the language.
===
you may try, but nobody on earth or on moon will ever accept a plural system which is far more difficult than that of his own language especially if this language is spoken by only ONE person ONE person.
Igor pisal:
He's trying to make Slavsperanto
---
Gabriel otvetil:
Yes, I do.
===
I knew, but up to now Esperanto, invented by a Polish compatriot, is "more" Slavic than Gabriel´s "thoughts", which are more Germano-Italic.
Esperanto and Ido and what not are history, that´s why Gabriel hateloves SLOVIO!
If you want to express grammatical number by numerals, then we also have to have a numeral with the meaning "more than one" because the exact number of described things isn't always known. So if ti was such a numeral, we'd get ti dom, ti okno. However, ti domi and ta okni doesn't differ very much from it, does it?
Gabriel pisal:
Oh, please tell me, how do I express plural in Slovio without using the -s ending
and without knowing e.g. that the houses are exactly dva?
===
Good a question! (sorry for my Eastafrican English)
Actually we should ask the French who writes the plural but does not speak it out. So let me try:
Moi plemenic imat neskolk dom a ja tolk din. Ja lubijm vse zxona ili blondju, ili cxernju ili brunetju. Nasx planet imat sledju continent: Afrika, Europa, Asia, Amerika, Australia i Antarktika. Ti i ja ES nerazumju. Ja i Gabriel IMAT mnogju divnost. I tak dalej.
The problem here is: It is just too simple a solution for Gabriel! Because Gabriel THINKS big.
Re: If you do not like the -s ending do not use it!
No score for this post
August 24 2006, 6:13 PM
Moi plemenic imat neskolk dom a ja tolk din. Ja lubijm vse zxona ili blondju, ili cxernju ili brunetju. Nasx planet imat sledju continent: Afrika, Europa, Asia, Amerika, Australia i Antarktika. Ti i ja ES nerazumju. Ja i Gabriel IMAT mnogju divnost. I tak dalej.
These sentences are carefully selected so that the number of the noun can be determined from the context. However, this isn't always the case.
The problem here is: It is just too simple a solution for Gabriel! Because Gabriel THINKS big.
If this solution worked always, I'd happily adopt it.
What the hell is MORE Slavic what is MORE pregnant?
No score for this post
August 24 2006, 11:10 AM
Either it is Salvic or not, either you are pregnant or not!
Gabriel pisal
Your -s marks plural nowhere in Slavic languages.
===
correct! But you will have a big problem to find ONE Slav, interested in languages, who does not no the -s plural!!
===
Gabriel pisal:
(...) The pronouns ti, te, ta, tie do sometimes, too. So what is more Slavic?
===
not correct! As pronouns, dobruo! But not as pluralmaking articles as you use them, never ever! This is a kind of complicated German, but never Slavic!!!
Re: What the hell is MORE Slavic what is MORE pregnant?
No score for this post
August 25 2006, 10:12 AM
Who told you that? Slovianski-N and -S has been changed a lot after the pope translation.
Please present a nice Eglish text with some plurals in it and translation of it. So we may see whether you allegation is (still) true.
Re: What the hell is MORE Slavic what is MORE pregnant?
No score for this post
August 24 2006, 6:28 PM
correct! But you will have a big problem to find ONE Slav, interested in languages, who does not no the -s plural!!
Aha. So your idea about a pan-Slavic language relies on the Slavs' knowledge of foreign languages. As I say, you support your "velvelju Germania" much more than I do.
Moreover, "to be known" isn't equal to "to look good".
not correct! As pronouns, dobruo! But not as pluralmaking articles as you use them, never ever! This is a kind of complicated German, but never Slavic!!!
Yes. They do mark plural sometimes, as demonstrative pronouns. But your -s marks plural never in Slavic languages. And "sometimes" is more than "never", so my solution is more Slavic.
Igor pisal:
Hey, Eugeniusx, now translate this sentence without the plural:
Leaves are falling from trees.
List jes upadit s drevo?
Doesn't sound like the English sentence to me!
===
Slovio (Eugeniusxvoi):
Kratju perevod: Listopad
dolgju perevod: mnogju zelenju i kras-cvetju list padit iz drev mnogju . Es Listopad
___
Mezxdunarodnij Zxargon Russkij (Eugeniusxa):
Listja padat s dreva. Osen
korotkij versija: Listopad
___
By the way Igor, do you know what the verb to leaf through means and were it comes from?
Gabriel Pisal:
Oh, a new plural article: mnogju! Thanks, I'll stay at my ti, te, ta, tie because they are shorter and thus more practical.
===
mnogju is a adjective its meaning is known to allmost all Slavs: mnogju mlek, mongju helb i.t.d..
Whereas your pluralmaking ti, te and ta are known to all of us as PERSONAL PRONOUNS!!!
Prosijm, stopij pradit novju PRODELKA vnov i vnov!
Yes, ti, te, ta and tie are known to most of us as PLURAL demonstrative pronouns. The plural meaning of mnogju is known to all Slavs, too. To use mnogi, mnoge, mnoga and mnogie instead of my ti, te, ta and tie would be nothing essentially bad. I just point out that the current t- solution is one syllable shorter.
Igor pisal:
Who said anything about a lot of leaves falling? Very few leaves fell from very few trees.
How do you translate that?
Malju mnogju list upadat s malju mnogju drevo?
===
You are following Gabriel´s "logic", who is looking for something like a plural marker, no good!
Mnogju mlek means lot´s of milk so mlek is here in the plural, but tolk din litre mlek here milk is in the singular, but few milk is again in the plural, for e.g. meaning less than yesterday´s, milk. We got 50 litres yesterday but today only 40.
Whether there is a group of a few doldies or many doldies both groups of doldies are in the plural, meaning there are some doldies in each group, because only one doldy can not form a group!
So we have: velm neskolk list padil ot velm neskolk drev.
Gabriel and you think big this no good! Cutting three meter big hole in frozen Baikal Sea for fishing no good. What for?
you can easily make an inter-Slavic language from words understood in all Slavic languages
for example, you can make words like slovknig which is understood by any Slavic speaker
Slovianski-N (=Sl-N). Who wants to learn it and what for?
No score for this post
September 14 2006, 1:10 PM
Let´s have a look at the grammar:
Slovio has three forms of a noun: subject case, object case and plural, n.pr.
Pes, pes-um and pes-is
Slovinanski-N has 12 (twelve!!)
some of the forms look alike which makes things even worse:
Slovianski: pes kusit kot. Kot kusit pes
Slovio: pes kusit kot-um, kot-um pes kusit itd. This is not possible with Sl-N.
Like in English Slovio has to forms for 1.Person Singular Sl-N has 6 (six!)
Like in English Slovio has only one form for the adjective good, namely dobr-ju, Sl-N has TWENTY-FOUR!!!
Do Igor!
I knew that you´ll come around with the Slavic genetiv case. However beautiful Slavic cases are with your "limitation" you will exclude millions of Slavs, interested in an inter-Slavic language, especially the south-eastern and the expatriated ones.
Re: pes kusit seba, seba pes kusit, kusit seba pes
No score for this post
September 15 2006, 5:09 AM
The aim of the two is different.
Slov'anski-S aims to be easy to learn for everybody
Slov'anski-N aims to be easy to understand
even if cases are not intuitive to learn for those who don't have cases, the amount of intelligibility to someone without prior study will always be better with Slov'anski-N or at least equal to Slovio and Slov'anski-S
In terms of introducing people to the inter-Slavic languages, Slov'anski-N is certainly more impressive
Slov'anski-N is not impressive, it´s our brain
No score for this post
September 15 2006, 9:27 PM
Igor pisal:
===
Slov'anski-S aims to be easy to learn for everybody
___
Actually Gabriel´s aim was to present a “better” Slovio. About eight month afterwards I honestly can not see any improvement Gabriel made to make Slovio better .
He wanted to improve Slovio because he felt that some parts of Slovio are un-Slavic. But if something is “un-Slavic” than it´s Gabriel´s creations:
How can I say, to a child: “Li vi to pisali?”?. No need to discuss his plural “inventions”, I think. So Slov'anski-S is no more than a strange Slovio-dialect.
===
Slov'anski-N aims to be easy to understand
even if cases are not intuitive to learn for those who don't have cases, the amount of intelligibility to someone without prior study will always be better with Slov'anski-N or at least equal to Slovio and Slov'anski-S
In terms of introducing people to the inter-Slavic languages, Slov'anski-N is certainly more impressive
===
Slovianski-N is not at all impressive to non-Slavic speaking people and even not to Slavic speaking ones. Even you, studying this construct for many month are not, according to Hellrick, mastering it.
It is our humane brain which is impressive! You know that our eyes see the world upside down, but our brain forces us to “see” the world correctly. Similar things happen with our hearing,
We do not hear what we hear, but we “hear” what our brain accepts to be correct!
Let me explain. Recently I met the father-in-low of my niece, who is a Greek, I said to him: “Karl ist nicht da.” a German sentence meaning: “Karl is not here.” But he happily understood: Kali nichta (lako nocx (yu)).
Re: Slov'anski-N is not impressive, it´s our brain
No score for this post
September 15 2006, 9:36 PM
How can I say, to a child: “Li vi to pisali?”?.
Actually, after deprecating the plural articles, I reintroduced ti "thou" as a personal pronoun. So GS-Slovianski now adresses a female child this way:
Re: Slov'anski-N is not impressive, it´s our brain
No score for this post
September 16 2006, 12:07 AM
Actually, after deprecating the plural articles, I reintroduced ti "thou" as a personal pronoun. So GS-Slovianski now adresses a female child this way:
Li ti eto pisali?
Compare to Slovio:
"Li ti to pisal?"
===
Can you not see that Slovio is better than your Slovio dialect?
You right, Eugeniusx about Slovianski.
But on the other hand I must tell you that Slovio is more complicated than
Slovano.
* Try to look at the 3 grammar structures and you' ll see what language has the most simple grammar structure [regardless the fact you or anybody else understands the texts and regardless the words used in each of these languages].
* the words can have synomims or other adequate alternative words that can mean the same things, e.g. uc'enie / edukenie, kniga / libro, pisat / skribit
etc. Even every slavic language has its own synomims or several each other
different words of the same meaning. So I can't see here any problem with using 2 or 3 different words of the same meaning.
*of course there should NOT be any homonims [avoiding misunderstanding the text or debate]. And there is no need of using these words of different meaning
when we have a lot of other words instead of them.
Ioannes:
* Try to look at the 3 grammar structures and you' ll see what language has the most simple grammar structure [regardless the fact you or anybody else understands the texts and regardless the words used in each of these languages].
===
Let´s compare the three grammars and start with personal and possessive pronouns.
---
* the words can have synonyms or other adequate alternative words that can mean the same things, e.g. uc'enie / edukenie, kniga / libro, pisat / skribit
etc. Even every Slavic language has its own synonyms or several each other
different words of the same meaning. So I can't see here any problem with using 2 or 3 different words of the same meaning.
===
True, but they may get soon a slightly different meaning. And this is good so, compare e.g. pork and swine; library and book store.
---
*of course there should NOT be any homonyms [avoiding misunderstanding the text or debate]. And there is no need of using these words of different meaning
when we have a lot of other words instead of them.
===
Homonyms and synonyms are sometimes the salt in the soup.
Slovio has been existing for 6 years, Slovianski has been developed for 6 months.