Uvedomil som si, z'e asi fakt nema zmysel zaoberat sa vyleps'enim esperanta, pretoz'e, ako za c'ias Zamenhofa, tak isto aj dnes by vac's'ina s tym nesuhlasila.
Podme sa ale venovat nas'ej podstatnej teme a to je vytvorenie jednotneho slovanskeho jazyka. Momentalne su aktualne 3 tzv. vs'eslovanske jazyky o ktorych sa da uvaz'ovat (slovio, sloviansky, sloveno) a mohli by sluz'it na vytvorenie toho skutoc'ne uz' konec'neho jazyka. Lebo inac' si kaz'dy budeme
stat len za tym svojim a nikam to nepovedie. Vidis' sam, z'e v podstate nikto velmi a vo vac's'om rozsahu neprejavil nejaky velky zaujem ani o jeden z tychto
jazykov. A az' to bude takto dalej pokrac'ovat, ako doteraz, tak ostanu ozaj len akousi predstavou na internete (bez pisanej kniz'nej podoby vo forme uc'ebnic a slovnikov) o ktore nebude z'iadny masovy zaujem v radoch obyvatelov slovanskych krajin.
Ale teraz uz' k veci.
Uvaz'oval som aj nad tymi tvojimi moz'nostami, ktore si
prezentoval na web stranke slovianski.com a tak isto aj nad urc'itymi navrhmi,
ktore si predstavil tu na stranke slovio.com
Samozrejme moz'nosti je tam vela, ako napr. tvorit koncovky pri podstatnych
menach, alebo pri slovesnych c'asoch.
Ja by som navrhol akysi postup, ktoreho by sme sa drz'ali pri definitivnom prijmani tychto gramatickych pravidiel.
Na uplnom zac'iatku by som chcel navrhnut urc'ite regule, ktore by mali platit
pri tvorbe tohto jazyka. Uplnym zac'iatkom by malo byt to, aby sme si jednoznac'ne ujasnili vztah hlaska - pismeno alebo inac' povedane to c'o je napisane, tak sa bude aj vyslovovat a to c'o je vyslovene, aby sa tak aj pisalo.
V podstate by to mohlo byt (ak s tym budes' suhlasit) tychto 22 zakladnych pismen latinskej abecedy :
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v, z
Su to take pismena, ktorych vyslovnost je kaz'demu jednoducha a povedal by som, z'e su to zakladne pismena / hlasky kaz'dej europskej abecedy. C'iz'e c'itaju
sa vac's'inou tak, ako sa pis'u a opac'ne a daju sa pisat na vs'etkych klavesniciach europy, mimo takych, ktore pouz'ivaju azbuku, alebo grecke pismo. Je to obrovska vyhoda, pretoz'e toto splna v samotnej europe nadpolovic'na vac's'ina klavesnic. Samozrejme su tam urc'ite odlis'nosti v niektorych europskych jazykoch napr. c'o sa tyka pismen : c, g, j, v, z, ale neda sa brat ohlad na kaz'de s'pecifikum kaz'deho jazyka. Mali by sme brat do uvahy to, c'o je pre vac's'inu prijatelne bez problemov. Hlavne sa to tyka Slovanov.
Myslim si, z'e tato zakladna abeceda je velmi dobra a bezproblemova.
Samozrejme Azbuka by v tomto pripade neprichadzala do uvahy, pretoz'e vidim to aj naprikladoch ludi, c'o prichadzaju do Anglicka, Francuzska a inde do zapadnej Europy z krajin, kde sa pis'se azbukou. Maju s tym velke problemy aby vobec napisali nejaky text a pis'u roznymi abecedami pri pouz'iti rustiny, bulharc'iny a srbs'tiny. Napr. niektori z nich pis'u jas'e - j ako -j, alebo ako anglicke -y. C'iz'e nemaju to ujednotene a vyzera to aj dost smies'ne ked pis'u po rusky a pouz'ivaju napr. anglicky prepis niektorych hlasok.
C'iz'e nie su ANI RYBA, ANI RAK a prisposobuju sa v prepisoch tych niektorych problemovych hlaskok anglic'tine, francuzs'tine, nemc'ine, s'panielc'ine a talianc'ine.
Mali by jednoznac'ne prejst na latinku s ujednotenymi pismenamy / hlaskami,
tak, ako ich maju zapadni slovania.
Dals'ou vecou je, ako budeme pisat dals'ie hlasky, ktore su potrebne v nas'ich slovach, ale nemaju jednoznac'ne pismena na vac's'ine klavesnic. Su to nas'e :
š, è, ž, ch (dž je zmesou d+ž, a nie -g, alebo -j, c'o je skutoc'ny nezmysel v niektorych
abecedach niektorych jazykov).
Je tam niekolko moz'nosti, ako ich pisat >
1. pomocou znaku / pismena -x, tak ako to ma c'asto klavesnicovy prepis tychto
znakov Esperanto, alebo ako ho pouz'iva aj Slovio.
2. pouz'ivat tam tzv. apostrof, ktory sa nachadza na vac's'ine klavesnic Europy a
zapadnych Slovanov a tak isto ho pouz'ivaju aj v tlac'i napr. slovenc'ina, c'es'-
tina, slovinc'ina, chorvac'tina, pri zmakc'ovani hlasok (samozrejme okrem
tohto sa pouz'iva aj tento znak : ¡ )
3. dals'ie moz'nosti su : cc, zz, ss, cz, zz, sz, cj, sj, zj, ch, zh, sh,
c'o ale nevidim moc prakticke a dost by to bolo komplikovane pri urc'itych
slovach.
4. urc'it si nejaky iny, jeden spoloc'ny znak, mimo abecednych znakov
(napr. niec'o z matematiky, nejaky piktogram, a pod.) Toto vs'ak naraz'a na
dost velky problem, pretoz'e aj tie ostatne znaky na bez'nej europskej klaves-
nici, ktora pouz'iva spoloc'ne znaky (ako su hore), uz' maju svoj iny vyznam,
charakteristiku a pouz'itie. Takz'e toto velmi neprichadza do uvahy.
Moj navrh by bol takyto :
1. bud pisat tieto hlasky za pouz'itia znaku - x, alebo
2. pouz'ivat apostrof - '
c'iz'e vyzeralo by to takto :
1. cx, sx, zx, hx
alebo
2. c', s', z', h'
ostatne pismena / hlasky by jednoducho neexistovali. Alebo by sa pisali prirodzene, napr. dzx / dz', sxcx / s'c'
Bolo by to velmi prakticke a jednoduche.
(samozrejme pri moz'nom prijati spolc'neho znaku -x by nemohli nenamietali ani esperantisti, ani vyznavac'i jazyka Slovio, pretoz'e nikto z nich nemoz'e s urc'itostou
tvrdit, z'e to vymysleli oni. O tom su spory a nikto nemoz'e na 100% dokazat kto bol z nich prvy. A myslim si, z'e esperantistom by to vobec ani nevadilo, keby sa tento znak pouz'ival aj v inom jazyku)
Takz'e toto je prva faza spoloc'nej tvorby. Samozrejme osoz'ne pripomienkz su vitane.
(Please excuse my writing in English. I know, it's a shame for Slavs to communicate in English, but I want all Slavs, not only Czechs and Slovaks, to discuss adequately now. I am not happy about this language situation but nothing can be done about it right now.)
Alphabet
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v, z
I agree (and I think that all others do).
Samozrejme Azbuka by v tomto pripade neprichadzala do uvahy
I hope that you don't want a pan-Slavic language to be written only be the Latin alphabet and to ignore the alphabet that is used by a majority of Slavs.
Moj navrh by bol takyto :
1. bud pisat tieto hlasky za pouz'itia znaku - x, alebo
2. pouz'ivat apostrof - '
In Slovianski, Jan concluded our alphabet issues by this text:
- Whenever possible, we use è š ž.
- Poles can use cz sz ¿
- Our primary asciification is cz sz zz
- If someone writes cx sx zx, we won't complain
- In those cases where cz sz zz constitute separate phonemes, we separate them with an apostrophe (which otherwise is used only word-finally anyway): c'z s'z z'z (for example: iz'zivat').
The cx, sx and zx are very ugly. An apostrophe isn't practical because there are many kinds of apostrophes on the computers and many people don't know how to write it on their keyboard.
Yes, the disadvantage of cz, sz, zz is the fact that it gives two tasks to one letter. However, it is supported by aesthetics (more than the x's), by the Polish and by the fact that Slavs themselves tend to use this system (see the exploration of Ondrej Rec'nik: http://www.slovianski.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137 ).
I personally would prefer cj, sj, zj. These j doesn't occur in Slavic words after a consonant anyway (does it?) so it would have only one task in this position in fact. The j doesn't look ugly, it relates to softening and the shift from c to c' is a kind of softening (isn't it?). If it caused a confusion in compound words, we would use a hyphen.
Gabriel pisal:
I personally would prefer cj, sj, zj. These j doesn't occur in Slavic words after a consonant anyway (does it?)
===
Oh, Gabriel! It occurs in Polish (isolacja, sjesta, zjadac), in Serbocroatian (sljiva, sjever, zjenica, cjelina) and also in Slovak, Slovene, Macedonian and even in your mother tongue!
If your are a honest person, you would now agree with me that your preference is the most confusing, although it is as harmonic as the Slovio version.
The best solution and the most beautiful one, while harmonic and least confusing is cx, sx and zx. It is for me a copy of the way how the Polish is written. But here the copy is even better than the original: cz, sz, ż (rz) compare with cx, sx, zx.
Its unbeatable advantage (some of you call it ugliness) is that this combination does not exist in any Slavic language! So no mix up with other Slavic tongues, like it is the case with Recxnik´s (cz, sz, zz) or Gabriel`s (cj, sj, zj) or Ioannes´ (c´,s´, z´)
Oh, Gabriel! It occurs in Polish (isolacja, sjesta, zjadac), in Serbocroatian (sljiva, sjever, zjenica, cjelina) and also in Slovak, Slovene, Macedonian and even in your mother tongue!
Yes ... But for many reasons (even if we weren't going to use cj, sj, zj), these words should be written isolacia, siesta, sliva, siever, zienica, cielina etc. in a pan-Slavic language.
Oh, Gabriel! It occurs in Polish (isolacja, sjesta, zjadac), in Serbocroatian (sljiva, sjever, zjenica, cjelina) and also in Slovak, Slovene, Macedonian and even in your mother tongue!
===
Yes ... But for many reasons (even if we weren't going to use cj, sj, zj), these words should be written isolacia, siesta, sliva, siever, zienica, cielina etc. in a pan-Slavic language.
===
Ignorantnik ili Eulenspiegel, to es kvestia!
The point is not how an inter-Slavic orthography will look like, the point is that your cj... and Recxnik´s zz... is everything but confusing and counterproductive for us Slavs.
j occurs in words like mjacx (Ukrainian for ball) pjat (Ukrainian for five) etc.
note that piat would be a totally different word in Ukrainian and would be written differently (but it wouldn't mean anything) it would be pronounced pi-at піать vs. пять (new orthography requires an apostrophe after the я)
