September 13 2006 at 8:53 AM No score for this post
Dusxan
-
Velju Moravia
Vel-Moravia bil Slavju imper ktor egzistil vo Sredju Europ mezx 833 i ranju 10ju storocxie. Toi jadroju oblast lezxil na obdva bregis om reka Morava, vo tut-denju Slovakia, Cxehia i Austria.
Imper bil osnovilju gda Princ Moimir I nasiluo sodinil sosedju Princ-krain Nitra so jegoi Moravju Princ-krain vo 833. Bezprimerju kulturju razvitie usledil posolie Sviatnikifs Ciril i Metod, ktor pridili podcxas korolenie om Princ Rastislav vo 863. Vel-Moravju Imper dosagil svoi naivelju teritorju prostrenie pod Korol Sviatpluk I (871-894). Slabilju usled vnutrju borba i cxastoju voinas proti Frankju Imper, Vel-Moravia bil koncuo proehalju ot Madarju vtorgatelis vo ranju 10ju storocxie i toi socxastis bil pozdue razdelilju mezxu Madarju Korolstvo, Bohemia, Polakia i Sviatju Rimju Imper.
Ther new feature of Slovio which has been added in the second half of 2006 is flexible grammar and orthography. This means that Slovio enables users to use - apart from the standard - also several alternate endings or spelling systems in order to achieve maximum flexibility and to allow and encourage the further development and improvement of the language. For example to indicate object or direction Slovio can use the following endings for singular nouns: "-(u)f, -(u)g or -(u)m" and for plural nouns: "-(i)fs, -(i)ms or -(u)mis". While using some of the non-standard endings user should be careful to make sure that the usage does not create some kind of misunderstanding. The use of the standard grammatical endings according to our knowledge does not create such conflicts nor confusion. Other feature of Slovio's flexibility is the possibility to replace the standard adjective and adverb endings of -ju and -uo with -sk. As far as is concerned the Slovio spelling and orthography it is possible to replace "x" with and apostrophy. Once more we would like to warn users that there are several similar-looking apostrophies, which have different ASCII codes and may look different on different computers.
Ther new feature of Slovio which has been added in the second half of 2006 is flexible grammar and orthography. This means that Slovio enables users to use - apart from the standard - also several alternate endings or spelling systems in order to achieve maximum flexibility and to allow and encourage the further development and improvement of the language. For example to indicate object or direction Slovio can use the following endings for singular nouns: "-(u)f, -(u)g or -(u)m" and for plural nouns: "-(i)fs, -(i)ms or -(u)mis". While using some of the non-standard endings user should be careful to make sure that the usage does not create some kind of misunderstanding. The use of the standard grammatical endings according to our knowledge does not create such conflicts nor confusion. Other feature of Slovio's flexibility is the possibility to replace the standard adjective and adverb endings of -ju and -uo with -sk. As far as is concerned the Slovio spelling and orthography it is possible to replace "x" with and apostrophy. Once more we would like to warn users that there are several similar-looking apostrophies, which have different ASCII codes and may look different on different computers.
__________________________________________________________________________
ZDRAVO,
Of course, there are some of apostrophies that may look differently in ASCII codes but I still cannot see any problem of using it [them].
If you write it with this : ' or this ` or this , or anyhow other way
it still will be something that means "softenning" of 3 consonants :
As far as is concerned the Slovio spelling and orthography it is possible to replace "x" with and apostrophy.
Din stup vpred, velvelju!
For example to indicate object or direction Slovio can use the following endings for singular nouns: "-(u)f, -(u)g or -(u)m" and for plural nouns: "-(i)fs, -(i)ms or -(u)mis".
You may have different key board then but I think apostrophy should be same
on all key boards. If there is slight difference in the final effect it is
still some "KOMMA ABOVE THE LINE". And it doesn' t matter what it looks like
[if it' s bended to the left or right or if it' s straight or rounded].
It is still some tiny line between two lines after some letter.
Ne jest pravda. Anglijska gramatikna struktura jest silno prosta, no naj-viša čast človekov na etomu forume ne mogut pisat po Anglijski bez pogrešnostej. (pogrešnoti is gen. plural. in Sl-N but I chose pogrešnostej to differentiate between the singular and the plural)
I think you mean basic grammar.
If you look better in real structure of English language you' ll find out
that it' s not as easy as it looks for the first sight.
We should destinguish terms of "absolute grammar" and "relative grammar".
If an Englishman would learn Russian, he would learn its "absolute grammar", he would have to learn what genders and cases are etc.
A Slav doesn't have to do it, he has just to remember how the things he already knows are expressed in Russian.
Look at "inter-Slavic" dictionaries, they are different from "English-Slavic" ones. In them, perfective verbs are translated with other perfective verbs; imperfective -- with imperfective; the gender is shown only when it's different in the two languages etc. -- Such dictionaries are "relative".
When a Slav is studying Slovio, he has to learn absolute grammar; when he studies Sl-N he has to learn relative grammar -- and they are difficult to be compared.
But a good Sl-N language, wouldn't require a special studying at all. Perceiving of its grammar should be rather considered to be learning of new STANDARD of the language, than learning of new LANGUAGE.
First of all: It's no use arguing whether the naturalistic languages are better than the schematic ones or vice versa. Both approaches have got their good reasons behind them. That's why we had decided to stop these useless discussions on the Slovianski forum and to develop two languages: one schematic, one naturalistic. The advantages of naturalistic languages have already been said here, so let me give the reasons for schematic ones:
- The idea of a schematic pan-Slavic language is that it will do away with all gender, declension, aspect, conjugation, irregularity and the like. Orthography should be as simple as possible, and the only thing that will really be Slavic is the lexicon. Such a language will indeed be easy for a native speaker of a non-Slavic language. But why wouldn't it be easy for a Slav, too?
- If I (as a native, non-expatried, non-Bulgarian, non-Macedonian Slav) had to learn a naturalistic Slavic language, I can't imagine that I would learn plenties of tables full of grammatical endings, no matter how Slavic (and close to my native language) these endings might be. I'd have to remember when the ending is the same as in my native language and when it is not and I don't think that such language would me easier for me than e.g. German (which also has got cases, genders etc.).
- A naturalistic language would be understood by many but learned by almost nobody. Consequently there would be very few texts to read because only few people could write them. A schematic language would be learneable for more people and understandable to many. Those who learned the language would understand it a little bit better but even those Slavs who didn't learn it could understand it.
- To be familiar with gender (declension, aspect, conjugation, irregularities) in one's own native language doesn't imply to be willing to learn another language with genders (declension, aspect, conjugation, irregularities).
- Let me ask you a simple question:
I am a Czech. Which language would be the scariest nightmare for me if I had to learn it?
A) Slovak
B) Russian
C) French
D) Chinese
A is correct. To remember how Slovak exactly differs from Czech and to apply this knowledge actively would require much more tug than to learn fluent Chinese.
No, you can't learn Chinese. First of all, you will never learn to use tones correctly, second, you will never learn to write it, third, you will not be able to make any coherent statements.
Every person in any American Chinese class is Chinese.
I can't learn Slovianski-N. First of all, I will never learn not to mix Czech inflection endings with Slovianski-N ones. Second, I would tend to Czechise the vocabulary. Third, it would be very difficult to learn to use cases consciously while I use them unconsciously in my native language.
The Czechs aren't able to learn Slovak? Really? Let Igor correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like Ukrainians and Belarusians don't have much trouble in being "close bilingual". Of course, it causes their languages to melt together somewhat, but I don't see a problem here either.
Anyway my posting above meant to tell that it's useless to compare simplicity of "natural" and "schematic" grammars. A Ukrainian is able to speak Russian even when s/he doesn't know a thing about cases, genders, aspects etc.
A naturalistic language would be understood by many but learned by almost nobody.
First of all, let's face the facts. In whole Europe you hardly can find at least one hundred people who are willing to learn any constructed Pan-Slavic language. (I hardly can imagine a person who wants to communicate with foreigner, but with "Slav-only" foreigner; and everybody who needs real international communication already knows English.) And it doesn't matter how many speakers has your language: 2 or 20. But using of natural language would meant to have these "400 million" potential passive users, who wouldn't learn any language ever. I guess you would agree that is would be quite more useful to have "natural Slavic" section of Wikipedia, than "schematic Slavic" one -- it's easier to have one set of articles for all the Slavic language, than to translate everything into Slovak, Slovenian etc., and many Slavs who for some reason don't know English would be able to use the "natural" section.
The Slavic-N is perfect language for "passive" using, i.e. for reference books, for fiction books by Slavic authors (when you don't want to damage the original text too much) etc., while Slavic-S is more suitable for "active" using, e.g. for chats on the net etc.
A guess the best solution of the problem would be to have "highly optional" language, in which the user would be able to decide whether s/he wants to use cases, genders etc.; i.e. the language should contain both "weak" and "strong" forms (by analogy with weak and strong declensions of adjectives in Germanic languages), the weak forms being "neutral" and strong forms expressing "natural categories". There could be several "gradations" of using of the language: the non-Slavs could learn weak forms only, the "normal" Slavs could be able to write in weak language with some strong forms (e.g. using of genders in past tense of verbs) and read the "strong" texts, the "professionals" could be able to write "strong" texts.
The Czechs aren't able to learn Slovak? Really? Let Igor correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like Ukrainians and Belarusians don't have much trouble in being "close bilingual". Of course, it causes their languages to melt together somewhat, but I don't see a problem here either.
Of course, Czechs and Slovaks understand one another perfectly without any problem, when they speak their native languages ... That's why it would be very, very difficult to learn the language of the other nation without mixing it with one's native language.
The Slavic-N is perfect language for "passive" using, i.e. for reference books, for fiction books by Slavic authors (when you don't want to damage the original text too much) etc., while Slavic-S is more suitable for "active" using, e.g. for chats on the net etc.
Exactly, I agree.
A guess the best solution of the problem would be to have "highly optional" language, in which the user would be able to decide whether s/he wants to use cases, genders etc.; i.e. the language should contain both "weak" and "strong" forms (by analogy with weak and strong declensions of adjectives in Germanic languages), the weak forms being "neutral" and strong forms expressing "natural categories". There could be several "gradations" of using of the language: the non-Slavs could learn weak forms only, the "normal" Slavs could be able to write in weak language with some strong forms (e.g. using of genders in past tense of verbs) and read the "strong" texts, the "professionals" could be able to write "strong" texts.
I am afraid that such language would be nothing more than a confusing mess ... Of course, the two languages (one naturalistic, one schematic) can have common vocabulary, common spelling and other common features, but their grammars should be separate.
(I hardly can imagine a person who wants to communicate with foreigner, but with "Slav-only" foreigner; and everybody who needs real international communication already knows English.)
The Slavic schematic langauge would be easier than English, so I think that some people would think: "It's impossibly difficult for me to learn English in order to communicate with all foreigners, so let me learn at least schematic Slavic in order to be able to communicate with Slav-only foreigners."
I am afraid that such language would be nothing more than a confusing mess ...
If we would use some common rules for simplification it wouldn’t be such a ‘confusing mess’. The most neutral ending possible is zero ending. We should just say: if you don’t know what ending to use -- use no ending, if you don’t know what case to use -- use the main (nominative) form etc. Partially it’s already realized in Slovio: idil can be ‘personalized’ -- idilm, idilsx, idilt etc., though of course it was done in terrible way.
In its ‘weakest’ form such language would be equivalent to English, but with Slavic vocabulary. The weak language, of course, would have less flexible word order than its strong variant.
Other ‘neutral’ ending could be ‘-u’; it could be used as any case ending (practically as genitive, since it’s the most ‘useful’, and hardly expressed with prepositions case), as any adjective ending, or as neutral ending for past tense ‘-l’ forms of verbs. It also could be useful as a ‘politically correct’ (neither masculine nor feminine) ending: onu (he/she), pisalu (he/she wrote) etc.
For any strong feature should be designed some way of avoiding it. Of course, the function of cases can be expressed with prepositions (Gen. “ot”, Dat. “do”), persons of verbs can be expressed with persons etc. But of course you already know it.
In some cases the using of strong forms is more required than in others. E.g. being ‘gender specific’ is more useful when we deal with persons etc.
The using for strong case endings should be considered the ‘top masterpiece’.
Practically speaking, GS-Slovianski already is one of the ‘gradations’ of such ‘superlanguage’.
Even if you use Czech vocabulary, incorrect case endings, incorrect conjugation in Slov'anski-N, I will still understand you better than if you spoke perfect Slovio.
I completely agree with you, more later. Therefore I am against so called naturalistic lang.. They are not realistic! But pidgin languages, like Slovio and Slovianski-P+GS; exist!
I completly agree with Gabriel:
I am a Czech. Which language would be the scariest nightmare for me if I had to learn it?
A) Slovak
B) Russian
C) French
D) Chinese
A is correct. To remember how Slovak exactly differs from Czech and to apply this knowledge actively would require much more tug than to learn fluent Chinese.
Even if you use Czech vocabulary, incorrect case endings, incorrect conjugation in Slov'anski-N, I will still understand you better than if you spoke perfect Slovio.
Exactly And I believe that Sl-N and languages of GS-Sl can be merged.
Back to my propose. Let's look at translation of the same phrase: "Mexican president". (I hope nobody has anything against Mexico here?) It can be expressed "President of Mexico" also. Here we go:
Meksikansk prezident -- is used by somebody who doesn't know what is gender of word "prezident". I don't know what about you guys, but expressions like "internet obrazovanije" are widely used in Russian of nowadays, and I guess it would be a good idea to legitimize such "flat" adjectives.
Meksikansku prezident -- is used by somebody who doesn't know what is gender of word "prezident", or isn't sure whether current president of Mexico is male or female.
Meksikanski(j) prezident -- is used by somebody who knows that "Vicente Fox es un real machote!"
Prezident ot Meksika -- is used by somebody who isn't sure how genitive is to be used, or in literal translations from English.
Prezident Meksiku -- is used by somebody who isn't afraid of genitive, but doesn't know what exactly its ending is.
Prezident Meksiki -- is the highest style.
I suggest a language in which all of the listed above would be considered correct forms.
Eulenspiegel Hellerick maunders:
Let the "user" decide what onu wants.
===
I am sorry Gabriel but you lost your title, please hand over the sceptre to the the New Eulenspiegel:
Eulenspiegel of Eulenspiegels Hellerick The First of The Hell of Sibiria:
Eulenspiegel is dead long live Eulenspiegel!
Zajimavo ... Iz teoreticzki ugel pogleda, bilo bi pekno mat' takovi jazik s visokiu uroveniu volitelnosti. Ale tut ti vidisz, kak obiczejne uzzivateli bi pravdepodobno reagovali. Jest opravdo obtizzno udelat' dobri kompromis medzzu jednoduhost' na pervi pohled i volitelnost'.
Interesting ... From a theoretical point of view, it would be nice to have such a language with a great level of optionality. But here you see how ordinary users would probably react. It's really difficult to make a good compromise between simplicity on the first sight and optionality.
Isn't genitive singular neuter ending -a? I'd rather prezident Meksika than prezident Meksiki.
Sorry, Russian word Meksika is feminine.
But here you see how ordinary users would probably react
They hardly can be considered "ordinary users", they have too much experience.
All the forms I used already were used somewhere. Genitive ending '-u' was used in my translation of Velika Moravia, adjective ending '-u' is used in GS-Slov'anski. (Honestly, what's difference of meanings of genitive and adjective?) I just put everything together.
Look at Slovo-ists, isn't it a pity to see how they use correct (for Slovio) expressions, when they obviously can write something more understandable? Let them use "higher" forms when they feel they are able to.
Personally I always thought that the best solution is to be as "least extreme" as possible. Such language is what we would get if a large number of "non-linguist" users would start to use some Pan-Slavic conlang. You can't make such guys restrict their language with artificial forms.
Such language (in its strongest forms) would be mostly understandable for all the Slavs, its weakest grammar would be more simple than Slovio's (and perfect for non-Slavs), the users would be able to gradually master their using of strong forms -- not learning the grammar, but just looking at how others do it.
Such language would be perfect for users, for which the communication and being understood is more imprtant than language itself.
So for Slovianski, Meksiko seems to be a little bit more common, but Meksika would also be a perfectly legitimate choice.
P.S. If I was an anti-gender fundamentalist, as I was a half a year ago, I would certainly use this example, when Slavic languages don't agree on the gender of certain word, as an argument against having gender in a pan-Slavic language.
About "Mexico", it is foreign (for Slavs) word, and I guess such words should be checked in its original form. Since Mexicans themselves use forms Mexico and Mejico I guess "Meksiko" seems to be more "legitimate". Though it sounds strange for my Russian ear.
Yes, in this case, when Slavic languages give us two almost equally good alternatives, it's OK to check the original form in order to choose one of them. But country names should normally be taken in their most natural Slavic form, so Germany should be Nemeci (or something similar) and not "Dojczland", and China should be Kitaj and not "Czungkuo".
There exist the "international" norms; they may be different from "local" and Slavic ones. Note that I wrote "Meksiko" not "Mehiko".
Word "Germania" (not Dojc^land, or Alemania, or Nemc^ina) seems to be the most "international" and widely understandable (among Slavs too).
Note also, that it would be useful to distinguish words for German people and language, and for Germany. (We Russians, have words "Russkij" for "denoting to Russian people and their language", and "Rossijskij" for "denoting to Russian Federation").
I guess the perfect solution would be to have words:
- nemecki, about people (including Austrians, German Swiss etc.): nemecki jazik
- german(ij)ski, about Germany: germanski kancler
- something like germanic^ni, about Germanic branch of nations/languages.
Hellerick
I guess the perfect solution would be to have words:
- nemecki, about people (including Austrians, German Swiss etc.): nemecki jazik
- german(ij)ski, about Germany: germanski kancler
- something like germanic^ni, about Germanic branch of nations/languages.
===
Sorry, Hellerick, but we should not repeat Hitler´s Heim-ins-Reich-policy. Austrians are German speaking Austrians and not Germans (and not at all Nemcis), Swiss are speaking German,Italian and French the are no Nemcis. And the German speaking Belgians, Lichtensteiner, Luxemburger, Danish, Italians, French would feel offended if you would call them German (Nemc).
Therefore:
-Nemcis for the people of FRG
-Nemcju kancler, Austrju kancler
-germanju jazika,
Germanikju languages for the Germanic brunch of Indo-Europian language.
Germanic brunch of nations never existed! Germanic tribes never formed a nation. A nation normaly has more than one language. Exept maybe Island, Lichtenstein and Monaco all other Europian nations are multi-lingual.
-Nemcis for the people of FRG
-Nemcju kancler, Austrju kancler
-germanju jazika,
Germanikju languages for the Germanic brunch of Indo-Europian language.
I'm afraid we have quite opposite situation in Russian: the language is always "Nemeckij", and never "Germanski". When we wish say that something came from Germany but not from Austria, Switzerland etc. we say "Germanskij".
Swiss etc. would be offended by word "Germanec", but they wouldn't be offended by word "Nemec" (because they just don't know it). It seems to me that it would be quite natural to say "S^vicarski nemci", "Avstriski nemci" etc. Anyway if you don't like the existing of common word for all the german-speaking people you can avoid it. You still can use "germanec" for citizens of Germany.
Germanic brunch of nations never existed!
Brunch? You meant "bunch" or "branch"? At least Germanic branch obviously exists.
Don't confuse words "country" and "people", the fact that in 1870s the most of German people were divided between two empires doesn't mean that they don't make one nation today. Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Mozart ... and Eulenspiegel are they Germans, Autrians, or Swiss? Maybe they spoke different languages back then, maybe they lived in different principalities, dukedoms etc.; but they considered themselves "die Deutsche leute"; and word Deutchland (Germania, Alemagne, Nemec^ina) meant all the German-speaking territory (maybe including Bohemia even). Don't forget about Holy Roman Empire too.
And I sincerly don't understand what has Hitler to do with it.
- nemecki, about people (including Austrians, German Swiss etc.): nemecki jazik
- german(ij)ski, about Germany: germanski kancler
- something like germanic^ni, about Germanic branch of nations/languages.
It might not be bad ... I would personally like this solution, but this discussion is getting more and more political and less and less linguistic, so I am not going to take part in it.
(Superlanguage is a language that incorporates into itself several languages.)
“-U” ending of nouns. -- In languages like Ukrainian and Polish, it’s used for Genitive, Dative and Locative of some masculine words (bidinku, domu) -- and it really looks like a good universal ending for indirect object cases in singular (though it isn’t used for instrumental case in real languages). It becomes analog of Slovio’s universal preposition om (“Can be used at all times, especially in cases where the correct preposition [read “ending/case”] is difficult to determine”). We also have -u ending at accusative of feminine words but it is a strong ending.
The first word of GS-Slovianski’s expressions like “otec klobuk” would be treated as “flat” adjective, i.e. “paternal” hat.
GS-Slovianski uses some words/expressions (proper names mostly) that use some more natural rules (e.g. “Sjedineni S^tati Ameriki”). Superlanguage would consider it as using of some words in “higher style”.
And I really think that such design of language seems to be the most realistic. Let’s give the users instruments for communication, instead withdrawing them.
But if the language has too many different forms or words, or as you call them, "tools", then understanding that language would be dependent on the speaker. One speaker might speak a fairly easily-understandable language, and another would use outlandish forms no one uses.
Of course this is true with natural languages, but that's because a lot of the dictionary words are not used in speech, so that's achieved by using very obscure words that are not in common use. Since we want something that people will understand, the general corpus of the language should consist of words and forms in common use.
Hellerick:
...but they considered themselves "die Deutsche leute"; and word Deutchland (Germania, Alemagne, Nemec^ina) meant all the German-speaking territory (maybe including Bohemia even). Don't forget about Holy Roman Empire too.
And I sincerly don't understand what has Hitler to do with it.
===
Because it was Hitler who thought like you: German-speaking territory is Deutschland. And he annexed (or tried to annex) Bohemia and all other European countries were a German shepherd was supposed to be seen once.
Only Switzerland (his piggy bank) and Italy (his faithless tomato) he left untouched.
Now I understand Stalin why he eliminated the autonomic Russian German Republic and sent his inhabitants to Kazakhstan and to the Far North.
A common language does not make a nation! A Belorussian or an Ukrainian who speaks Russian as his mother tongue is not naturally a Russian. The majority of Irish people who speak English, many of them are not able to use Irish, are not consequently English.
A German speaking South Tyrolese is an Italian, a German speaking Alsacen is a French and a Sorbian (western-Slavic language spoken in Germany) speaking person is a German.
Nation, culture and language is not (always) the same!
Hellerick.
...but they wouldn't be offended by word "Nemec" (because they just don't know it)...
Again, strange a logic. I have a problem with Nemec because I know what it means. It is a name given to colonizers (compare: gringo, White man, ferentch (Amharic)). Germans and Austrians were colonizers of Slavic land therefore they are called Nemec but other German speakers like the Swiss were not...
Actually Nemec like Yankee, Gringo etc. is discriminatory, luckily no German knows it. So Slovio´s older dictionary having only German- was better than today's.
Igor:
same way francuz is not , ital'janec is not derogatory, angličan is not derogatory, etc.
===
ti pahol, no ti mlodic, no nerazumjsx. Francuz ne derogatory, no Ferench es; Greek ne derogatory, no Gringo es... itd.
And I believe that Sl-N and languages of GS-Sl can be merged.