GS-Slovianski:

Velika Moravija bili slov'ansku imperija sus^zc^zestvovac^zu v seredininu Evropa medz^zu rok 833 i ranu rok-sto des'atu. Ogo glovnu teritorija lez^zali na vse dva strone prinadlez^zac^zu k reka Morava, v teperu Slovakija, C^zehija i Avstrija.

Imperija bili nac^zinanu, kogdi princ Mojmir po sila jedinili blizku Nitranski Kn'az^zestvo s svoj sobstvenu Moravsku Kn'az^zestvo v rok 833. Bezprimerovu kulturinu razvivan'e proistekali iz misija ot sv'atu Kiril i Metodij, ktoru prihodili podc^zas vladan'e ot princ Rostislav v rok 863. Velika Moravija dohodili teritoric^zku rozmer najvis^ze veliku pod krol' Svatopluk 1u (871-894). Slabu ot vu borbe i c^z'astou vojne protiv Franksku Imperija, Velika Moravija bili konc^zovuo rozbinu ot vengarsku vtorgnutel'i v ranu rok-sto des'atu i ogo kusoki poslednu bili vis^ze pozdnuo delinu medz^zu Vengarija, Bohemija, Polakija i Sv'as^ztena Rimska Imperija.

You can see an appearancely more advanced version on http://editthis.info/gazeta_slovian/Great_Moravia

Ïðèâåò.

I didn't like/understood some things in your translation:

- "Velika Moravija":
In which form word "velika" is here?

- "seredininu Evropa":
Word "seredininu" has two suffices "in". Was it really unavoidable? Maybe it would be better to introduce word "sereda" (center) and derive adjective from it ("seredinu")?

- "vu":
Is it 'adjectivised' preposition "v"? Whoa ... Did I mention drunken unicorns? Actually it's possible not to have adjective "inner" at all, you always can say "in it".
Yeah, by the way, do you have preposition "sered" ("among", "in the middle" etc.)? You could derive the adjective from it.

- "č'astou vojne":
1) I don't like soft "č" sound. There are not so many Slavs who can distinguish “č” and “č'”. Of course you can say that I always may pronounce "čj" here, but the most difficult thing is to remember where exactly I have to do it.
2) why "č'astou" is adverb here?

In which form word "velika" is here?

It is in no form, it is just a part of an untranslated multi-word proper name (similarly as in Abu Dabi, Adis Abeba, Andora la Velija, Bandar Seri Begavan, Bele Mor'e, Bosna i Hercegovina, Breg Slonovoj Kosti, Buenos Ajres, Burkina Faso, Centralnoafrikanska Republika, Dar es Salam, Ekvator'alna Gvineja, El Ajun, Gibraltarski Proliv, Grod Vatikan, Istoc^zni Timor, Juz^zna Afrika, Juz^zna Koreja, Kabo Verde, Kuala Lumpur, La Pas, Los Andz^zeles, Mars^zalovi Ostrovi, Mis Dobroj Nadez^zdi, N'u Delhi, N'u Jork, Nova Zelandija, Objedinene Krolevstvo, Objedineni Arabski Emirati, Osmanska Imperija, Ostrov Velkanocna, Papua Nova Gvineja, Persijski Zaliv, Pnom Pen, Porto Novo, Port o Prens, Port Luj, Port Morsbi, Port of Spejn, Port Vila, Proliv La Mans^z, R'o de Z^zanejro, Rimska Imperija, San Hose, San Paulu, Sankt Peterburg, San Salvador, San Marino, San Tome i Prinsipi, San Tome, San Francisko, Saudijska Arabija, S'era Leone, Sent Dz^zons, Sent Dz^zordz^zes, Sent Kits i Nevis, Sent Lucija, Sent Vinsent i Grenadini, Severna Koreja, Severni Irland, Sjedineni S^ztati Ameriki, Skaliste Gori, Sojuz Sovetskih Socijalistic^zkih Republik, Solomonovi Ostrovi, Sri Lanka, Sv'as^ztena Rimska Imperija Nemeckego Nac'i, Sv'ati Prestol, Tihi Okean, Turecka Republika Severni Kipr, Ulan Bator or Zapadna Sahara).

Word "seredininu" has two suffices "in". Was it really unavoidable? Maybe it would be better to introduce word "sereda" (center) and derive adjective from it ("seredinu")?

Russian: seredina
Polish: s^zrodek
Czech: strz^zed
Slovak: stred
Serbian: sredina
Bulgarian: sreda
Macedonian: sredina

So sredina is really the most common, so the corresponding adjective is sredininu according to the rules of GS-Slovianski. It would certainly be possible to have e.g. sred > sredovu, but I don't know why sredininu should be avoided ...

Is it 'adjectivised' preposition "v"? Whoa ... Did I mention drunken unicorns?

OK ... I adopt the preposition vnutri "inside", so we can have vnutriu "inner" which hopefully sounds better.

Yeah, by the way, do you have preposition "sered" ("among", "in the middle" etc.)?

Currently I have posred "amidst", symetrically to polev "on the left of" and poprav "on the right of" ... But it could be changed, if you like.

I don't like soft "c^z" sound. There are not so many Slavs who can distinguish “c^z” and “c^z'”. Of course you can say that I always may pronounce "c^zj" here, but the most difficult thing is to remember where exactly I have to do it.

Russian: c^zasto
Ukrainian: c^zasto
Polish: c^zensto
Czech: c^zasto
Slovak: c^zasto
Serbian: c^zesto
Bulgarian: c^zesto
Macedonian: c^zasto

So you are right, c^zasto is more common.

why "c^z'astou" is adverb here?

I thought that c^zasto could work as an underived adverb without any special ending (similarly as e.g. teper is an adverb too and it has no -uo ending), so the adjective is derived by -u from it: c^zastou. But if you like, I can have c^zastu "frequent" and c^zastuo "often".

---

GS-Slovianski:

Velika Moravija bili slov'ansku imperija sus^zc^zestvovac^zu v sredininu Evropa medz^zu rok 833 i ranu rok-sto des'atu. Ogo glovnu teritorija lez^zali na vse dva strone prinadlez^zac^zu k reka Morava, v teperu Slovakija, C^zehija i Avstrija.

Imperija bili nac^zinanu, kogdi princ Mojmir po sila jedinili blizku Nitranski Kn'az^zestvo s svoj sobstvenu Moravsku Kn'az^zestvo v rok 833. Bezprimerovu kulturinu razvivan'e proistekali iz misija ot sv'atu Kiril i Metodij, ktori prihodili podc^zas vladan'e ot princ Rostislav v rok 863. Velika Moravija dohodili teritoric^zku rozmer najvis^ze veliku pod krol' Svatopluk 1u (871-894). Slabu ot vnutriu borbe i c^zastou vojne protiv Franksku Imperija, Velika Moravija bili konc^zovuo rozbinu ot vengarsku vtorgnutel'i v ranu rok-sto des'atu i ogo kusoki poslednu bili vis^ze pozdnuo delinu medz^zu Vengarija, Bohemija, Polakija i Sv'as^ztena Rimska Imperija.


I changed http://editthis.info/gazeta_slovian/Great_Moravia accordingly.

AÀΑ

ABOUT MUTI-WORD PROPER NAMES:

I really don't understand why they obey to other rules than all the rest words. Do you know any language where expressions like "*Sv'asztena Rimska Imperija Nemeckego Nac'i*" would be barbaric (untranslatable)?

It looks like you have two languages: one for names, and one for other words.

ABOUT *ČASTO*:

Sorry, I was mistaken. I thought that *-ou* is adverbial suffix here (i.e. I confused it with *-uo*).

Why have you classified word často as "underived" adverb? Isn't it obvious that *-o* is adverbial suffix? (In Russian *často* is adverb, *častyj* is adjective.)

And why you have to bring up the question about what was first and what was derived? (What was earlier: a hen or an egg?) Adverbs and adjectives just correspond to each other, they exist together.

By the way, I was thinking about soft sign in word *č'astou*. And I decided that you introduced it to distinguish words *často* (often) and *čast'* (part).

ABOUT *SEREDINA*:

Yeah, seredina is more common. But word seredininu doesn't exist at all. When you choose a word to borrow, you should consider not only comprehensibility of its basic form, but of all the derivates too.

I don't like words polev and *poprav*, I don’t understand them. The former reminds me Russian polevka (field mouse) and the latter reminds me verb *popravl'at'* (correct).

ABOUT *SUŠČESTVOVAT* AND *SV'AŠČENA*:

I quite agree with iopq here.

Suščestvovat is 100% Russian word. The Bulgarian word obviously is borrowing from Russian. Why you couldn't use some word derived from verb "to be"?

In many languages there is no difference between "sv'ata" and "sv'aščena", and I don't know why you had to introduce it.

Iopq's note about sred looks reasonable too. It's part of full vocalising vs. short vocalizing question, I guess.

Actually, Russian borrowed it from Church Slavonic, which is Old Bulgarian

it's related to the Russian word суть, so it IS derived from the verb "to be"

And it should be polevuo and popravuo

svaštena comment was because we agreed to use šč for щ

OK, I think that polev and poprav can be abolished completely ... Jan proposed to adopt them from Slovio, but nothing bad will happen if we don't have them, their meaning can be expressed in other way.

It looks like you have two languages: one for names, and one for other words.

It could be said this way, too ... But I see nothing wrong about it. Some months ago, I tried to translate, modify and systematise the proper names but everybody here was against Usonia, Libanonia etc. That's why I prefer the most original Slavic form of each name now.

Why have you classified word c^zasto as "underived" adverb? Isn't it obvious that *-o* is adverbial suffix? (In Russian *c^zasto* is adverb, *c^zastyj* is adjective.)

As you like, so I adopt c^zastu "frequent", c^zastuo "often".

And why you have to bring up the question about what was first and what was derived? (What was earlier: a hen or an egg?) Adverbs and adjectives just correspond to each other, they exist together.

I feel that a few adverbs (* see the list below) are more basic than their corresponding adjectives. Yes, "c^zasto" might not be this case, but still, do you want to have e.g. teperu "current", teperuo "now"?

*
daleje - further
dnes - today
jedva - hardly
jes^zc^ze - yet
juz^ze - already
kvazi - quasi
neposresveno - immediately
odnako - though
osobeno - particularly
po krajnu mera - at least
poc^zti - almost
proc^z - away
skoro - soon
sledovatelno - consequently
sus^zc^zi - very
takz^ze - too
teper - now
tilko (teper) - just (now)
tolko - only
toz^z - also
vc^zera - yesterday
z'utra - tomorrow

Yeah, seredina is more common. But word seredininu doesn't exist at all. When you choose a word to borrow, you should consider not only comprehensibility of its basic form, but of all the derivates too.

This is exactly what Slovio does and what I don't like. For example, Slovio has got the truncated form zxen (instead of natural Slavic zxena) because the corresponding adjective zxenju sounds to Slovio-ists better than zxenaju. To me, both sound OK. And the advantage of zxena, zxenaju is the fact that zxena is more natural and more predictable.

Sus^zc^zestvovat is 100% Russian word. The Bulgarian word obviously is borrowing from Russian. Why you couldn't use some word derived from verb "to be"?

I thought that we could have word for "to exist" different from "to be" ... But taking your opinions into consideration, it will probably not be possible because Slavic languages don't agree on the word for "to exist" sufficiently. So I'll use "to be" instead of "to exist". It is an overmuch simplification in my eyes, but there is no other way ...

Iopq's note about sred looks reasonable too.

Yes, you are right.

In many languages there is no difference between "sv'ata" and "sv'as^zc^zena", and I don't know why you had to introduce it.

See Russian Svjas^zc^zennaja Rimskaja imperija vs. Svjatoj Prestol, Ukrainian Svjas^zc^zenna Ryms'ka imperija nimec'koi nacii vs. Svjatyj Prestol, Bulgarian Sves^ztena Rimska imperija na germanskata nacija vs. Sveti Prestol. I think that Russian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian are a sufficient majority within Slavic languages, therefore we can say that most Slavic languages know the difference, so it can be retained in GS-Slovianski. Of course, we speak about proper names now, I don't intend to introduce this "difference" in general words.

But iopq is right that it should be sv'as^zc^zena, not sv'as^ztena.

---

Velika Moravija bili slov'ansku imperija buduc^zu v sredininu Evropa medz^zu rok 833 i ranu rok-sto des'atu. Ogo glovnu teritorija lez^zali na vse dva strone prinadlez^zac^zu k reka Morava, v teperu Slovakija, C^zehija i Avstrija.

Imperija bili nac^zinanu, kogdi princ Mojmir po sila jedinili blizku Nitransku Kn'az^zestvo s svoj sobstvenu Moravsku Kn'az^zestvo v rok 833. Bezprimerovu kulturinu razvivan'e proistekali iz misija ot sv'atu Kiril i Metodij, ktori prihodili podc^zas vladan'e ot princ Rostislav v rok 863. Velika Moravija dohodili teritoric^zku rozmer najvis^ze veliku pod krol' Svatopluk 1u (871-894). Slabu ot vnutriu borbe i c^zastu vojne protiv Franksku Imperija, Velika Moravija bili konc^zovuo rozbinu ot vengarsku vtorgnutel'i v ranu rok-sto des'atu i ogo kusoki poslednu bili vis^ze pozdnuo delinu medz^zu Vengarija, Bohemija, Polakija i Sv'as^zc^zena Rimska Imperija.

http://editthis.info/gazeta_slovian/Great_Moravia

In which form word "velika" is here?
Gabriel opravdyval:
It is in no form, it is just a part of an untranslated multi-word proper name (similarly as in Abu Dabi, Adis Abeba...
===
Pochemu togda Marov-ija in ne Marova?

Because most Slavs call it Moravija.

I prefer Morava because:

Moravski sounds better than Moravijski

My derivational rules:

Moravija > moravsku
Ukrajina > ukrajinansku
Nepal(0) > nepalecsku
Peru(0) > peruecsku

Ukrajina > ukrajinansku
Nepal(0) > nepalecsku


what are you smoking?

ukrajinansku?

I mean, the obvious ukrajinasku must have been not complicated enough

Anyway, csk cluster is retarded
are we supposed to do a really long s at the end of c? like tssk? how do you pronounce that :/

in fact, adding a constant -sku at the end is better than your solution
it's less ugly, more consistent

if you can come up with a BETTER system, then at least you have something
but right now you're making things up that sound WORSE than the obvious solution

Gabriel:
Moravija > moravsku
Ukrajina > ukrajinansku
Nepal(0) > nepalecsku
Peru(0) > peruecsku
===
So I prefer:
MZhR
Marov-skij, Ukrain-skij, Nepal-skij, Peru-an-skij, Kitaj-skij, Malt-ij-skij
Slovio
Marov-ju, Ukrain-ju, Nepal-ju, Peru-ju, Cxina-ju, Malta-ju

As you can see the most easy to learn and to speak is Slovio!

I think that we agree on the fact that from country names ending in "-ija" (Rosija), the most natural inhabitant name is created by deleting the "-ija" (ros) and the most natural (within the boundaries of regularity) adjective is formed by adding -sku to the inhabitant (rossku). That's why I keep this system of deriving the adjective from the inhabitant in other cases, too (Ukrajina > ukrajinan > ukrajinansku, Nepal > nepalec > nepalecsku).

If you like, -ecsku could be simplified to -ecku.

suščestvovat only exists in Russian and Bulgarian to my knowledge

it should actually be častuo because even though etymologically it should derive a soft sign there I don't think any Slavic language allows palatalization of č (Russian combination чь doesn't sound any different than ч)

all forms should be from sred, not sered

and it should be either Sv'ata or Sv'aščena

as far as your list
Ukrainian, Polish and Russian forms are too farm from dnes to the point of no intelligibility
I like tutden'
because it implies closeness (tut) and time/day (den')

I'm sure Eugeniusx would agree because Slovio has the same "invented" words for when natural Slavic languages disagree

I like uže better because Slovak, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian (в is understood to originate from u here) have that form
kvazi shouldn't be used freely, only in translated words because I don't know any time when I would say something like "On kvazi potrebil strigan'e vlos"
I really can't find odnako in languages other than Russian and Ukrainian
počti is only in Russian/Bulgarian, but maybe "jedva li ne" is more common?
I believe the best word for "very" is "silno" because Slavic languages disagree too much
what's the point of using both tilko and tolko? they are the same word, but you took the same word from different languages, in fact, for the word "only" jedini is understood by everyone (in some meanings, we'd probably have to use both tolko and jedini)
for tomorrow, the word should be zautro (za + utro)

Igor what is "I like uže better because Slovak?"

Igor pisal.
Ukrainian, Polish and Russian forms are too farm from dnes to the point of no intelligibility
I like tutden'
because it implies closeness (tut) and time/day (den')

I'm sure Eugeniusx would agree because Slovio has the same "invented" words for when natural Slavic languages disagree
===
Pravilnyj, tut-den. Ja vernyj chto Gabriel budet vydumyvat bil-den dla vchera, bu-den dla zavtra i bilbi-den dla some day (nekotoryj den?). Kak-nibud neplokho.

Eugeniusx

I like uže better because Slovak, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian (в is understood to originate from u here) have that form


let's take that sentences and delete the parenthesized part

I like uže better because Slovak, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian have that form

do you understand it now?

TODAY:

Russian: segodn'a
Ukrainain: s'ohodni
Polish: dzisiaj
Czech: dnes
Slovak: dnes
Serbian: danas
Bulgarian: dnes
Macedonian: denes

I think that dnes can be considered to be quite common, I have already seen bigger disagreements among individual Slavic languages ... Of course, v eto den' remains to be absolutely correct expression.

QUASI:

I think that kvazi is a good way to replace the complicated Slavic expressions of this idea. So I wouldn't limit its usage ... of course, nobody is forced to use it.

THOUGH:

So what's your proposal?

ALMOST:

Russian: poc^zti, edva ne
Ukrainian: majz^ze
Polish: pravie, niemal
Czech: temerz^z, skoro, taktak z^ze ne, málem
Slovak: skor, takmer, temer
Serbian: skoro, gotovo, zamalo, umalo
Bulgarian: poc^zti, toku-rec^zi, edva li ne
Macedonian: tukus^zto

So poc^zti, jedva li ne and skoro are approximately the same common ... What do others think?

VERY:

Yes, we will probably need some invented word here ... Your silno sounds quite good; mnogo could work, too. So what do others think?

JUST NOW, ONLY:

I think that we can have both tilko and tolko because "just now" definitely hasn't got the same meaning as "only now".

TOMORROW:

Yes, it might have arisen as "za + utro", but the today's most common Slavic form is z'utra. (Or, if you liked, the soft sign could be omitted.)

QUASI:
Ja rekomendijm: kak-but i kvasi

THOUGH:
hoc

ALMOST, nearly:
blisko

VERY:
velm is used in ua, cz and sk. All understand velik (=big) so what about VELO?

Ja ona velo lubit. Moi dom es velo velju. Ona velo krasju. Velo blagodrarijm Vam. On velo bogatju

Or, a little bit exotic (compare Amharic big = tilik, very big = tililik):

Ja ona lub-lubit. Moi dom es vel-velju (Slovio!). Ona kras-krasju, Blag-blagodarijm Vam. On bog-bogatju

JUST NOW:
tolko teper

ONLY:
tolko

TOMORROW:
zavtra i but-den
Tomorrow I have a date. Zavrta ja imat termin. In the coming day we celibrate... But-den mi slavnit...

SOME DAY
Bilbi-den mi peremocit eksploatenie, golod i voina!

Eugeniusx

THOUGH:
hoc

Hm ... odnako is Russian/Polish/Ukrainian, hoc(^z) is Polish/Ukrainian/Slovak. So I feel that it's better to elect the former ...

ALMOST, nearly:
blisko

I feel that blisko has got more local meaning, while "almost" should have a measure meaning.

Ja ona lub-lubit. Moi dom es vel-velju (Slovio!). Ona kras-krasju, Blag-blagodarijm Vam. On bog-bogatju

You are eug-Eugeniusx!

JUST NOW:
tolko teper

ONLY:
tolko

Do you really think that "just" (in "just now") has got the same meaning as "only" and that they should consequently be represented by one word?

First of all, tilko is the same word as tolko
Second of all, you missed one language


TODAY:
Belarusian - s'on'n'a, s'agon'n'a, s'an'n'a
Russian: segodn'a
Ukrainian: s'ohodni
Polish: dzisiaj
Czech: dnes
Slovak: dnes
Serbian: danas
Bulgarian: dnes
Macedonian: denes

so now we have 3 languages with sego + den
one language with dzis

5 languages with dnes

it's pretty much half and half
considering Russian has so many speakers and the entire Eastern Slavic branch doesn't understand dnes + Polish has dzis which sounds nothing like dnes I think the largest Slavic languages have "veto power"

Russian has 145M primary speakers and 110M secondary speakers which total 255M
Ukranian has 40M speakers total (primary and secondary)
Belarusian has 8M speakers total
Polish has 46M speakers total

so I would guess 344 million people wouldn't understand "dnes"

Russian has 145M primary speakers and 110M secondary speakers which total 255M
Ukranian has 40M speakers total (primary and secondary)
Belarusian has 8M speakers total
Polish has 46M speakers total

so I would guess 344 million people wouldn't understand "dnes"

Do we count millions? If so, we don't have to invent anything, because Russian (being spoken by an absolute majority of Slavs) is already a pan-Slavic language.

it's pretty much half and half
considering Russian has so many speakers and the entire Eastern Slavic branch doesn't understand dnes + Polish has dzis which sounds nothing like dnes I think the largest Slavic languages have "veto power"

Vetos cause that even the best compromise can be vetoed by somebody and therefore no decision is made. But we simply need to decide in every case, even in the most difficult one ...

---

As we agreed on the fact that a pan-Slavic language shouldn't be a re-invention of Russian, I count votes this way:

1 vote for Russian
1 vote for Ukrainian
(opinions vary whether Belarussian should be grouped with Russian or with Ukrainian, but it isn't important now)
1 vote for Polish
1 vote for Czech and Slovak
1 vote for Serbian and other western south Slavic languages
1 vote for Bulgarian and Macedonian

So dnes has got 3 votes, therefore it wins.

So dnes only has half the votes

Plus, it is not derivable from den'

if we had yers:

dьnь
dьni
dьnes

that would be regular
but dnes from den is not regular

but say we use:
eto den or tut den
that should be understandable to everyone AND regular

we could also introduce the word sego for "this" and use sego den, sego cxas, etc.

For an all-Slavic language it is not important whether a majority understands this word or whether the majority of the Slavic languages uses this word, but whether almost all understand it.

So in this case of course TUT-DEN is the winner.

Let´s look at the word dictionary:
we have slovnik, dovidnik, slovar, recxnik.

All Slavs will understand SLOVKNIG, only Gabriel and Ondrej Recxnik(!!!) do not like this word. Why???

Maybe Mr. Recxnik does not like to be called Slovknig:

Din muzx din slov (=to stand by one's word; an ox is taken by the horns and a man by the tongue.)
Din muzx din slovking (=not to stand by one's word)

What about zdrov-knig, jazik-knig, cxita-knig, tehnik-knig itd.?
Eugeniusx

I agree with Eugeniusz about "tut-den".

But "slovknig" is really ugly word. Such word formation is okay in Germanic languages, but in Slavic... it's just terrible. I would prefer words like "rec^nik" or "slovnik". Maybe "kniga-slovnik". But not "slovkniga"!

And I didn't get a word in Eugeniusx's last two paragraphs.

ZDRAVO,

I think, when we intend to create pan - Slavic language there should be
equally right for every slavic word to participate in principle of adoption or refusing it.

There should NOT be the rule of majority of each of slavic nations [according to number of inhabitants, number of speaking people in that languge and the area of the land of every slavic country] in deciding which word is the best for pan-slavic language.

So, simply said, the russian words should be the same quality and considerability as e.g. macedonian or slovenian ones.


I.

Hellerick:
But "slovknig" is really ugly word. Such word formation is okay in Germanic languages, but in Slavic... it's just terrible.
===
It is true that this word compounds are often used in Germanic languages, but it untrue that they are not used in Slavic tongues:

buk-va-r, samo-chod, samo-var, avto-bus, butter-brot, prof-sojuz, aero-port, psia-krev, psia-kosc, Cxerno-goria, konc-lager itd.
these words are, exept the last one, not at all terrible!
===
I would prefer words like "rec^nik" or "slovnik". Maybe "kniga-slovnik". But not "slovkniga"!

For me a recxnik is a boohoo-man. And again Slovknig i understood by all Slavs. And again understandability can be scientifically verified, ugliness not! Dla mne slov "slovknig" prekrasnyj.

I have never had anything against "slovknig" (of course, in the form without truncated endings: slovo-kniga) being an alternative of the most natural Slavic slovnik. In the same way, I have nothing against v eto den' being an alternative of dnes.

So dnes only has half the votes

Does any proposal have more (or at least the same)?

You also agreed to use rok "year" which also has got only a half of the votes. Or shall we, following your logic, replace rok with tristo s^zestdes'at p'at i c^zetiriina den'i?

Then we should also abolish z'utra and vc^zera because they are not deriveable from den', right?

So dnes only has half the votes

Does any proposal have more (or at least the same)?
=====================================
eto den' / tut den' have 100% of the votes because they are understandable to all Slavic language speakers

=====================================
You also agreed to use rok "year" which also has got only a half of the votes. Or shall we, following your logic, replace rok with tristo szestdes'at p'at i czetiriina den'i?
=====================================

No, of course not
"jedin obrot sonca okrug zemli" will do fine
=====================================
Then we should also abolish z'utra and vczera because they are not deriveable from den', right?

that's why I am against z'utra as a form

it should be zautro because it's derivable from utro
the same way that tomorrow is derivable from morrow

although morrow meaning morning is kind of an archaic usage, it still demostrates the point
wait, weren't you saying schematicism is good?

here I'm giving you ONE root, and using the za- prefix to make a new word
what you're doing is making two completely unrelated roots
WHAT'S MORE SCHEMATIC

You also agreed to use rok "year" which also has got only a half of the votes. Or shall we, following your logic, replace rok with tristo szestdes'at p'at i czetiriina den'i?
=====================================

No, of course not
"jedin obrot sonca okrug zemli" will do fine

"odin zemla-vrashchene" will do better.

odin zemla-vrashchenie jest den'

Because the Earth is both turning around its axis and orbiting the Sun

"ROK" is the right word for "year".

It is short and principle of : consonant then wovel follows and consonant again. [very easy to pronounce].

That' s the system of adapting the word I like.


I.

P.S. Vocabulary of pan - slavic language should be revised again.

Yes, but we can adopt the word let for year (which is in less languages) which is the point being made

You yourself wanted me to change my original let'e to rok. Did you change your opinion?

I guess you dont speak russian. Do you know what rok means in russian?

rock music, fate

ZDRAVO,

and do you know what let means in slovak or czech languages ?

It means flight.


I.

P.S. We could e.g. call "year" zim, or jar, or osen / jesen because each
of this seasons of callendar year is once in a year - not only LET / LETO.

In terms of "year", I changed http://editthis.info/gazeta_slovian/Great_Moravia accordingly:

Velika Moravija bili slov'ansku imperija buduc^zu v sredininu Evropa medz^zu jedinsolnceobrotokolozemlija 833 i ranu jedinsolnceobrotokolozemlija-sto des'atu. Ogo glovnu teritorija lez^zali na vse dva strone prinadlez^zac^zu k reka Morava, v teperu Slovakija, C^zehija i Avstrija.

Imperija bili nac^zinanu, kogdi princ Mojmir po sila jedinili blizku Nitransku Kn'az^zestvo s svoj sobstvenu Moravsku Kn'az^zestvo v jedinsolnceobrotokolozemlija 833. Bezprimerovu kulturinu razvivan'e proistekali iz misija ot sv'atu Kiril i Metodij, ktori prihodili podc^zas vladan'e ot princ Rostislav v jedinsolnceobrotokolozemlija 863. Velika Moravija dohodili teritoric^zku rozmer najvis^ze veliku pod krol' Svatopluk 1u (871-894). Slabu ot vnutriu borbe i c^zastu vojne protiv Franksku Imperija, Velika Moravija bili konc^zovuo rozbinu ot vengarsku vtorgnutel'i v ranu jedinsolnceobrotokolozemlija-sto des'atu i ogo kusoki poslednu bili vis^ze pozdnuo delinu medz^zu Vengarija, Bohemija, Polakija i Sv'as^zc^zena Rimska Imperija.

it should be zautro because it's derivable from utro

Yes, I don't deny that it originated as za (after) + utro (morning) but this derivation isn't logical for a schematic language, therefore it can't be used. It literally means "something after morning" which has got three defects:

- it is "something after morning", it isn't clear what it is
- the tomorrow's morning is already part of the tomorrow's day, therefore way we can't say that the morning starts as late as after that morning
- it isn't defined when the time period defined as "after morning" ends, which implies that it has no end and it isn't the right meaning of "tomrrow"

That's why I have underived z'utra.

Derivations in Slavic languages stopped making sense over a thousand years ago.

stat' = to stand
ustat' = to get tired (???)

The orthography should be morphology-based, whether etymology shows semantics or not.

(Try to use more Greek words than me )

Otherwise words of the language will have contrary to each other forms.

ZDRAVO,

Helerik is right. Why not use more greek or latin words in language ?


I.

Derivations in Slavic languages stopped making sense over a thousand years ago.

That's why I don't want to use the natural Slavic derivation system (or, better said, the natural Slavic derivation chaos).

Ah, but you have to because those words have taken on a new meaning. Like the Russian predpoložit' and in other languages something like predkladit'

They are all related to the word put, whatever it is in that language

and there is no other word for that very specific meaning

Yes ... but then I'll not consider predpoložit' to be a derived word, in the same way as I don't consider z'utra to be a derived word.

The same Slavic "objects" (including prefixes) should be represented the same way.

You don't want somebody to use word "pšedpokladat" just because they don't consider it derived word?

The word for tomorrow should be "zautro" or "zajutro", depending on what word for morning is.

Russian: zavtra
Ukrainian: zavtra
Belarussian: zawtra

Polish: jutro
Czech: zitra
Slovak: zajtra

Serbian: sutra
Bulgarian: utre
Macedonian: utre

Where do you see zajutro or zautro?

Russian: zavtra
Ukrainian: zavtra
Belarussian: zawtra

Polish: jutro
Czech: zitra
Slovak: zajtra

Serbian: sutra
Bulgarian: utre
Macedonian: utre

Where do you see zajutro or zautro?
===========================

I'm sure avtomobil, Avstrija, Avstralija have no AU in them either!

Because OLD Russian and Ukranian words with au are written and pronounced as av, you can't say it's not au. Plus, nice use of the LATIN ALPHABET to hide the real spelling in Belarussian!

заўтра

it means SHORT u sound
just because the sound got short over time doesn't mean it suddenly became a w! IT IS NOT A CONSONANT

so, it is pretty clear to Russian and Ukranian speakers that it is zautro because of hundreds of words like Evropa, and other loan words that have diphthongs with u replaced by v.

(UTF-8)

So why do Russian and Ukrainian have Бриджтаун, Сан-Паулу, Джорджтаун, Кейптаун, Яунде, �ауру, Кинг�таун, Фритаун?

(UTF-8)

So why do Russian and Ukrainian have Бриджтаун, Сан-Паулу, Джорджтаун, Кейптаун, Яунде, Науру, Кингстаун, Фритаун?
============================================================================================

Because words that come from German or Polish get a v (mostly in the 17th and 18th centuries), words that come from English or other languages often get an u. That's why we have:
Джеймс Уатт from transliteration from English, and Ватт for Watt the unit for power.

Also, semivowels are by definition consonants. They are "semi vowels" because they are articulated at the same POSITION as a vowel in the language, but they are approximants instead of vowels.

OK, the east Slavic words may be "za + utro", but I see no such compound in west and south Slavic languages.

You're right

it's za + jutro

I see there neither "za + jutro" nor "za + utro".

zajtra obviously comes from za + jutro

btw jutro is in the genitive form so it's za + jutra really

To an ethymologist maybe, but I doubt that an ordinary user can see it.

Plus, nice use of the LATIN ALPHABET to hide the real spelling in Belarussian!

заўтра

it means SHORT u sound

I am sorry, it was no evil intention, I just didn't know how to transliterate it because Belarussian isn't listed on our http://www.slovianski.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177&start=0 .

just because the sound got short over time doesn't mean it suddenly became a w! IT IS NOT A CONSONANT

But w is a semivowel/semiconsonant. It is no more consonant than it is a vowel.

ZDRAVO,

the same has it English.

to stand
to understand