AHOJ GABRIEL,

Zbezne som si prezrel slovnu zasobu tvojho jazyka. Nie je zla.

Problemom vsak zostava komplikovana gramatika tohto jazyka.

Napr.

g > ž (e.g. kniga > knižni)
k > č (e.g. človek > človečski)
h > š

ZAKLAD SLOVA BY MAL ZOSTAT NEMENNY. INAK TO BUDE VELMI TAZKY JAZYK.

__________________________________________________________________
Adjectives (prilagatelne imena)
Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns they modify.

singular (jedinstveno čislo) plural (množestveno čislo)
masculine gender (mužski rod) -i
velki (človek), novi (pes), velki (dom) -e
nove (človeki), velke (pesi), velke (domi), velke (knigi), nove (noči), velke (pisma), velke (mora), nove (pisania)
feminine gender (ženski rod) -a
velka (kniga), nova (noč)
neuter gender (sredni rod) -o
velko (pismo), novo (more), velko (pisanie)
______________________________________________

PRECO MAS PRE NEUTRUM V PLURALE KONCOVKU - a ?
TOTO BUDE KOMPLIKOVAT JAZYK.

_______________________________________________

TOTO JE TAK ISTO ZBYTOCNE KOMPLIKOVANE :
Possessive pronouns (posvojne za-imena)
English Slovianski-P masculine singular Slovianski-P feminine singular Slovianski-P neuter singular Slovianski-P plural
my moj moja moje
thy tvoj tvoja tvoje
his jego
its
her jej
our naš naša naše
your vaš vaša vaše
their ih
one's own svoj svoja svoje
___________________________________________________

TY ROZLISUJES KONCOVKY PRIDAVNYCH MIEN, OSOBNYCH ZAMEN PODLA TOHO V AKOM SU RODE. UZNAVAM, TIETO KONCOVKY POUZIVAJU PRIRODZENE SLOVANSKE JAZYKY [PRETO MAJU TAKE KOMPLIKOVANE GRAMATIKY] ALE NECHAPEM PRECO BY SME ICH MALI POUZIVAT MY V NASOM MEDZINARODNOM SLOVANSKOM JAZYKU, KTORY SI MYSLIM, ZE BY MAL BYT CO NAJJEDNODUCHSI. VIES SAM VELMI DOBRE, ZE LEN TIE JAZYKY SU VSEOBECNE V OBLUBE MEDZI LUDMI, KTORE MAJU JEDNODUCHE GRAMATIKY [ANGLICTINA, ESPERANTO]

_____________________________________________________________________

NEVIEM PRECO POUZIVAS NIECO TAKE, AKO tutčas - now. TOTO SLOVO POCHADZA Z DVOCH SLOV A TO : tut A čas. AVSAK SLOVO tut ZNAMENA tu, CIZE ANGLICKY here.
CO PREDSTAVUJE NIECO MIESTNE A NIE CASOVE. KONCOVKA TOHTO SLOVA čas JE DOBRA, TREBA LEN ZMENIT JEJ ZACIATOK.
_______________________________________________________________________

pisat

ia pisam

ti pisasz

on pisat

ona pisat

vi pisate

mi pisamo

oni pisaju

ono pisat


videt

ia videm

ti videsz

on videt

ona videt

vi videte

mi videmo

oni videju

ono videt

K TOMUTO BY SOM SA CHCEL SPYTAT, CO TIETO KONCOVKY [-m, -sz, -t, -mo, -ju] BUDU APLIKOVANE PRI AKOMKOLVEK SLOVESE ?
ALEBO PLATIA LEN PRI URCITYCH SLOVESACH ?
AK BY SA DALI APLIKOVAT LEN PRI URCITYCH, CIZE TIE OSTATNE BY MALI INE KONCOVKY, TAK BY TO TAKTIEZ KOMPLIKOVALO GRAMATIKU, KTORA BY SA TAKTO ROZSIROVALA O DALSIE KONCOVKY.

___________________________________________________________________

TAK ISTO MINULY CAS [koncovky : -l, -la, -lo] VZHLADOM NA ROD SUBSTANTIV SA MI ZDAJU BYT NADBYTOCNE A PROBLEM BUDU MAT S TYM HLAVNE CUDZINCI, KTORI SA BUDU CHCIET NAUCIT TENTO JAZYK [TO BUDE PRE NICH "SPANIELSKA DEDINA", TAK ISTO AKO JE TERAZ ROD SUBSTANTIV PRE NAS NAPR. V NEMCINE, ALEBO FRANCUZSTINE].
____________________________________________________________________

Passive participle (pasivno pričastie)
The passive participle is formed

by means of -ani from verbs ending in -at (pisani - written),
by means of -eni from verbs ending in -et (videni - seen),
by means of -eni from verbs ending in -it (govoreni - spoken),
by means of -iti from short verbs ending in -it (žiti - lived),
by means of -uti from verbs ending in -ut (moguti - possible).

TOTO JE TAK ISTO ZBYTOCNE PREKOMPLIKOVANE A BUDE TO VIEST KU GRAMATICKYM CHYBAM TYCH, KTORI BUDU TAKUTO FORMU POUZIVAT V BUDUCNOSTI.
___________________________________________________________________

The verb "to be"
The verb "to be" is the only irregular verb:

bit - infinitive ("to be")
jest - present tense ("am", "are", "is")
bil, bila, bilo, bili - past tense ("was", "were")
budet - future tense ("will be")
bi bil, bi bila, bi bilo, bi bili - conditional ("would be")
bil bi bil, bila bi bila, bilo bi bilo, bili bi bili - past conditional ("would have been")
budi, budite, budimo - imperative
buduči - present active participle
bivši - past active participle
bitie - verbal noun

S TYMTO BUDU MAT CUDZINCI VELKY PROBLEM A TAK ISTO TO NEBUDE LAHKE ANI PRE NIEKTORYCH SLOVANOV A TAK ISTO SA TU BUDU ROBIT CASTE GRAMATICKE CHYBY, CO TAK ISTO KOMPLIKUJE GRAMATIKU, KTORA SA TAKTO STAVA MENEJ PREHLADNOU.
_______________________________________________________________________

S POZDRAVOM,

I.

ZAKLAD SLOVA BY MAL ZOSTAT NEMENNY. INAK TO BUDE VELMI TAZKY JAZYK.

Slavic langauges don't usually agree on palatalisation very much, but this is the case when all Slavic languages have this kind of softening.

PRECO MAS PRE NEUTRUM V PLURALE KONCOVKU - a ?
TOTO BUDE KOMPLIKOVAT JAZYK.

All Slavic languages have -a for neuter plural nouns.

NEVIEM PRECO POUZIVAS NIECO TAKE, AKO tutÄŤas - now. TOTO SLOVO POCHADZA Z DVOCH SLOV A TO : tut A ÄŤas. AVSAK SLOVO tut ZNAMENA tu, CIZE ANGLICKY here.
CO PREDSTAVUJE NIECO MIESTNE A NIE CASOVE. KONCOVKA TOHTO SLOVA ÄŤas JE DOBRA, TREBA LEN ZMENIT JEJ ZACIATOK.

Slavic languages don't agree on a common for for "now", but tutc^zas is something that every Slav has a chance to decipher (here + time/hour = now). Or do you have a better proposal?

K TOMUTO BY SOM SA CHCEL SPYTAT, CO TIETO KONCOVKY [-m, -sz, -t, -mo, -ju] BUDU APLIKOVANE PRI AKOMKOLVEK SLOVESE ?
ALEBO PLATIA LEN PRI URCITYCH SLOVESACH ?
AK BY SA DALI APLIKOVAT LEN PRI URCITYCH, CIZE TIE OSTATNE BY MALI INE KONCOVKY, TAK BY TO TAKTIEZ KOMPLIKOVALO GRAMATIKU, KTORA BY SA TAKTO ROZSIROVALA O DALSIE KONCOVKY.

We currently discuss the present tense conjugation. But if it was adopted, the endings would always remain to be the same, only the stem would sometimes (but according to clear rules, not irregularly) vary.

TAK ISTO MINULY CAS [koncovky : -l, -la, -lo] VZHLADOM NA ROD SUBSTANTIV SA MI ZDAJU BYT NADBYTOCNE A PROBLEM BUDU MAT S TYM HLAVNE CUDZINCI, KTORI SA BUDU CHCIET NAUCIT TENTO JAZYK [TO BUDE PRE NICH "SPANIELSKA DEDINA", TAK ISTO AKO JE TERAZ ROD SUBSTANTIV PRE NAS NAPR. V NEMCINE, ALEBO FRANCUZSTINE].

Neither Germans nor French have crippled their languages to be more easily learned; some oversimplifications (infinitives in the present tense, unified adjectival ending, no palatalisation) wouldn't sound essentially weird, though, but "ona pisal" would.

TOTO JE TAK ISTO ZBYTOCNE PREKOMPLIKOVANE A BUDE TO VIEST KU GRAMATICKYM CHYBAM TYCH, KTORI BUDU TAKUTO FORMU POUZIVAT V BUDUCNOSTI.

All Slavic languages have it.

S TYMTO BUDU MAT CUDZINCI VELKY PROBLEM A TAK ISTO TO NEBUDE LAHKE ANI PRE NIEKTORYCH SLOVANOV A TAK ISTO SA TU BUDU ROBIT CASTE GRAMATICKE CHYBY, CO TAK ISTO KOMPLIKUJE GRAMATIKU, KTORA SA TAKTO STAVA MENEJ PREHLADNOU.

The verb "to be" is irregular in all Slavic languages. The only form that some Slavic languages seem not to have is the past conditional - that's why I said that it should be used only when really necessary.

TY ROZLISUJES KONCOVKY PRIDAVNYCH MIEN, OSOBNYCH ZAMEN PODLA TOHO V AKOM SU RODE. UZNAVAM, TIETO KONCOVKY POUZIVAJU PRIRODZENE SLOVANSKE JAZYKY [PRETO MAJU TAKE KOMPLIKOVANE GRAMATIKY] ALE NECHAPEM PRECO BY SME ICH MALI POUZIVAT MY V NASOM MEDZINARODNOM SLOVANSKOM JAZYKU, KTORY SI MYSLIM, ZE BY MAL BYT CO NAJJEDNODUCHSI. VIES SAM VELMI DOBRE, ZE LEN TIE JAZYKY SU VSEOBECNE V OBLUBE MEDZI LUDMI, KTORE MAJU JEDNODUCHE GRAMATIKY [ANGLICTINA, ESPERANTO]

However, how to do these simplifications? If they are attested in no Slavic langauge, you have to rely on your own phantasy. As a result, the language has got many weird forms, as we can see in Slovio or in your language.

Although all my attempts to construct a Slavic Esperanto are past now, if your language (or Slovio) was a Slavic Esperanto, I'd esteem it. (See for example the 26.2.2005, prispevok od Jani (1992@stonline.sk) post on http://www.slovio.com/sk.jazika/besed.html .) However, your language just has some random simplifications in some areas (such as phonology) but not in others (such as singular nouns).

AHOJ GABRIEL,

However, your language just has some random simplifications in some areas (such as phonology) but not in others (such as singular nouns).

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY " such as phonology" AND "not in ohters" ?

TELL ME, PLEASE SOME EXAMPLE .....


I.

1) You oversimplify some words to be better pronounceable ("ko", "ke"). The result words are recognised by almost nobody, but you are right that their good pronunciation is their advantage.

2) But you refuse to have only one ending for singular nouns ("ezero", "sporto", "lineo", "moro"), although they would be theoretically better, no-one would have to memorise the singular ending. Here you suddenly mind the fact that the nouns with unified ending would be weird, but you didn't mind it at the point 1).

AHOJ GABRIEL,

2) But you refuse to have only one ending for singular nouns ("ezero", "sporto", "lineo", "moro"), although they would be theoretically better, no-one would have to memorise the singular ending. Here you suddenly mind the fact that the nouns with unified ending would be weird, but you didn't mind it at the point 1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE POINT 1. THERE ARE THOUGH 2 ENDINGS : -o, -e. SO WHAT DIDN'T I MIND ?



I.

A NAVYSE, GABRIEL, DOKONCA AJ CESTINA V HOVOROVEJ RECI SKRACUJE SLOVA NAPR.

"TO BYS MEL ZNAT ...." namiesto "TO BY SI MEL ZNAT ...."

TAK KDE JE PROBLEM ?

TAKMER VSETKY JAZYKY VIAC, ALEBO MENEJ MAJU TENDENCIU SKRACOVAT SLOVA V BEZNOM PREJAVE, TAK PRECO TO NEUROBIT AKO GRAMATICKE PRAVIDLO, KED TO IDE.

P.S. NACO BY SOM MAL HOVORIT NAPR. LABORATORY, KED SA TO DA SKRATIT NA LAB.
ALEBO PICTURES NA PIC, A POD.
ANGLICTINA S TYM PROBLEM NEMA, TAK NEVIDIM DOVOD PRECO BY SME MALI MAT
S TYM PROBLEM MY. [ALEBO BY SME MARTANIA ?]

I.

The difference is that all English speaking people understand "lab", "pic" etc., but no Slav understands "ke", "en" or "tau".

1) In the first point I speak about one kind of simplification, namely the mutilation of words that are long or badly pronounceable. It creates weird words, but you accept this kind of simplification.
2) In the second point I speak about another kind of simplification, namely having only one ending for singular nouns. It creates weird words, but you don't accept this kind of simplification.

This is the inconsistency I mean.