February 10 2007 at 5:04 PM No score for this post
I.
IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION, GABRIEL.
In slovakia we have such a saying : "kazdy vtak chvali svoje perie".
"every bird boasts of his feather".
I never said that Slovio or Slovano are understandable for 100% without learning. But certainly when more than 50% of vocabulary or grammar is understandable it could be considered as a language that people are able to use it more or less.
I am not totaly against esperanto but for those who never learned its vocabulary and grammar it is totaly unintelligible.
I am able to read and understand e.g. Slovio and even more or less your Slovianski WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING !
BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID ABOUT ESPERANTO !
[and the main problem with esperanto]
But certainly when more than 50% of vocabulary or grammar is understandable it could be considered as a language that people are able to use it more or less.
But why to have 50% only when it is possible to have more? What is the use of a language whose author consciously made some words non-understandable?
I am not totaly against esperanto but for those who never learned its vocabulary and grammar it is totaly unintelligible.
I am able to read and understand e.g. Slovio and even more or less your Slovianski WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING !
BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID ABOUT ESPERANTO !
Yes, and that's why Esperanto is relatively neutral and therefore one of the best constructed international languages available.
YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, ONLY RELATIVELY IS ESPERANTO NEUTRAL.
AS I SAID [WROTE] MORE THAN 50 % AND I DIDN'T MEAN THAT IT MUSTN'T BE MORE.
IT DEPENDS ON CHOICE OF WORDS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 100% ONLY SLAVIC. IT CAN HAVE SYNONIMS OF NUMEROUS FOREIGN INTERNATIONALLY ADOPTED WORDS THAT ARE USED IN MANY [EVEN SLAVIC]
LANGUAGES.
Yes. Words that are not known to a majority Slavs should not be chosen.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 100% ONLY SLAVIC. IT CAN HAVE SYNONIMS OF NUMEROUS FOREIGN INTERNATIONALLY ADOPTED WORDS THAT ARE USED IN MANY [EVEN SLAVIC]
LANGUAGES.
Yes. But it is stupid to claim that you invent a Slavic language on the one hand, and to give reasons like "Cxina is used in English" on the other hand. Only the reason "Cxina is used in Czech and Slovak" is rational (but not sufficient in this particular case).
Polish and Ukrainian share about 80% of the vocabulary, but I can't understand Polish when spoken.
What I want is to get away from very West Slavic expressions and very different sounds in different languages. This is why I eliminated the sounds that don't exist in many languages.
This is why I want to enforce a different pronunciation than natural Slavic languages. Then the speaker is putting in as much effort as the audience. If the speaker is speaking in his native language, then he's not making an effort for other people to understand him easier. But if he's using a pronunciation that is different from his native language, he's trying hard to make it easier for the people who are listening, so both parties are making an equal effort.
Same thing here, I'm making an effort by looking at 7 different dictionaries for about every word I write so that some people can understand the text better and appreciate the fact that I tried to combine all the common Slavic features so that every speaker will find certain parts of the text easier to understand
Polish and Ukrainian share about 80% of the vocabulary, but I can't understand Polish when spoken.
What I want is to get away from very West Slavic expressions and very different sounds in different languages. This is why I eliminated the sounds that don't exist in many languages.
This is why I want to enforce a different pronunciation than natural Slavic languages. Then the speaker is putting in as much effort as the audience. If the speaker is speaking in his native language, then he's not making an effort for other people to understand him easier. But if he's using a pronunciation that is different from his native language, he's trying hard to make it easier for the people who are listening, so both parties are making an equal effort.
Nice ideas, but hardly applicable. Many non-native English speakers are proficient in this language, but have never mastered the language's phonology.
Gabreil:
But why to have 50% only when it is possible to have more? What is the use of a language whose author consciously made some words non-understandable?
===
1. There are by far less than 50 % understandable between ALL Slavic languages. If it would be otherwise, than my question would be: What are we all doing here???
2. It is not gentleman like (to say the least) if you attack somebody without calling his name and your defamation!
3. And again by repeating the wrong again and again it will not turn into the correct. Esperanto is not a international language. Esperanto failed its aim to become a language, but Pidgin languages made it.
Esperanto is a mixture of languages Pan Zamenhof knew more or less and those are, as far as I know, Polish, Yiddish and German.
1. There are by far less than 50 % understandable between ALL Slavic languages.
What is the subject of this sentence?
2. It is not gentleman like (to say the least) if you attack somebody without calling his name and your defamation!
I don't know what you are speaking about.
Esperanto failed its aim to become a language
Had your pidgin ever at least the same number of millions of speakers as Esperanto does ...
Esperanto is a mixture of languages Pan Zamenhof knew more or less and those are, as far as I know, Polish, Yiddish and German.
In terms of vocabulary, maybe yes, but these words were given a simple, logical, easy to learn grammar. This is not so true about Slovio, Slovano or your new pidgin.
