Furthermore, since there is a some opposition to the Slovio use of "-(i)s" for the formation of plural, we suggest that users, if they prefer, experimentally use just the letter "-i" to form the plural, independent of whether the noun ends with a wovel or consonant. The demand that Slovio trunkates all nouns, in order for all nouns to end with a consonant,seems at least for now premature. It may happen in the future but for now we feel it would cause more problems than it solves.
I agree with iopq. Basically, there are only two systems that make sense:
1) No vowels truncated, plural ending -(i)s. The plural ending is not Slavic, but it makes sense to justify it because all singular nouns have their natural form.
2) All vowels truncated, virtually all nouns end in a consonant, plural ending -i. Singular nouns often don't have their natural form, but it makes sense to justify this fact because plural can have their natural Slavic ending.
Anything between these two systems makes no sense because then you have ugly non-Slavic forms both in singular and in plural.
Slovio has never had the pure 1) system, it always tried to truncate some vowels, but far from all ones. That's why it has never made sense. The current modification (the reluctant adoption of -i plural ending) still makes no sense because many vowels are still kept. But the promise of future truncating of all vowels shows the fact that Slovio is in transition from 1) to 2). So not mentioning many other big mistakes of Slovio, I can finally tell Slovio-ists one thing about their noun system after the year: keep it up. Sometimes in 2010 Slovio could be pure 2) and start to make sense.
Although the nice poem of the Letoju Zxen would suffer, I feel strongly that words like zxen, rib, or ruk are a horror... when we all know that it must be zxena, riba and ruka, etc. This also concerns the numerals: cxtir, din, des, dev, vos ... who will recognise these? And what is wrong with words of more than one syllable? As if slavic languages where not crammed full with multi-syllabic words!
Volapük of long-forgotten fame loved truncated words, too: NIM was the Volapük word for "aNIMal". I don't see any need for such mutilations.
Regarding numerals, I think that Roman Dushkins suggestions should be seriously considered.
Of course, if Slovio-ists only reflected truncations that already occured in a majority of modern Slavic languages, it would be no problem. But they often reflect truncations that occured in their heads only and nowhere else.
Slovio truncates those words where it makes no problem, since there is no other (truncated word) in existence with another meaning. However, there are many cases when a non-truncated and truncated words have two entirely different meanings, and there it is not possible.
Gabriel belkotil:
Such pairs are often arbitrarily invented by Slovio-ists, such as jazik/jazika.
===
Ay Gabriel!
1. jazika is not a slov-kratenie,
2. jazika is used in Slavic languages, na primer: razvoj jezika(yu),
3. to differ between jazik and jazika makes sense.
2. jazika is used in Slavic languages, na primer: razvoj jezika(yu)
Of course, but in nominative, the words both for "language" and "tongue" are the same within every Slavic language, just as they are identical in genitive.
The difference between jazik and jazika is the case. Slovio doesn't have the genitive, so it shouldn't have any forms other than the nominative and the accusative.
