Slovianski :

pismo писмо
letter (mail)
письмо письмо пісьмо, ліст list dopis list list писмо pismo pismo писмо писмо

____________________________________________________________________________

Slovianski has chosen for writing the name : PISMO

But there's 1 problem. Understanding this is sometimes misleading.
Namely, PISMO can mean any writing not only A LETTER.

e.g. PISMO can by some abrupted and randomly attachment of letters and it doesn't have to mean A LETTER. It can be a cluster of letters without any
meaning that it is "a letter" addressed to somebody.

I would suggest to make up some better name for this.

Correction :

Slovianski should choose for writing the name : PISMO

and for LETTER should be some other word.

I just want to ask what's the word for " POISON " or " VENOM ".

Without each other attacking we should better devote to making up words that is (I suppose) the main aim for creating the language.

the word for poison is jad, the word for venom is otrava

pismo only means the word "letter" in Russian
(na)pisanije means "writing"

pismo only means the word "letter" in Russian
(na)pisanije means "writing"

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

Pismo only means "writing" in Czech and Slovak.
"Napisanie" indicates some perfection (finished act of st.) of a verb.
It is derived from " PISANIE " and just prefix "na-" is added for indicating the perfection.

But root is "PIS".

I wonder how you (all of Slovianski langs) do perfect tense.
Is it different every time (I mean different prefix) or you have something like "NA -" that is in S-lingva?"

Because WRITING is just PISANIE.

Currently, I use the following system:

If the basic form hasn't got a prefix, it is imperfective, and the perfective is formed by the prefix iz-.
If the basic form has got a prefix, it is perfective, and the imperfective is formed by the suffix -va-.

But I am only testing it, we'll see if it will produce forms that are simple and understandable enough ...

Could you, Gabriel, introduce some examples for it ?

I just ask you because some kind of universal slavic prefix NA - would be one of possible solutions. This prefix is used quite frequently and has the Slavic origin. Basicaly, it could be used for any verb.

pri-nosit' - it has got a prefix, so it is perfective; imperfective is pri-nosivat'
na-hodit' - it has got a prefix, so it is perfective; imperfective is na-hodivat'
o-stavit' - it has got a prefix, so it is perfective; imperfective is o-stavivat'
pro-igrat' - it has got a prefix, so it is perfective; imperfective is pro-igravat'
pre-vodit' - it has got a prefix, so it is perfective; imperfective is pre-vodivat'

anulovat' - it hasn't got a prefix, so it is imperfective; perfective is iz-anulovat'
verit' - it hasn't got a prefix, so it is imperfective; perfective is iz-verit'
spat' - it hasn't got a prefix, so it is imperfective; perfective is iz-spat'
govorit' - it hasn't got a prefix, so it is imperfective; perfective is iz-govorit'
molvit' - it hasn' t got a prefix, so it is imperfective; perfective is iz-molvit'

I know that in some Slavic languages (including my native one), pismo means "writing" and not only "letter". However, I don't count this as a confusion because it can't hinder understanding. Pismo is the most common word for "letter" and "writing" has got a very similar meaning anyway. In the same way, I don't abandon the word grib for "fung" although it means "bolete" in Czech, because the confusion isn't big enough to block such common word as grib is.

Russian pismo can mean both "writing" and "letter". But since the terms semantically distant and can't be confused I don't see a problem. But when there is danger of confusion we always can use pismennost'/pisanije for "writing" and poslanije for "letter".

Well, it can TECHNICALLY mean "writing" in Russian, but nobody says "pismo" when they mean "writing". There are a dozen ways to say writing like "nadpis'", "zapis'", "razpis'" which all have slightly different meanings so people usually just choose one of those.

I think a regular perfective prefix should be a Slovianski-S feature, not a Slovianski-P one because ALL Slavic languages have almost random prefixes. It's a Pan-Slavic feature.

I am still hesitating about this ... Yes, all Slavic langauges have different random suffixes, but all of them often have different ones for each verb.

We'll see what the consistency with Slovianski-N will require.

What are some verb examples where natural Slavic languages disagree?

Each version would have to get less than 3 votes for it to be a problem

I meant verbs that are completely different in Slavic languages, such as "to meet". You can't know how to (im)perfectivise a verb if you don't know the verb at all.

if I were to take the English word meet and slavianize it I'd get pomititsa
if I took watch, I'd make pouačit'

for words I don't know I generally use po-
so I'd use povidanije from vidat' (to look), which is regularly formed from the root vid (look)

OK, but if you don't know some verb, you don't sometimes even know if it is perfective or imperfective in the Slavic language(s) it comes from.

Incorrect, you know exactly

-at', -et', ot' = imperfective
-it', -ut' = perfective

prefix = perfective

The rule is interesting, but I'm afraid it doesn't work. E.g. Russian nahodit' has a prefix and ends in it' in the same time, but it's still imperfective.

Ah, but I didn't say which rule takes precedence

What do you mean? Both rules say that it should be perfective, but it's still imperfective. And what about words like govorit', pahnut' (are imperfective), and dat' (is perfective)?

oh, that's true

in Slovianski-N, I propose that we change the natural verbs so that they fit the rules

so instead of nahodit' we'd have na-jd-ovat' for the imperfective(cf. Pol. znajdować), na-jdet' for perfective
related to the verb idet', so the past tense will be naљel

prefix and then + ov means imperfective

this could be another way in which Slovianski-N is simpler than natural slavic languages

Okay, but what will be the words for govorit', pahnut', and dat'?

(dat' could be 'regularized' to davat', but this form doesn't get perfectivized after prefixation: podavat' still is imperfective.)

Instead of govorit' we could use s-kazat'
We could also use the Polish version of pahnut', which is pahnet'

Also, if we use davat', it's supposed to be imperfective with suffixes

here is the order in which rules apply
ending, prefix, -(o)va suffix

Also, since I wrote -(o)va, I have to mention my notation

the (o) is only attached to a consonantal root

I consider -it' verbs to have consonantal roots, but the rest have vowel roots

pet' is imperfective, but spet' is perfective
to make it imperfective again, we'll use spevat'

here it's a vowel root - the root is pe-
l'ubit' is perfective, l'uboval is the imprefective
the root is l'ub-

all roots get a "verb" suffix which is -(i)t'
it' in the case of a consonantal root and t' in the case of a vowel root

As soon as you start to modify natural vocabulary in order to fit your rules, the language is no more naturalistic.

All of those words are natural, they're just taken from different languages

Yes, but out of natural options, Slovianski (at least Slovianski-N) should always select the most common one, not the most suitable one.

Yes, but we can choose between different versions of the same root.

Not only the most common root should be chosen, but also the most common variant of it.

We just have to accept the (non-)system of aspects as difficult as in all Slavic languages. I personally won't be able to learn such a system, but that's just how it is.

Yeah, but when talking about variants, the voting will be something like 1 vote vs. 1 vote and then the highest population will always win since every variant is different in every language

Also, dictionaries can't be always trusted because they can present one variant, but not another variant that might exist in the language
Do we group some very similar variants together? For example, izp'avam = spivaty? Etymologically, they are identical, but phonetically distinct

But here is the worst part: if a language is missing the root completely, then it could mess up the vote
I already talked about this, for example, in the Polish dictionary, there is no word for gate that is cognate with Russian vorota
so vorota looses the vote to vrata outright
you correctly said that we should use the same form in every instance

then shouldn't we make a rule about different forms in other cases?
I think that everyone could live with podal/daval to make perfective/imperfective of give

I agree.

But anyway, our dictionary of verbs should have at least three columns - English, Slovianski perfective, Slovianski imperfective.

Gabriel, you'll never be able to make natural and at the same time constructed Slavic language with simple grammar.
Either you have simple and almost regular grammar or natural one with more understandable base for the all Slavs. You have to make up your mind first.

Doing compromise in this field is imposible for the all-Slavic lang.

One disadvantage concerning the natural slavic langs is that they do perfective mood very differentially, with a lot of irregular prefixes and suffixes. And I do not want to say that other langs do it better but a little more simple, e.g. English do it by separate words ( have, make, up, out, over,
get, turn, etc....)

I do not know Esperanto grammar so well and wonder how it does it.

OK, I have already decided. Simplicity is an important thing to be considered, but naturality takes precedence.

Naturality accoding to whom? According to plagiatnik, zavistnik and balkaniznik? What is "natural" to you is totally alien to me and to most people with an IQ higher than a dead fish. Natural is: regular, logical, simple = Slovio.

What is "natural" to you is totally alien to me and to most people with an IQ higher than a dead fish.

Why do you offend most native Slavic speakers?

Gabriel, have you already done some kind of survey if people wish to accept such language as Slovianski ?
It's not just adding and adding the new words but the most important of all is to find out if people will agree with them. And it concerns the grammar as well.
It will be vasting of time if such language is refused by majority of population.

Gabriel, have you already done some kind of survey if people wish to accept such language as Slovianski ?

Yes, I have. The result is: Slovianski will be learned by 25 or 30 people, just as Slovio or S-lingva will. Of course, we all have much higher ambitions and perfect reason why exactly our language and no one else's will ever be used by people; but if we take realism into consideration, only very few constructed languages have more than 100 users.

But the point is, no matter how many active users Slovianski will have, it will always be understood by Slavs much better than Slovianski or S-lingva.

It's not just adding and adding the new words but the most important of all is to find out if people will agree with them.

I think people will accept words that are most likely to occur in their native language.

Gabriel Alzheimeril:
But the point is, no matter how many active users SLOVIANSKI will have, it will always be understood by Slavs much better than SLOVIANSKI or S-lingva.
===
no comment!

Then why are you posting? Can't you wait until you have something to say?

first reading then thinking and then writing, Igor. The "no comment" is a comment!
Read the Alzheimer sentence of Gabriel, than you will understand.

You can make a constructed language based on Tolkien's High Elf and you can have ten million people speaking it, but Slovianski will still be understood by the hundreds of millions of Slavs that understand a REAL Slavic language.

Ne gvorij Igor!

Slovianski i Interlingua iamajut din vecx spolju, imenuo ni Slavianis hotit ucxit se Slovianski ni Romancju gvornikis hotit ucxit se Interlingua.

Yeah. They don't need to learn it, because they already understand it.

Some months ago I proposed to create common vocabulary for S (some common lang that doesn't have its name so far that's why I call it language "S")
I started but wasn't finnished. Is it so difficult to do one vocabulary together ? I know there are some words that are accepted with difficulty by others but they (I said before) could be synonyms. I can't see any problem with it.
A bit worse problem will be with grammar. But there is always some way we could cooperate together. Or we may use our own grammars with common vocabulary. Maybe it would work better than quareling every time which of the langs is better.

What do you think about this kind of solution of our problems ?

If you have a dictionary of more than a couple of hundred words, and if it makes sense, I guess it could be incorporated into Slovio. But where are your dictionaries? Are they in excel and can they be downloaded? About the grammar: as we said many times before, Slovio is open to any grammar at all, it welcomes experimentation. So use any grammar you want, and let's hope that you will be understood.

So use any grammar you want, and let's hope that you will be understood.

This is what Slovio has to hope, not Slovianski, because it (and langauges of its kind) are already understood by default.

But where are your dictionaries? Are they in excel and can they be downloaded?

our dictionary under construction is published on http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p6Og2Hn6qWhjOx3uMPXoFeQ
the current version can be downloaded on http://ial.xf.cz/slovnik-070410.xls
the abbreviations are explained on http://www.langmaker.com/db/User:Gabriel_Svoboda/Slovianski-P#Vocabulary_.28slovnik.29

and by the way, if somebody wants to see the tool I personally use to make dictionary researches, go to http://ial.xf.cz/slovnik.htm (but it doesn't work under Internet Explorer for some unknown reason)

http://ial.xf.cz/slovnik.htm has incorrect coding since it has three framesets on one page

Use columns and rows instead on one frameset

I don't know what's wrong with three framesets in one page, but never mind ... I have already discovered the mistake, I badly closed the tag TITLE. Mr Alcgejmer seems to be a really good friend of mine.

Actually, it's not that you used multiple framesets, that doesn't make sense... here, i'll elaborate on what's wrong with the HTML and in general with the way the languages are presented

First of all, there's no doctype or encoding
Second of all, you have Bosnian twice
Thirdly, you put all of the framesets inside the head section, when they should be a section of their own
Lastly, you made the slovnyk site very wide when it's actually pretty tall instead

First of all, there's no doctype or encoding

OK, if you think it will help something.

Second of all, you have Bosnian twice

I haven't, its Serbian and Bosnian. I know, both these languages and their dictionaries look almost identical, but I have already experienced a situation when these two dictionaries provided a little bit different results.

Thirdly, you put all of the framesets inside the head section, when they should be a section of their own

Aha, last time I read something about HTML ten years ago, I didn't know the situation changed since that time.

Lastly, you made the slovnyk site very wide when it's actually pretty tall instead

OK, I changed it.

One last thing: http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp