Predlozxenie: But the language that will be (maybe one day) proclaimed the universal pan-slavic one, will be not just for the all Slavs but for foreigners as well.
Gabridiot: Yes, but the English, the Germans, the French, the Spanish haven't crippled their langauges in order to be easier to learn for foreigners. So why we Slavs should?
Predlozxenie: Offering the foreigners some difficult lang (even if it is all-slavic) I don't think it is the best way doing it.
Gabridiot: The English have already done it. People learn a language because it is economically interesting, not because it is easy.
It became a good tradition among Slovioists to call people "idiots", or to say something like "You're too stupid for me to explain you this" when they have no arguments to confirm their position.
Gabriel: Yes, but the English, the Germans, the French, the Spanish haven't crippled their langauges in order to be easier to learn for foreigners. So why we Slavs should?
===
This is wrong again, Gabriel. Letīs look at English. comparing old English with today's you will see that English dropped its gender and the cases. unconsciously though to make it easier for "foreigners" (with foreigners I mean those English people who did not descent from the Anglo-Saxon) to learn.
Similarities you will find when comparing Dutch with Afrikaans and standard German with spoken Southgerman
And for French and Spanish just look at Creol languges (based on French or Spanish) which you will find all over world. And all of them have one thing in common: they are easy to learn, because of having no gender and no cases.
If you're saying Bulgarian is easier to learn than Russian, then you'd be mistaken. By losing cases, it gained DOZENS of different PLURALS.
By losing soft vowels at the end of words, the distinction between feminine and masculine is very hard because med and med are two different genders! One is masculine (honey) and the other is feminine (copper).
Igor:
If you're saying Bulgarian is easier to learn than Russian, then you'd be mistaken. By losing cases, it gained DOZENS of different PLURALS.
By losing soft vowels at the end of words, the distinction between feminine and masculine is very hard because med and med are two different genders! One is masculine (honey) and the other is feminine (copper).
Both languages are very hard to learn.
===
1. Plurals. Still Bulgarian is easier to START to learn!
2. I have no problems with synonyms. In Germanic languages you find lots of them.
3. In the end ALL languages are hard to learn!!!
I do not understand why you have chosen these words for honey and copper.
Nevertheless, you have another dozens words for honey and copper. It doesn't matter if they are not understandable at the moment. It is and will be always better that to mislead some millions of people.
Why not have KOPER for copper and MED for honey ?
(even latin word for this metal is CUPRUM so I can't see any problem with using this word and get a bit closer to international terminology.
Predlozxenie: Offering the foreigners some difficult lang (even if it is all-slavic) I don't think it is the best way doing it.
---
Gabriel: The English have already done it. People learn a language because it is economically interesting, not because it is easy.
===
the simplest Germanic language to learn is English!
Though for Dutch and German speakers Afrikaans is the simplest.
One of the reason why I do learn Slovio, Bulgarian and Afrikaans is that they are easy to learn.
Afrikaans is NOT simple for English speakers, though.
And English is a pretty hard language to learn. Not even speaking about the spelling, the difference between "get up", and "get out", and "get on" and so on is hard to learn. English turns out to have hundreds of different meanings for one verb if you just add a preposition!
Igor:
Afrikaans is NOT simple for English speakers, though.
And English is a pretty hard language to learn. Not even speaking about the spelling, the difference between "get up", and "get out", and "get on" and so on is hard to learn. English turns out to have hundreds of different meanings for one verb if you just add a preposition!
===
1. Afrikaans, Dutch and German are relatively difficult to learn for the other Germanic speakers
2. English is the easiest language to learn for all Germanic language speakers
3. having different meanings of verbs by just adding prposition is very typical for Germanic languages. Though the English verbs are the most easiest, because verb and preposition will stay together, this is not the case in German/Dutch dialects.
Yes, they are called PHRASAL VERBS AND IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS.
They are really difficult to remember them. They are even springing out now.
Every day more and more in some parts of the world and that's why it is so difficult. In a local library I saw a dictionary of these words. It was a book with 1 226 pages and on each page there are several tens of them. And it's not the end of them.
Yes, English and Afrikaans are the simplest Germanic languages; Bulgarian, Slovio and Slovianski-P are the simplest Slavic languages. So why do you like/learn the first mentioned four ones, but not the fifth one?
This might even be a bit true a year ago, but not now. Slovianski is an independent language now (and if it is dependent on something, then on Slavic langauges, not on Slovio). Yes, both languages share the same very original idea by Mark Hucko, but I don't see anything wrong with it, as I have spoken about it in the thread Zavistju Balkaniznik:
[...] ja ne bil pervi czlovek, ktori po-l'uczil ideja tvorit' taki jazik. Ale ja ne misliju, czo tol'ko toj, kto jak pervi pol'uczil ideja, ima pravo jej realizovat'. Jaki bi tutden' bil telefon, kogda tol'ko Aleksander Grem Bell (Alexander Graham Bell) i nikto ini bi mogl delat' jego visze dobri?
Before Slovio, Slovianski and S-lingva there were several attempts of creating the international slavic language. And some of them were functional.
So neither of these languages is the first and the last one.
Maybe the creolisation already happened in English, French or Spanish, but not yet in Slavic (and if it did, it only concerned the declension). If there is some natural Slavic language more creolised than Bulgarian, linguistically documented and spoken by at least, say, two million people, let me know.
We already have a beautiful and simple international language -- English -- a perfect tool for communication of anybody to anybody, including non-Slavs to Slavs. This position is already occupied. What we don't have is inter-Slavic auxlang. Of course it should have Slavic grammar -- there is no use in re-creating English with Slavic words.
And personally I never had problems with the verb get and its postpositions.
but verb + preposition is kind of an idiom in English
Historically these particles aren't 'idiomatized' prepositions. They correspond to 'splittable prefixes' in German (I'm sorry, I don't know a correct term for these).
"You may come in." -- here "in" is a postposition.
"You may come in the city." -- here "in" is a preposition.
Both clauses look very alike, but historically they have nothing in common. Compare with German:
"Sie moegen (her)einkommen." -- here "ein" or "herein" is a prefix, related to English postposition "in".
"Sie moegen in die Stadt kommen." -- here "in" is a 'classical' preposition.
German prefix "ein-" has nothing to do the word for "one"; it is 'lengthened' pronunciation of "in". In German these 'splittable prepostions' sometimes follow (in finite forms) and sometimes precede (in infinitive and participles) the main verb. In English they always go after the verb and are called 'postpositions'.
Sure. I was too lazy to seek for a better example.
But note expression "She moved in from the penthouse". Here "in" is a postposition, and "from" is a preposition. You won't say that it's a 'complex preposition', will ya?
Come on, you can't be serious! What kind of complex preposition is that if you can split it? "She moved in here from the penthouse". Not to mention that you can omit either of the two words.
And there is no way the fact that "to come in city" sounds unnatural can be a proof that English doesn't have postpositions. On the contrary, how "in" could be 'idiomatized', if the verb "to come" hardly can be used with this preposition?
Please, just because you can split a prepositional phrase doesn't mean it's not a prepositional phrase.
"She moved in here from the penthouse".
"in here from the penthouse" is a separate phrase from the rest of the sentence
"He came in here from the penthouse"
"They will run in here from the penthouse"
it's a unit
just because you can split something doesn't mean it's not a unit
Many people even split words as in "Fan fucking tastic"
Does that mean the word fantastic has two parts?
Furthermore, since they are separate words that are a part of the prepositional phrase it is very often the case that you would want to split them
In fact, one can split the infinitive, but that doesn't mean it's really a postposition to the previous noun, as per a 14th century example:
It was great unkindness, to in this manner treat their brother.
You surely can't claim that the infinitive is not a singular entity but really the word to is a preposition of the word in or the postposition of the word unkindness
In the 14th century "to" and infinitive weren't a 'singular entity'. The grammatization of to-infinitive took place much later. (Though it was used with "to" even in the Old English, but it rather had the meaning of German "zu" + infinitive. Even worse, the infinitive form took dative case form when it was 'accompanied' by "to"!)
"Fun fxxxxxx tastic" is a joke -- whereas having postpositions is the truth proved by the history of the language, the comparative method, and the current using of the language. Postpositions are called "postpositions" because they always follow the word they belong to, and don't need any other word.
It depends how you understand what the city is. If the city is something that you have to enter then this preposition is OK.
It is the same as British : in the street and American : on the street.
Are you IN the street or ON the street ?
Everything depends on how you understand or imagine the things round you.
It is the same with understanding the very simple grammar and very difficult grammar. It matters if you are able to express everything with this simple grammar or not. If yes, then let's go on with the simple one. If not, let's keep some grammar structures living.
And I think this is the main problem about all languages.
When I started learning English I couldn't make out some simple grammar structures in it. Now, I cannot understand why these complicated grammar structures were created in many slavic languages.
So, let's do things easier for people if there is some possibility of doing it and if not just let's keep them as they are.
It may be beautiful but not simple and not international.
It just wants to be international but cannot because this language has been somebody (better said of some nation) and then it is not international and simple is just because some other langs round it has got more difficult grammars then it has.
But it doesn't mean that this language is easy. Coparing it with Esperanto it is much more difficult.
We just could have this lang as something for comparing or as some kind of source for creating more advantageous or more perfect languages that could be of nobody but for everbody.
My opinion is that a good working and modern language should have something that is needed for understanding and not understanding.
Literaly, we have to use something for "shaping of our speech". And they are either single words (forms) or prefixes or suffixes.
We cannot just put together single words in a row and expect from others to understand us. So, some expressions of cases(very basic forms of cases)we need.
E.g. genitive
We need to express that st. or sb. belongs to st. or sb. It could be done by describing ( It is the coat that belongs to father) or by some auxilliary mark, sign or word ( It is the father's coat / It is the coat of father etc.)
S-lingva has it by adding suffix -OV that can be added at the end of nouns or if it is difficult to do it, then to place it before a noun as something that is just an auxilliary expression of the genitive.
To es otecov dom / To es dom ov otec.
The similar it is with dative (auxilliary suffix - OM that can be added at the end of a noun or separately before a noun.
Accusative is solved out either by zero suffix / separated auxilliary before noun or by remaking the sentence into a passive voice.
Junak videl dievica zo autobus / Dievica il videte s junak zo autobus.
(A boy saw a girl from a bus / A girl was seen by a boy from a bus)
So basicaly, accusative exists just in natural form without adding any additional suffix, prefix or a word.
Creating locative and instrumental is done just by prepositions { o, s )
For genders there are demonstrative pronouns in S-lingva. You do not have to use them. They are used just for emphesizing and denoting something.
Basicaly, there are no genders in general. If some biologist or zoologist wants to say that some animal is of femine gender - just put " ta " before a noun and " ten " when it concerns a male gender. Anything else is just in neuter form (if you want to point out for a nount it is done just by " to " e.g. to more, to reka, to sonce, to zem, to gora, etc.}
ten lev - a lion
ta lev - a lioness
to lev - just in general without emphesizing or not knowing a gender.
If we know (by the sight) who is a man and who is a woman we can add ten or ta before a noun, e.g. ten direktor, ta direktor. Otherwise it is without a personal / demonstrative pronoun.
It isn't easy to have two ways to express the same thing; it isn't clear to have to remember the original final vowel; it isn't useful to have a misunderstandable preposition s.
I think you're confusing "I got up" and "I went to"
"I got up" literally means "I made (my body assume) an upright position" where "got" is an equivalent of "made" and "up" is equivalent of "upright position"
This means that "I" is a pronoun which is the subject, "got" is a verb which is the copula, and "up" is the noun which is the object
this sentence really means A is B
"I went to" is not a sentence.
"I" is a pronoun which is the subject, went is the verb, and "to" is a preposition lacking a noun
To make this a sentence we still need to add a noun like "I went to my room"
"I" is still the subject, "went" is still the verb, and "to my room" is a prepositional phrase which is the object
