TO ALL SVIATOPLUK'S SONS:
There is no problem with finding one common language and one common flag. There is only problem with the fact that some sons of Sviatopluk (which are on this forum) refuse to unite. And uniting means to accept the others and not to attempt to push through one's own opinion and try to create conflicts.
Similar problem existed 10 years ago, before the creation of Slovio. There was a group of Sviatopluk's sons, who have been arguing like other sons are arguing today, and could not agree upon common and logical basis for an all-Slavic language. Each one wanted to push through his own "ideas", but none of them (except one) wanted to do any REAL WORK. We have to thank Mark Hucko that he didn't argue, did not get involved in the useless arguments and fights, and that he created for us SLOVIO, the fist and only all-Slavic language in 1000 years.
I don't want to keep listening to those sons (and grand-grand sons) of Sviatopluk who don't want to unite, and who let outsiders break us up just like the asian nomads broke up and destroyed the Great-Moravian empire some thousand years ago.
For me there is only one pan-Slavic flag, and one pan-Slavic language: SLOVIO.
Da, to moz'et bit vic dobre c'em Velike Morava. To il unitenie len ov Centrale Europe Slovani ale nove unitenie moz'et bit so vse Slovani.
Mi trebit skoro en lingva abi Slovani c'osi znac'it vo Europa a koneco i vo globa. Kien ov nam trebit c'osi pustit zo nas' lingvi a robit kompromis abi to en lingva bi moz'et bit uz'ite vo vse Slovane stati.
Ja soglosit so Mark Huc'ko. Ten il ente vo c'asenie 7 roki. Ale ten ne il absoluto ente zo vse. Kreatenie ov vse-slovane lingva es stare vic kao pet sto roki. Mislenie mal i Jan Amos Komenski a dals'e kreatori po tenu.
To idea mal i lensi lingvisti vo 19-te a 20-te storoki.
A ja pitat : " Proc' ne enit ov vse nas, narobit lensi kompromisi zo kien strana a kreatit nas' enite lingva pro vse ? "
Es to tak probleme ?
Tie gadani ne imat zmislenie a em sledenie do futura.
vic > vis'e
c'em > nez'
il > bil
unitenie > unija, sojuz
len > tolko
Europa > Evropa
en > jedin
lingva > jazik
c'osi > nec'o
globa > svet, Zemja
kien > ??? (I know, you once explained your strange pronouns but I am not going to learn your grammar in order to understand it)
uz'it > upotrebit
c'asenie > ???
kreatit > tvorit
rok > god
tenu > jago, jego, on
idea > ideja
lensi > ???
pro > dla
gadat > mat spor (or something else less Czech-Slovak-only)
and why ?
Because they are not the most common words used by Slavs.
---
Anyway, I have noticed you started to use da ... din stup vpred, velvelju!
VIC is the same as VIS'E (btw. vis'e means HIGHER)
C'EM comes from russian lang and NEZ' comes from czech lang.
IL is ending from B-IL (it si simpler than BIL)
UNITENIE comes from the word UNIA that is widely understandable anywhere in the east and west. SOJUZ is understandable just in Russia and probably in some other countries.
LEN means JUST. Your word TOLKO means SO MUCH.
EUROPA is generally understood in all Europe. EVROPA is just latin writing because The Romans didn't know (or better said didn' use) letter U. So, your word EVROPA is of latin origin that you are strictly against.
LINGVA - I explained this problem before. JAZIK (some muscle you have in your mouth), JAZIK (a part of shues), JAZIK ? (language/toungue). Well, we have 3 different explanation for JAZIK, so that's why I have chosen the word LINGVA so that not to be misinterpreted.
C'OSI - another problem that had to be solved out. Because prefix NE- means negation, your word NEC'O would seem as something that is negated (that is the word C'O in this case).
GLOBA - instead of this word it can be used also the word ZEM or TERITORIUM.
But when we use the word ZEM it could be misinterpreted as something that the plants are growing from e.g. SOIL. Because the planet ZEM is not just the SOIL but it is everything that is on our elypsoid shaped planet. And that's why I use the better word for the whole planet as GLOBA tha doesn't represent only SOIL but the whole planet.
KIEN - the next combination of two words that make sence. KIE means what WHAT and EN means ONE, SOME. KI - comes from the slavic word AKY (what) and EN from another slavic word JEDEN (or slovenian word for "one" - EN, ENA, ENO).
It is just a combination of these words that is very practical, easy and useful.
UZ'IT means the same as UPOTREBIT. The word UZ'IT is also of slavic origin and is widely used in some languages. The disadvantage of the word UPOTREBIT is that this word is comprised of two parts (the root TREBIT and prefix UPO- that doesn't have any sense). So that why this words becomes therefore unpractical and not as clear as the word UZ'IT, that is easier to write, pronounce and remember.
C'ASENIE comes from the word C'AS that means "time" or "era" or "epoch" or "stage" etc. It is also slavic word so I do not know why you do not understand it.
KREATIT - comes from the word KREACIA, KREATIVNE, KREATIVNOST, KREACIA etc. that are widely used in slavic languages. The word TVORIT could be easily misinterpreted as "being" or "animal" (tvor, zviera, etc.) The root is very simple and understood in many languages. And other words could be easily done up by this root : KREATENIE, KREACIA, KREATOR etc.
ROK - has also slavic origin and cannot be misinterpreted with no one other word. No other slavic word is simmilar to this one so could be widely used as well.
TENU - is dative and accusative from TEN that e.g. Bulgarians use for ON and can be used as personal pronouns as well as demonstrative pronoun. Your JAGO, JEGO on the other hand are not regular. As far as I noticed they differ in declination and shapes of using them in various clauses. JAGO / JEGO comes from those slavic langs that do not know letter H, that's why they use letter G instead that is very unpractical in modern world.
IDEA is more used in the world than IDEJA. Although, both are of slavic origin but the word IDEA came to some slavic langs in its original form, tha is more practical than using the word with letter -J in there.
LENSI - is the same example as the word KIEN. This word comprises of the word LEN and ending of some words that have general meaning (Something like English SOME or ONE, etc.) that better represents the general meaning what we want to say. (LEN - only, just SI - some, one) This makes this word very easy for understanding when adopted.
PRO - comes from latin lang. and is used in czech and some other slavic langs.
The word DLA is used widely in russian language but the slavic peoples that do not use this word - it is totaly ununderstandable for them.
GADAT - is also of slavic origin and using the words idiomatic term "MAT SPOR" is too long and unpractical for common conversation.
It doesn't play a big role if these word are or not "most common" words in slavic languages. If you would use just what is "most common" in some slavic languages the other ones will not understand them anyway, so it will be just for some slavic countries and not for all of them. So, why do that this way ?
VIC is the same as VIS'E (btw. vis'e means HIGHER)
It isn't the same; the former is not understood by all Slavs, the latter is.
C'EM comes from russian lang and NEZ' comes from czech lang.
C'em is east Slavic only, nez' or its modification is present in all east and west Slavic languages. I don't know why you limit your understandability to one branch (even to the one least liked by you).
IL is ending from B-IL (it si simpler than BIL)
I know its an old advice, but you should still rename your language - to FANTAZIJSKI, because without phantasy, nobody can understand it. Or is it in accordance with common sense that letters randomly disappear?
EUROPA is generally understood in all Europe. EVROPA is just latin writing because The Romans didn't know (or better said didn' use) letter U. So, your word EVROPA is of latin origin that you are strictly against.
I am not at all against words of Latin origin, but I am against words that have better understandable alternatives. Evropa is east Slavic, Czech, Serbian, Bosnian, Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, while "Europa" is Polish+Slovak+Croatian only.
LINGVA - I explained this problem before. JAZIK (some muscle you have in your mouth), JAZIK (a part of shues), JAZIK ? (language/toungue). Well, we have 3 different explanation for JAZIK, so that's why I have chosen the word LINGVA so that not to be misinterpreted.
Lingua in Latin no more means "language" than it means "tongue". It is this way in all Romance and Slavic languages and even the English wouldn't have problems with it.
C'OSI - another problem that had to be solved out. Because prefix NE- means negation, your word NEC'O would seem as something that is negated (that is the word C'O in this case).
It would seem the way you explain to no Slav.
KIEN - the next combination of two words that make sence. KIE means what WHAT and EN means ONE, SOME. KI - comes from the slavic word AKY (what) and EN from another slavic word JEDEN (or slovenian word for "one" - EN, ENA, ENO).
Maybe, but nobody understands this combination, unlike "kake" / "jake".
EN from another slavic word JEDEN (or slovenian word for "one" - EN, ENA, ENO)
Really fantazijski, letters can randomly disappear ... and you should stop confusing "Slovenian" and "Slavic".
UZ'IT means the same as UPOTREBIT. The word UZ'IT is also of slavic origin and is widely used in some languages. The disadvantage of the word UPOTREBIT is that this word is comprised of two parts (the root TREBIT and prefix UPO- that doesn't have any sense). So that why this words becomes therefore unpractical and not as clear as the word UZ'IT, that is easier to write, pronounce and remember.
UZ'IT is widely used in several languages, UPOTREBIT is present in almost all Slavic languages. By your logic, UZ'IT is illogical too (u- + z'it, so something connected with living).
C'ASENIE comes from the word C'AS that means "time" or "era" or "epoch" or "stage" etc. It is also slavic word so I do not know why you do not understand it.
Of course I know c'as, but I wasn't sure which idiom is represented by the -enie here. Time = vremeno, era = era, epoch - epoha.
KREATIT - comes from the word KREACIA, KREATIVNE, KREATIVNOST, KREACIA etc. that are widely used in slavic languages. The word TVORIT could be easily misinterpreted as "being" or "animal" (tvor, zviera, etc.) The root is very simple and understood in many languages. And other words could be easily done up by this root : KREATENIE, KREACIA, KREATOR etc.
TVOR = "the being (for example the animal) created", so there is no confusion. KREACIA, KREATIVNE, KREATIVNOST are certainly omnipresent in Slavic languages, but TVORIT is too (while KREATIT isn't).
ROK - has also slavic origin and cannot be misinterpreted with no one other word. No other slavic word is simmilar to this one so could be widely used as well.
It does have a word in can be misinterpreted with - it means "rock music" or "fate" in Russian.
TENU - is dative and accusative from TEN that e.g. Bulgarians use for ON and can be used as personal pronouns as well as demonstrative pronoun.
How the hell can Bulgarian outweigh east Slavic, west Slavic and western south Slavic?
Your JAGO, JEGO on the other hand are not regular.
Your personal and possessive pronouns are regular?
JEGO comes from those slavic langs that do not know letter H, that's why they use letter G instead that is very unpractical in modern world.
It's opposite - there are Slavic languages (Ukrainian, Belarusian, Czech, Slovak) that don't know the letter "g" in native Slavic words and use "h" instead. But they are definitely not a majority.
IDEA is more used in the world than IDEJA. Although, both are of slavic origin but the word IDEA came to some slavic langs in its original form, tha is more practical than using the word with letter -J in there.
IDEJA is more used in the Slavic world. If you want to use original words only, speak Latin and don't bother about creating anything new.
LENSI - is the same example as the word KIEN. This word comprises of the word LEN and ending of some words that have general meaning (Something like English SOME or ONE, etc.) that better represents the general meaning what we want to say. (LEN - only, just SI - some, one) This makes this word very easy for understanding when adopted.
It's funny I still don't know what it means, even if I know the meanings of its parts.
PRO - comes from latin lang. and is used in czech and some other slavic langs.
In which other Slavic langauges except Czech and Slovak is it used? I didn't manage to find any. DLA is east Slavic + Polish and no word is more widely popular in Slavic languages.
GADAT - is also of slavic origin and using the words idiomatic term "MAT SPOR" is too long and unpractical for common conversation.
Both are two-syllable, so don't speak about length. I didn't find any other langauge with "gadat" (to quarrel) than Czech and Slovak, but "spor" (a quarrel) was present in all branches, so I invented MAT SPOR.
It doesn't play a big role if these word are or not "most common" words in slavic languages. If you would use just what is "most common" in some slavic languages the other ones will not understand them anyway, so it will be just for some slavic countries and not for all of them. So, why do that this way ?
Yes, some people will not understand the most common Slavic word anyway, but there is a difference if 10 million don't understand it and if 200 million don't understand it.
I agree, maybe your words are more common among the majority of the slavic speakers but tell me, who will learn such a language that you created ?
It will take to majority of speakers to learn it several months, probably years to get used to it - and even after several years they will do a lot of mistakes, because your consept of the language is based on (or very close to)
slavic natural languages. And I tell you, accordance to my knowledge, even born slavs do a lot of mistakes in their mother tongues. A lot of Slovaks do a lot of mistakes in their own mother tongue. The same it is with the Czechs, Polish, Russians, Croats and Ukrainians.
Why, the hell, we should learn the same difficult as we have now ?
It doesn't make sense at all. If you try to teach anybody from the slavic countries your language - it will be immediately refused when he/she knows that its grammar is as difficult and irregular as his/her own mother tongue.
The young people are used to very simple communication and this communication in every language in the world leads to be more and more simle. So why keep our
difficult grammar structures in our mother tongues alive in our next common language ? Just a very few people would agree with it. The rest will learn something that is easy to learn and remember. Those times of difficult grammars are long time far away.
You cannot change thinking of young people to learn some difficult language even in the slavic countries.
I thought we spoke about vocabulary, and now you suddenly criticise Slovianski grammar, which is a totally different affair in this respect. Natural Slavic vocabulary and simple grammar don't contradict one another.
OK, I agree partly, but as far as I know you are not able to create word roots for every word. I ask you for that several times. Just roots not words with prefixes because then these words become unclear and difficult.
Just simple word roots from which we could make other derivates and terminology. Otherwise, these words in their traditional form become useless.
It will take to majority of speakers to learn it several months, probably years to get used to it - and even after several years they will do a lot of mistakes, because your consept of the language is based on (or very close to)
slavic natural languages. And I tell you, accordance to my knowledge, even born slavs do a lot of mistakes in their mother tongues. A lot of Slovaks do a lot of mistakes in their own mother tongue. The same it is with the Czechs, Polish, Russians, Croats and Ukrainians.
Why, the hell, we should learn the same difficult as we have now ?
Even if you speak Slovianski with lots of mistakes, I will understand you better than if you spoke S-lingva or Slovio.
It doesn't make sense at all. If you try to teach anybody from the slavic countries your language - it will be immediately refused when he/she knows that its grammar is as difficult and irregular as his/her own mother tongue.
Many of them don't refuse to learn the language thanks to which they can be understood by 980 million English speakers, the language thanks to which they can be understood by 120 million German speakers, the language thanks to which they can be understood by 400 million Spanish speakers, the language thanks to which they can be understood by 1,3 billion Chinese speakers, or the language thanks to which they can be understood by 175 million French speakers. So why would they refuse the language thaks to which they can be understood by hundreds millions of Slavs (because Slovianski is understood even if not actively learned by Slavic addressees)?
The young people are used to very simple communication and this communication in every language in the world leads to be more and more simle.
Show me some youth dialect of some Slavic language that has no genders, agreements, conjugations or irregularities.
So why keep our difficult grammar structures in our mother tongues alive in our next common language ? Just a very few people would agree with it.
Never mind. Thanks to Slovianski, I will be able to persuade them in a language they will understand.
The rest will learn something that is easy to learn and remember.
Show me some significant group of people who learned some langauge only because of its ease and regardless its other qualities.
Those times of difficult grammars are long time far away.
Ask English teachers! They will not agree with your opinion.
You cannot change thinking of young people to learn some difficult language even in the slavic countries.
I don't have to change their mind, they have already been faithfully learning and speaking difficult languages for a long time.
Yes, but the languages as English,German, Spanish have their own base of people that are born in surrounding speaking in these langs. Nobody is born in Slovianski surrounding. If you are born in natural surrounding with any language even very difficult - it will become for you native (natural) and you will speak in this lang without any big difficulties. But the difference it is with artificial languages. I am saying you again : no majority of people would learn difficult artificial langugage. And I am saying again this as well (as I did it several times in the past) - when you are born in natural surrounding with very or even extremely difficult language and you are brough up in such surrounding - it will NOT be any problem for you speaking in such language.
And this is the crucial difference between natural and artificial language.
So, do not compare two different thigs - natural and artificial languages
in that how many speakers are able to learn difficult langs. Yes, because they are national and native langs and those people are brought up with them since the childhood.
Yes, but the languages as English,German, Spanish have their own base of people that are born in surrounding speaking in these langs. Nobody is born in Slovianski surrounding.
What I spoke about wasn't speaking some language natively. I spoke about learning a foreign language as a second one. And today's young Slavs do learn English, do learn German, do learn Spanish in order to be understood by the speakers of these languages. So why wouldn't they learn Slovianski? Slovianski also has a natural base of people who understand it (even though they have never natively/actively learned it).
OK, so try to introduce your Slovianski to some young people from different slavic countries and you will see what is their response to that.
Yes, initially they might be interested but just what is its grammar and vocabulary. After knowing what this language is like they will change their meaning soon.
Have you ever tried it ?
After that knowing you would be able to say : " Yes, that's the language the people need for their communication". But never say it in advance - as you especially often do. What you say is just your own personal wish. But the reality can be somewhere else.
And if the words are goood - why not use them then ? Just because some people prefer more complicated ones ? The other millions will understand them anyway.
Oh sorry, I should probably no more try to post anything at night
Of course your conclusion was right, it means "to su dobre slova". I wanted to say that your words (their meaning) are not bad, but the language is not understandable.
kien (=quien) means who in Spanish, don't you know he's writing in some Latin-Slavic hybrid?
lensi = lenses obviously, like the lenses in your glasses
gadat = obviously it's what those gypsies do when they try to "predict your future" for a little bit of money
"To ne su nedobre slova" doesn't mean they are good, it just means they are not bad (in other words average)
Anyway, Ioannes, what's better:
A Russian understands 90% of the text
A Ukrainian understands 89% of the text
A Bulgarian understands 87% of the text
A Pole understands 92% of the text
etc.
and most of them don't know different words
OR:
A Russian understands 50% of the text
A Ukrainian who knows Russian understands 51% of the text
A Czech understands 60% of the text
Ioannes understands 100% of the text
Eugeniusx doesn't read the text and calls Ioannes a pahol
A Russian understands 50% of the text
A Ukrainian who knows Russian understands 51% of the text
A Czech understands 60% of the text
Ioannes understands 100% of the text
Eugeniusx doesn't read the text and calls Ioannes a pahol
the last two lines made me roll on the floor laughing
TO ALL SVIATOPLUK'S SONS: