Slovianski-P is a project of a constructed language to help Slavs intercommunicate. It was started in March 2006 by Ondrej Rečnik, who found Slovio ugly ...
This is written as an introduction in User:Gabriel Svoboda/Slovianski-P
web site.
I found this introduction tactless and arogant.
If I found something not with my opinion I won't criticise it for "ugliness"
that is total nonsense, intolerat and arogance but for that is particular different with one's meaning or idea.
Somebody from Slovio could in turn say that all the forms of Slovianski are ugly and non-practical.
What is ugly and what is not is just someone's subjective and relative opinion.
If I found something not with my opinion I won't criticise it for "ugliness"
Neither would I, but here it isn't just a matter of different opinions, but a matter of bad aesthetics - that's why I used the word "ugly". Because in Slovio, the least frequent letters of Slavic languages - f, x - become the most frequent ones.
But does it matter which one you use ?
You, basically, can use any ending you want.
What was good yesterday it doesn't have to be good today.
I am one who prefer modern educated advanced easy langauge with slavic base.
What's wrong on it ???
Some months ago I mentioned that not everything accordance with grammar and vocabulary is good that somebody thought out several hundreds years ago.
Why keep those non-practical and difficult "inventions".
I am for synonyms : 1 word fairly slavic
1 word international (if there is any used in one or more
slavic langs or even unknown but
known elsewhere in many other
countries in Europe)
International words should be adapted to the slavs with their scripts and pronunciation.
This is my idea of a such language. If somebody else has his own idea(s)I can just tolerate it but not accept.
Slovianski-P and Slovio compared :
Slovio often uses solutions that are a result of its inventors' arbitrary choice. This enables the simplification almost to the level of Esperanto. (More precisely, however, Slovio is among Slavic conlangs something what Novial is among Romance conlangs.) The final product is somewhat understandable, but the omnipresent f's, s's and x's are probably not what every Slav would find beautiful.
[edit]Slovianski-P and S-lingva compared :
S-lingva pretends to be schematically easy. However, it isn't because the learner has to memorise sinuglar nouns and infinitive verbs, whose endings are sometimes irretrievably lost in other forms - which should not be the case of a good schematic language. Some grammatical words are also a result of the author's arbitrary choice. The usage of many Anglo-Romance words is a speciality of S-lingva.
...........................................................................
These absurdities are still written on internet (on Slovianski web site).
As for it also concerns S-lingva I just want to ask Gabiel Svoboda if his language (mainly singular nouns) do not have to be memorized.
Almost every noun in sg. from Slovianski has to be memorized. If not (as it is alleged by G.S.) then every slav would be able to speak in this language straight away. And it's not true.
Secondly, there is written : " ... whose endings are sometimes irretrievably lost in other forms ..."
And now I introduce the example from his Slovianski's vocabulary where endings are irretrievably lost :
kniga > knižni)
človek > človečski
matka - matkin pes
televizija - televizioni
diskusija - diskusioni
dobri - dobrost
more - mora
pisanie - pisania
pismo - pisma
pes > p`si
nemec > nem`ci
poljak - Poljska - poljski
And these are just a few of them. Almost every noun is loosing its ending in declination, plural, in word derivation, etc.
That's fine, because the nominative is a more frequently used form.
Statistics state that a speaker will only use a word he's heard five times. Then they would hear it in the nominative several times before they use it.
S-lingva pretends to be schematically easy. However, it isn't because the learner has to memorise sinuglar nouns and infinitive verbs, whose endings are sometimes irretrievably lost in other forms - which should not be the case of a good schematic language.
In other words, you can irretrievably lose as many endings as you like - but then you should not (just as I do not) call the language "easy", "schematic" or "simple".
I have never written that S - lingva is schematic language.
....In other words, you can irretrievably lose as many endings as you like - but then you should not (just as I do not) call the language "easy", "schematic" or "simple".
I have NEVER called S-lingva "schematic". And as for "easy" and "simple" -
it is surely easier and simpler than Slovianski.
If anybody created absolutely easy or simple slavic language (that is more or less possible) then this language wouldn't be understandable without memorizing the words or grammar.
I agree with the opinion of crating supra-easy slavic lang (even easier than
esperanto) but the slavic people would have to learn it thoroughtly all over again, as some foreign language.
Maybe, but you have spoken about it as about a very easy and simple language, as about a Slavic Esperanto etc. No language can be a kind of Esperanto if it isn't schematic.
And as for "easy" and "simple" -
it is surely easier and simpler than Slovianski.
And that's the problem - for naturalists, it is not natural engouh, and for schematists, it is not easy and simple enough.
If anybody created absolutely easy or simple slavic language (that is more or less possible) then this language wouldn't be understandable without memorizing the words or grammar.
Do you imply S-lingva is understandable without memorising its words and grammar, or what?
I agree with the opinion of crating supra-easy slavic lang (even easier than
esperanto) but the slavic people would have to learn it thoroughtly all over again, as some foreign language.
You have recently claimed that you base S-lingva on the theory that people learn more easily what is totally foreign than what is familiar. So why don't you use this theory consistenly and why don't you create such supra-easy Slavic lang?
Takak mi vse vidili i cxitali v tut forum, egzistijut dva radikaluo protistanitsju metodis tvorenief om Vse-Slaviansk jazika.
1) jazika ktore es "prirodju" i maks-podobju s origju Slaviansk jazikas (SLOVIO-P ...) Soglosuo s tvoritelis tut jazika es maks prostju dla razumenie ot Slavianis, no plus slozxju dla ucxenie ot ne-Slavianis ibo imajt plus slozxju gramatia.
2) jazika ktor es maks rovn-merju i ktor imajt maks-prostju gramatia i upotrebijt mnoguo mezxu-narodju slovis. (Slovano...) Soglosuo s tvoritelis tut jazika es maks prostju dla ucxenie ot ne-slavianis no plus slozxju dla ucxenie ot Slavianis ibo imajt mnogju ne-Slaviansk elementis.
Dumajm zxe Slovio es kompromis, sredju dorog, mezx tut dva radikaluo proti-stanitsju omnenies. Dla prezxitie nasx ogromju Slaviansk naroduf, ja prosijm vse: soedinijme, i upotrebijme Slovio, ibo Slovio predlozxijt kompromisju resxenie tut vazxnju problemuf.
As for me, I could agree with roughly 3/4 of Slovio's vocabulary and part of its grammar. (but I am not sure if Slovio's representatives would agree with that)
I do not know what the opinion of Gabriel Svoboda, iopq, Hellerick or others to your offer.
Slovianski-P is a project of a constructed language to help Slavs intercommunicate. It was started in March 2006 by Ondrej Rečnik, who found Slovio ugly ...
===
the irremediable congenital defect of Slovianski is its pathological hatred against Slovio.
So it makes now sense to invite Slovianski because it is based on and driven by the rancour against and jealousy towards Slovio.
You have not substantiated this claim, so it's just your feeling. You're arguing from emotion, not based on anything in particular.
Here are actual arguments based on the SLOVIO DICTIONARY AND SLOVIO GRAMMAR
Slovianski has one of the two Slavic grammars, one with six noun cases and one with just one (nominative)
Slovio has a grammar with two cases, one being the nominative, the second being the Esperento directional case (not a Slavic grammar at all)
Slovianski has three genders
Slovio has one gender
Slovianski has consistent combination of zloto/broda/mlotit'/pre-
Slovio has completely random words like zlato/broda/molotit/pere- with no pattern to them
Another pattern that Slovio misses: scxastie, but sxtedrju
Slovianski has: ščastije, ščedri, when in every Slavic language the beginning of those two words is pronounced the same (if one language has sxt in one, it will hav sxt in the other)
Slovio copies Russian words when they are not understood by other Slavs: sobak, tuman
Slovianski uses the words that all Slavs understand, INCLUDING RUSSIANS: pes, mgla
I've talked about this months ago, but there has been no update to the Slovio dictionary
Gagoricki ( bilju Slovianski) orginalju zvuk:
Slovianski has one of the two Slavic grammars, one with six noun cases and one with just one (nominative)
Slovio has a grammar with two cases, one being the nominative, the second being the Esperento directional case (not a Slavic grammar at all)
===
otvetenie:
1. Wrong! Like English and Bulgarian does Slovio have two cases: the subjective and the objective case.
2. Although Slovio does not have the classic Latin case system its word order is as flexible as any natural Slavic language. The castrated, one-case variant of Gagoricki is not able to be so flexible. That is, to use Gabriels´ word, non-Slavic.
3. Esperanto was created by a Slavic language speaking person, therefore inspired by his mother tongue.
4. The Slovianski copy cat of Slovio, has the most complicated grammar ever existed under this sun: a mix of grammars one with 6 LATIN cases and one with none.
Yes ... my Slovianski developed from a bullshit to a natural language, while Slovio remained to be ... b ... b... ehm ... basically in its original form.
Gabriel gvorit pravda:
Yes ... my Slovianski developed from a bullshit ...
---
Nasx bilbi alhemist Gabriel mecxtat:
Yes ... my Slovianski developed from a bullshit to a natural language ...
===
In order to become a what ever language there are some preconditions required which your language does not fulfil, namely:
1. A sufficient vocabulary
just to copy Slovio or Russian texts and change the word endings is not enough.
2. A More or Less Solid Grammar and Orthography
3. At Least two Speakers to start with
4. A Realistic Assessment that Others Will Want to Learn this Construction
---
Leave alone that it is bullshit to reinvent the wheel, it is also wacky to assume that a sufficient number of people would like to learn a difficult "naturalistic" conlang..
A person with a common sense would instead learn a living existing Slavic language like Bulgarian or Russian.
... Slovianski has one of the two Slavic grammars, one with six noun cases and one with just one (nominative)
- Nonsense. You cannot have just nominative case in language. How do you express genitive then ? Of course, probably by preposition "od" but it's still
case, regardless what way you use.
... Slovianski has three genders
Slovio has one gender...
- why do you need gender for e.g. table, lamp, stone, soil, light, universe
or even such words as "love, sadness, illness, heartatack, flu, brain etc ?
- I wouldn't say anything having gender to " cow, horse, bull, etc. but having gender to words that are even not touchable or non-living things. A man or people who "invented" this had to be probably drunken or under drugs or something like that. I cannot imagine that someone gave some gender to such things. And even I wonder what was criterium for giving gender to e.g.
- ten stol, ten gorod, ta reka, ta pesna, etc. Even " ta rit'" - the buttock,
since men and women have the buttock so nobody can say it is "ten" or "ta".
Understandable is general "to" for words in which you cannot find the real gender ( ten, or ta ). If you look at S - lingva, the system that was done with gender in this language is based on biological racionality.
- Nonsense. You cannot have just nominative case in language. How do you express genitive then ? Of course, probably by preposition "od" but it's still
case, regardless what way you use.
Wikipedia: While all languages distinguish cases in some fashion, it is only customary to say that a language has cases when these are codified in the morphology of its nouns — that is, when nouns change their form to reflect their case. (Such a change in form is a kind of declension, hence a kind of inflection.)
- why do you need gender for e.g. table, lamp, stone, soil, light, universe
or even such words as "love, sadness, illness, heartatack, flu, brain etc ?
I don't know. As a would-be linguist, I only ask Slavs what they use, not why they use it.
Well, if you want to use gender for every noun then write in czech language and don't try to use your artificial one cause that the later one is the same nonsense in some parts of grammar as some parts of the slavic grammars regardless they are natural or artificial.
Takak mi vse vidili i cxitali v tut forum, egzistijut dva radikaluo protistanitsju metodis tvorenief om Vse-Slaviansk jazika.