Zdrav Helleerick,
blagodarijm dla tvoja rekomendcia. No ale to bi ne soglosit so twoja Slovio verzia:
"(...) 2- Words should be reconstructed to their original form whenever it's possible: z'ena etc.
3- All the endings accord to a simple scheme:
noun: (the pure stem ending in a consonant, a, e, or o)
noun, plural -(i)s
noun, objective case -(j)u
noun, objective case, plural -(j)us
adjective -(i)j
adjective, possessive -(i)voj
adverb -(i)jo (i.e. adjective + -o)
verb, infinitive/present -(i)t
verb, future budet + verb
verb, conditional bi + verb
verb, imperative -(i)jte
etc. (...)"
"(...) 2- Words should be reconstructed to their original form whenever it's possible: z'ena etc.
3- All the endings accord to a simple scheme:
noun: (the pure stem ending in a consonant, a, e, or o)
noun, plural -(i)s
noun, objective case -(j)u
noun, objective case, plural -(j)us
adjective -(i)j
adjective, possessive -(i)voj
adverb -(i)jo (i.e. adjective + -o)
verb, infinitive/present -(i)t
verb, future budet + verb
verb, conditional bi + verb
verb, imperative -(i)jte
etc. (...)"
Yeah I know. I was designing that proposal for ones who are afraid of ambiguosity and are strong adherents of "backward reconstructability" of word derivates. (BTW, Slovio doesn't stick to it always, e.g. sometimes you can't say what the original verb was judging by its -enie nouns.) Personally I don't give a damn for it, but Esperantists and former Esperantists (like most Slovioists are) are touchy on that subject.
But since then Slovio moved in different direction (e.g. allowed to not use plural -s ending somtimes), and it wouldn't be a good idea to propose to take it back.
If we presume that the final consonant may be dropped, we naturally get the next scheme:
The main trouble are adjetctives. To create easy but natural-like adjective endings let's accept the next rule: "The adjective's ending is -j- plus final consonant of the noun it describes. If the noun has no vowel ending then you should rather expand ending -j to -ij". Examples:
(Similar endings were used by Glagolica. Note that the current Slovio's adjective ending becomes subject case adjective ending.) The rule is easy to use; it gives result that could be understood by ones who never studied Slovio; adjectives can't be confused with anything else; since the system gives additional information about relations between adjectives and nouns it makes possible to use more free word order.
Similar rule may be used for past tense verbs:
dom bil, domi bili kniga bila, knigi bili more bile, mori bili okno bilo, okni bili
I.e. the droppable endings aren't just useless appendices, but some kind of gender markers; which makes it useful it useful to expand some feminine zero-ending nouns: osen > osenia.
I already proposed similar ideas about a year ago.
Sorry, Hellerick, but it's not s-lingva system what you wrote.
S-lingva doesn't decline the nouns. They are in the same form and cases are done by auxilliary forms ( ov for genitive, om for dative, s for instrumental (in the meaning of "by").
I do not think it's a good system of declining the nouns. Someone might object it's not of slavic but I like the system keeping the words as possible as they are in their origins.
Another problem could appear with some words as they are not easily declined as it would seem (that's why I left them in their original forms)
E.g. with your " Pl., subject case: novju domiu, novju knigiu, novju moriu, novju okniu "
we should write : starju oteciju, or novju autiju, or mlodju mamiju ....
that sounds unnatural. That's why S-lingva keeps as few endings as possible.
that makes texts easy to read and understand.
I do not stand for extremely complicated words that could lead to misunderstanding(sometimes) or unable to predict what would fit there better
(prefix, infix, suffix).
And additional, your "more bile" could be easily misinterpreted as
"white sea" and not as "sea was...". Why not use general abbreviation of this
(- il) , with no additional letter in front and no additional letters behind : -a, -o, ...
Yes, this is another reason why I don't like this construction ... da already has its widely known meaning in Slavic languages. As far as I know, da is also an infinitive particle (English "to") in some south Slavic languages.
Cxtirju Zakon Gabrielogikum:
If you mix green, pink and orange (in RGB), the result will be objectively closest to orange. But it doesn't imply that the mixer discriminated green and pink, all colours were equal.
===
Esli Ti preferovajsx tri cvet od mnogju Ti ocxviduo diskrimnijsx bolsxost!
