Article on two new constructed languages: Slovio and Ulango/Mondlango
Dafydd ap Fergus
I'm a journalist specialist in languages, language politics and
related issues. Currently I'm trying to piece together an article on:
1) Slovio - a fairly new inter-slavic conlang
http://slovio.com
2) Mondlango/Ulango - an English-based hybrid Esperanto conlang.
http://mondlango.mysitespace.com
I would be very grateful, if you could give me your opinions on the
two languages. In the article, I want to quote experts/specialists in
the article).
Basic questions are:
Are Slovio/Mondlango "better" than other more commonly used conlangs
like Esperanto etc?
Why?
If you reply, please also copy your reply to (dafyddapfergus AT
esperanto.org). I would also appreciate information on your
nationality, background, languages spoken etc.
I thank you in advance.
Dafydd ap Fergus
dafyddapfergus AT esperanto.org
Erasmo Pinkerton
news:bc9bf5a4.03012...@posting.google.com...
> 1) Slovio - a fairly new inter-slavic conlang
> http://slovio.com
Based on a Latin/Romance grammatical and syntactical structure, rendering it
basically worthless as an auxlang for Slavic-speaking peoples. It's
essentially esperanto with a Slavic vocab, rather than a genuine attempt to
create a Slavic auxlang.
> 2) Mondlango/Ulango - an English-based hybrid Esperanto conlang.
> http://mondlango.mysitespace.com
Esperanto with a tweaked vocab. Why?
> Are Slovio/Mondlango "better" than other more commonly used conlangs
> like Esperanto etc?
> Why?
They're not better. They're basically modifications that confuse "slightly
different" with "amazingly better".
Donald J. Harlow
news:cXGY9.15979$QV3.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Sub la suno, nenio novas.
--
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html
http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/
Paul O. BARTLETT
> Dear all,
>
> I'm a journalist specialist in languages, language politics and
> related issues. Currently I'm trying to piece together an article on:
> 2) Mondlango/Ulango - an English-based hybrid Esperanto conlang.
> http://mondlango.mysitespace.com
I have only had the opportunity to glance at Mondlango so far, but
I intend to look at it more closely. I notice that in the comparison
of Mondlango to Esperanto, some of the most common objections to E-o
are there as well. I happen to agree with these objections. None of
them are insuperable, but no matter how often and how vigorously
Esperantists try to justify and defend the idiosyncratic accented
letters, people continue to object to (and even reject) them. I agree
with this objection more than all others. I have been around the
auxiliary language movement for years, and it is my considered opinion
that the E-o accented letter are a nuisance and a bother and are a
genuine hindrance to further acceptance of the language. They are more
trouble than they are worth. They need to be replaced if E-o is to get
out of the realm of a hobby language and into the realm of a genuine
international auxiliary language.
As for acceptance and use of some one or more constructed auxiliary
languages, I myself support the ideal. However, if past experience is
any guide, I am not optimistic.
--
Paul Bartlett
[en,ia,(un_peu_de_fr,iomete_da_eo),
{I have also studied some Latin and Greek}]
bartlett at smart.net
Paul O. BARTLETT
> On 25 Jan 2003, Dafydd ap Fergus wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm a journalist specialist in languages, language politics and
> > related issues. Currently I'm trying to piece together an article on:
>
> > 2) Mondlango/Ulango - an English-based hybrid Esperanto conlang.
> > http://mondlango.mysitespace.com
>
> I have only had the opportunity to glance at Mondlango so far, but
> I intend to look at it more closely. [...]
One thing I forgot to mention. Once Mondlango is stable, it needs
to be published in as many national/ethnic languages as possible. Many
auxiliary language projects are published in only one or a few
languages, so they do not reach many people. I would suggest these
languages for a *start*:
English, Putonghua, Russian, Bahasan, Japanese, Turkish, French,
Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, Esperanto, Interlingua, Hindi,
Urdu, Farsi, Arabic (various dialects), Swahili.
Of course, once the language takes off, it would need to be
published in many more national/ethnic tongues if it is truly intended
to be a global auxiliary language.
--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett at smart.net
Rex F. May
O. BARTLETT at bart...@smart.net wrote on 1/26/03 1:16 PM:
> On 25 Jan 2003, Dafydd ap Fergus wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm a journalist specialist in languages, language politics and
>> related issues. Currently I'm trying to piece together an article on:
>
>> 2) Mondlango/Ulango - an English-based hybrid Esperanto conlang.
>> http://mondlango.mysitespace.com
>
> I have only had the opportunity to glance at Mondlango so far, but
> I intend to look at it more closely. I notice that in the comparison
> of Mondlango to Esperanto, some of the most common objections to E-o
> are there as well. I happen to agree with these objections. None of
> them are insuperable, but no matter how often and how vigorously
> Esperantists try to justify and defend the idiosyncratic accented
> letters, people continue to object to (and even reject) them. I agree
> with this objection more than all others. I have been around the
> auxiliary language movement for years, and it is my considered opinion
> that the E-o accented letter are a nuisance and a bother and are a
> genuine hindrance to further acceptance of the language. They are more
> trouble than they are worth. They need to be replaced if E-o is to get
> out of the realm of a hobby language and into the realm of a genuine
> international auxiliary language.
>
I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
rm
Peter Kleiweg
> I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
> optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
Get rid of Esperanto. There are better languages a-plenty.
--
Peter Kleiweg L:NL,af,da,de,en,ia,nds,no,sv,(fr,it) S:NL,en,(da,de,ia)
codes explained: http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/ls.html
Paul O. BARTLETT
> > [concerning the accented letters in Esperanto:] They are more
> > trouble than they are worth. They need to be replaced if E-o is to get
> > out of the realm of a hobby language and into the realm of a genuine
> > international auxiliary language.
>
> I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
> optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
> rm
Zamenhof himself said that one could use the h-digraphs for the
circumflexed consonants and just omit the breve over the 'u'. I think
that this is as good a system as any, although I would go with those
people who use 'w' in place of u-breve. (In English, at least, 'w' has
a sound more or less like the esperantic u-breve.)
Erasmo Pinkerton
"Paul O. BARTLETT" <bart...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.030126...@smarty.smart.net...
...the problem being, of course, that 'u' is used for that sound in many
world languages, while English is one of the only ones to actually use 'w'
(which most languages that have it give a 'v' sound)
Garth Wallace
Redesign the language with a more accessible phoneme set.
--
Happy denizen of the Nightstar IRC Network
Webcomics discussion: irc://us.nightstar.net/webcomics
Progressive rock chat: irc://us.nightstar.net/progrock
Martial arts talk: irc://us.nightstar.net/martial-arts
The Quick & Dirty Guide to IRC:
http://himi.org/~gwalla/qndguide2irc.html
Kjell Rehnstrom
This is the best way to write Esperanto:
Tio chi estas la plej bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantagho estas ke
Zamenhof mem proponis ghin.
En la kazoj kiam oni povas erare legi, kiel pri "chas'hundo" oni povas fari
ghuste tiel, meti ' au - por distingigi du literojn.
Kjell R
Rex F. May
scribea...@telia.com wrote on 1/27/03 1:57 AM:
>> I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
>> optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
>> rm
>
> This is the best way to write Esperanto:
> Tio chi estas la plej bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantagho estas ke
> Zamenhof mem proponis ghin.
>
> En la kazoj kiam oni povas erare legi, kiel pri "chas'hundo" oni povas fari
> ghuste tiel, meti ' au - por distingigi du literojn.
>
Mi akordas. Mi mem skribas tiamaniere. Sed ne estas elegante. Ni bezonas
trovi skribmanieron kiu taugas la unu litero, unu sono ideo. Chu vi konas
la Bebsonan Alfabeton che http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Harbor/8459/ ?
rm
Kjell Rehnstrom
> (...)
> >
> Mi akordas. Mi mem skribas tiamaniere. Sed ne estas elegante. Ni bezonas
> trovi skribmanieron kiu taugas la unu litero, unu sono ideo. Chu vi konas
> la Bebsonan Alfabeton che http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Harbor/8459/ ?
> rm
Hmm, kushas la beleco en la okulo de la rigardanto. En la finna lingvo oni povas
skribi "raa'asti" kaj la finnan lingvon skribas jam pli ol 5 milionoj da homoj!
(Mi uzas tipan esperantecan argumentadon :-)
Kjell R
P.S. E dele naturalmente scribeassolum por akiri la ghustan adreson por cellus
apud telia com
Rex F. May
wrote on 1/27/03 8:15 AM:
> P.S. E dele naturalmente scribeassolum por akiri la ghustan adreson por cellus
> apud telia com
Jajks! Tradukon?
Kjell Rehnstrom
> in article 3E353EFC...@telia.com, Kjell Rehnstrom at cel...@telia.com
> wrote on 1/27/03 8:15 AM:
Skribu nur cellus che telia com por akiri la korektan adreson.
Rex F. May
skribun...@telia.com wrote on 1/27/03 10:09 AM:
Ahh - mia malbono.
Angelo LA MANNA
"Rex F. May" <rex...@attbi.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BA59AF1B.580F%rex...@attbi.com...
> in article Pine.LNX.4.21.030126...@smarty.smart.net, Paul
> I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
> optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
> rm
Zamenhof's idea was implement a system "one sound - one sign", but he was
wrong, if you consider affricatives as compound sounds, Esperanto has 25
sounds (taking no in account diphtonges) and 28 alphabetic signs. So it's
possible to reform esperantic alphabet, using 25 letters from basic latin
(it has 26!).
Best,
Angelo.
(Angelo (canonical Eo) /Anghelo - Angxelo - Ang^elo - Ang'elo (surrogate Eo)
/Andjelo (my modest proposal))
--
Angelo LA MANNA
angxelo1975 (a) hotmail.com
"neniun mi lasas senpuna"
[it, (eo, en), (es)]
Rex F. May
n...@spamu.min wrote on 1/27/03 2:26 PM:
>
>
> "Rex F. May" <rex...@attbi.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:BA59AF1B.580F%rex...@attbi.com...
>> in article Pine.LNX.4.21.030126...@smarty.smart.net, Paul
>
>
>> I completely agree. I'm sure you've tinkered with this. What would be the
>> optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
>> rm
>
> Zamenhof's idea was implement a system "one sound - one sign", but he was
> wrong, if you consider affricatives as compound sounds, Esperanto has 25
> sounds (taking no in account diphtonges) and 28 alphabetic signs. So it's
> possible to reform esperantic alphabet, using 25 letters from basic latin
> (it has 26!).
Indeed. What I'm wondering is what is everybody's optimum solution. In my
case, I'd want to end up changing as little as possible of the written
language ã I guess for esthetic reasons. Okay. Here's mine. Go thru the
whole language and replace the accented letters with their unaccented forms.
Then see how many minimal pairs have been messed up, and, on an ad-hoc
basis, fix them. I'd tend to give the letters these values:
change C from /ts/ to /tS/
change J from /j/ to /Z/
use X for /S/
replace accented u with w, of course.
use y for /j/
Obviously, there'd be a lot of changed spelling, but I'd like to hold that
to a minimum. Like, I wouldn't change citrono to tsitrono. I'd just give
it the new pronunciation.
rm
Ensjo
> Zamenhof's idea was implement a system "one sound - one sign", but he was
> wrong, if you consider affricatives as compound sounds, Esperanto has 25
> sounds (taking no in account diphtonges) and 28 alphabetic signs. So it's
> possible to reform esperantic alphabet, using 25 letters from basic latin
> (it has 26!).
>
> Best,
> Angelo.
> (Angelo (canonical Eo) /Anghelo - Angxelo - Ang^elo - Ang'elo (surrogate Eo)
> /Andjelo (my modest proposal))
[ia] Io presenta duo (2) propositiones de alphabeto sin diacriticos
pro EO in iste pagina:
http://www.nautilus.com.br/~ensjo/misc/sensupersigna.html
A revider,
Ensjo.
Kjell Rehnstrom
Le plus simple methodo es retener le methodo Zamenhof e solo inserer un - o un '
inter le litteras que non va esser legite appartemente. Per un tal systema
_pachoro_ deveni _pac'horo_ o _pac-horo_. Le avantage de iste systema es que on
debe solo apprender un nove cosa, e omne jam cognosce le systema Zamenhof.
Kjell R
Ensjo
> Ensjo wrote:
> > Io presenta duo (2) propositiones de alphabeto sin diacriticos
> > pro EO in iste pagina:
> >
> > http://www.nautilus.com.br/~ensjo/misc/sensupersigna.html
>
> Le plus simple methodo es retener le methodo Zamenhof e solo inserer un - o un
> ' inter le litteras que non va esser legite appartemente. Per un tal systema
> _pachoro_ deveni _pac'horo_ o _pac-horo_. Le avantage de iste systema es que on
> debe solo apprender un nove cosa, e omne jam cognosce le systema Zamenhof.
Nos tractava de un systema que mantene le correspondentia "un littera
-- un sono" sin necessitate de diacriticos, Kjell. Le systema
alternative de Zamenhof usa digraphos: "ch", "gh", etc. Non es iste le
caso.
Ensjo.
Milliones de personas comprende Interlingua
sin necessitate de studio previe!
http://www.interlingua.com/
Javier BF
> wrong, if you consider affricatives as compound sounds, Esperanto has 25
> sounds (taking no in account diphtonges) and 28 alphabetic signs. So it's
> possible to reform esperantic alphabet, using 25 letters from basic latin
> (it has 26!).
An affricate is, by definition, a single sound
consisting of a closure followed by a fricative
release at the same place of articulation. If a
language considers that complex articulation as
two separate sounds, then it is not an affricate
in that language. /tS/, /dZ/ and /ts/ are affricates
and each one phoneme in Esperanto. In English, only
/tS/ and /dZ/ are affricates, while /ts/ (as in
"pets") is two phonemes /t/+/s/ and not an
affricate. English makes a difference between the
affricate phoneme /tS/ (e.g. in "church") and the
combination of phonemes /t/+/S/, (e.g. in "petshop").
Cheers,
Javier
Garth Wallace
Technically, in X-SAMPA, /tS/ is always a sequence of two phonemes.
Affricates are shown in the same way as coarticulations, with an
underscore between the symbols: /t_S/.
http://www.diku.dk/hjemmesider/studerende/thorinn/xsamchart.gif
Prai Jei
news:3E34E671...@telia.com...
> > [snip]
> > What would be the
> > optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
> > rm
>
> This is the best way to write Esperanto:
> Tio chi estas la plej bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantagho estas
ke
> Zamenhof mem proponis ghin.
>
> En la kazoj kiam oni povas erare legi, kiel pri "chas'hundo" oni povas
fari
> ghuste tiel, meti ' au - por distingigi du literojn.
>
> Kjell R
>
>
My own substitutions would be as follows:
C TS
C^ TC
G^ J
H^ K
J Y
J^ X
S^ C
`U' W
The rather bizarre use of C and X comes from an old conlang of my own, Okru.
The original C and C^ are regarded as compounds, so get separated into TS
and TS^ respectively, then S^ gets replaced by the new C.
To transliterate Kjell's first response above:
> Tio tci estas la pley bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantajo estas ke
> Zamenhof mem proponis jin.
The ambiguity about "chas'hundo" no longer arises, the unambiguous spelling
is "tcashundo". Since there are no digraphs, the /s/ and /h/ must be
separate letters.
Jean-François Colson
"Prai Jei" <pvsto...@prai-jei.fsnet.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: b1hc5k$tre$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Kjell Rehnstrom" <scribea...@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:3E34E671...@telia.com...
> > > [snip]
> > > What would be the
> > > optimum way to get rid of the diacritics, in your opinion?
> > > rm
> >
> > This is the best way to write Esperanto:
> > Tio chi estas la plej bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantagho estas
> ke
> > Zamenhof mem proponis ghin.
> >
> > En la kazoj kiam oni povas erare legi, kiel pri "chas'hundo" oni povas
> fari
> > ghuste tiel, meti ' au - por distingigi du literojn.
> >
> > Kjell R
> >
> >
>
> My own substitutions would be as follows:
>
> C TS
> C^ TC
> G^ J
> H^ K
> J Y
> J^ X
> S^ C
> `U' W
I'd prefer the following:
A A
B B
C TS
Ĉ TX
D D
E E
F F
G G
Ĝ DJ
H H
Ĥ C
I I
J Y
Ĵ J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
R R
S S
Ŝ X
T T
U U
Ŭ W
V V
Z Z
The only unused letter is "Q".
But I'm convinced that most of the esperantists, including myself, are not
ready to accept such a useless reform.
>
> The rather bizarre use of C and X comes from an old conlang of my own,
Okru.
> The original C and C^ are regarded as compounds, so get separated into TS
> and TS^ respectively, then S^ gets replaced by the new C.
>
> To transliterate Kjell's first response above:
> > Tio tci estas la pley bona maniero skribi esperanton. La avantajo estas
ke
> > Zamenhof mem proponis jin.
> > Tio txi estas la MALpley bona maniero skribi esperanton. La MALavantadjo
estas ke Zamenhof mem NE proponis djin.
>
> The ambiguity about "chas'hundo" no longer arises, the unambiguous
spelling
> is "tcashundo". Since there are no digraphs, the /s/ and /h/ must be
> separate letters.
There is no ambiguity since the word ĉaŝundo [tSaSundo] doesn't exist.
And what should we do for Citserono and Tsicerono? (In the original of
Tintin in French their names are Dupond and Dupont.) ;-)
--
JoFo
jfcolson (a) belgacom.net