Slavic mutual intelligibility
Tristan Miller
I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
more distant than others.
Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's chances of
understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic languages as
well? In other words, speakers of which Slavic language tend to have the
greatest range of comprehension of other Slavic languages?
(*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both alphabets
and their variations, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)
--
\\\ Tristan Miller [en, (fr, de, ia)]
\\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ (personal)
\\\ http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~psy/ (academic)
Grzegorz Zagajewski
- Slovak
- Belorussian and Ukrainian (both in Cyrillic)
- Czech
- Russian (in Cyrillic)
I don't know how about Slovene, Serbian (in Cyrillic), Croatian, Bulgarian
(in Cyrillic) and others.
GZ
Dafydd ap Fergus
> Greetings.
>
> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
> more distant than others.
>
> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
> extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's chances of
> understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic languages as
> well? In other words, speakers of which Slavic language tend to have the
> greatest range of comprehension of other Slavic languages?
>
> (*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both alphabets
> and their variations, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Tristan,
I'm learning to read several Slavic languages - it is useful and much
easier than acquiring an active knowledge (that may come later).
Good luck!
Dafydd
Michael Farris
>
> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
> more distant than others.
The thing to remember is that while everyday vocabulary in Romance
tends to vary quite a bit as you get to more "Educated" vocabulary
they converge. In Slavic, it's the reverse, the more everyday
vocabulary is much closer than the "educated" vocabulary. So in many
ways it doesn't matter which you learn first, the educated vocabulary
you learned in Croatian won't help you very much in Russian (for
example)
Also, comprehension of other slavic languages is also a function of
pragmatic socio-linguistic factors as much as (or more than) simple
linguistic ones.
Czechs understand Polish much better than Poles understand Czech I
think mostly because Czechs are more used to hearing a wider variety
of types of Czech (literary and spoken in a variety of regional forms,
not to mention Slovak, which they're also used to hearing) while Poles
are mostly used to just hearing standard Polish (dialects have had a
hard time the last 50 years or so in Poland).
That said, I would eliminate Bulgarian/Macedonian on structural
grounds, and Polish on general grounds and probably Byelorussian on
practical grounds.
I read once that Slovak is the western Slavic langauge with the
largest Eastern influence. Maybe that? (Or Ukrainian, or Slovak and
Ukrainian at the same time?)
-michael farris
Tristan Miller
On Monday 12 May 2003 19:07, Grzegorz Zagajewski wrote:
> Most similar languages to Polish are, in this order:
>
> - Slovak
> - Belorussian and Ukrainian (both in Cyrillic)
> - Czech
> - Russian (in Cyrillic)
Can you give me some idea of how "similar" we're talking here? For example,
about what percent of a typical Slovakian (Ukrainian, Russian, etc.) news
broadcast would you understand?
I'm also surprised to see Belorussian and Ukrainian wedged between Czech and
Slovak. Whenever I've seen parallel texts of the latter two, they looked
almost identical. Then again, my experience with such bitexts is limited
to things like juice bottles and candy bars...
Grzegorz Zagajewski
> we're talking here? For example, about what
> percent of a typical Slovakian (Ukrainian,
> Russian, etc.) news broadcast would you
> understand?
I once listened to Radio Polonia that broadcast news in Ukrainian and
Belorussian (
http://www.wrn.org/listeners/stations/station.php?StationID=16 ) and I was
able to understand several phrases, then I got lost for 2-3 phrases, and
again I understood several phrases. Some sentences are almost identical to
Polish. The main difference is strong Russian-like accent that doesn't exist
in Polish, and that makes words harder to understand.
Slovak is easy to understand for me (no strong accent). It is similar to
Czech but has more Polish-like word endings. In some regions of the Czech
Republic it's easy to understand people, for example in Moravy. But in
Prague the way people talk is harder to understand. Let's say I can
understand the sense of 50% of Czech phrases and about 50% of words. For
Slovak it's - let's say - 75% of phrases and 55% of words.
For Russian it's 25% (phrases) and 35% (words).
These figures are only for illustrative purposes. They were not taken from
any research.
GZ
Cellus Purfluxius
>Greetings.
>
>I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
>various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
>more distant than others.
>
I have heard that it is Slovakian.
I have heard people speaking Polish in Bulgaria and they make themselves
understood. To me the languages should be too distant, but it works for
the native speakers.
Cellus P
Federico Zenith
> Greetings.
>
> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
> more distant than others.
>
> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
> extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's chances of
> understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic languages as
> well? In other words, speakers of which Slavic language tend to have the
> greatest range of comprehension of other Slavic languages?
>
> (*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both alphabets
> and their variations, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
Someone once told me that there is only one language from Trieste to
Vladivostok - yet a colleague of mine from Czechia simply said "no way",
so did all east-europeans I asked. She added that today's children in
Czechia do not longer understand Slovak, as there are no more
tv-transmission in Slovak in Czechia (and conversely in Czech in Slovakia).
Though, I heard from other sources that Polish and Russian are almost
mutually understandable.
cheers
-Federico
ruffnready
> Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
>> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
>> more distant than others.
> The thing to remember is that while everyday vocabulary in Romance
> tends to vary quite a bit as you get to more "Educated" vocabulary
> they converge. In Slavic, it's the reverse, the more everyday
> vocabulary is much closer than the "educated" vocabulary.
Very wise observation.
> So in many ways it doesn't matter which you learn first,
> the educated vocabulary you learned in Croatian won't help
> you very much in Russian (for example)
Not that straightforward. In one case Bulgarian or Serbian
would appear closer to Russian (due to Old Church Slavonic),
yet Polish might occur more similar in another (German or Latin
loanwords).
RR
Michael Farris
> understood. To me the languages should be too distant, but it works for
> the native speakers.
That's another good point.
I'm fluent enough in Polish as a second language.
A few years ago I went for a trip to Prague with a Polish friend.
Beforehand, I actually spent a fair amount of time trying to learn
some Czech (and a background in linguistics meant I got very good at
recognizing written cognates). My friend (could not be less interested
in linguistics, but did once know Russian pretty well) didn't prepare
at all.
In Prague, I could deal with written signs better, but I was hopeless
at conversing with anyone in Czech (or understanding the simplest kind
of shopping interactions) while my friend could establish face-to-face
communication (at a basic level but he could understand and make
himself understood far better than I could).
Oh, and my Czech accent stunk. When I tried using Czech I usually got
stares of incomprehension, if I said what I wanted in slow, simple
Polish it was understood ....
Oh, and if you speak a Slavic language as a second language, learning
another is a bitch in that you get them hopelessly confused. My
dabbling in Czech had unintended consequences on my Polish in that
bits and pieces would pop out at odd times for some time afterwards.
-michael farris
Henry Polard
Federico Zenith <fede...@Nonmispammare.capito.mi.hai?> wrote:
To quote Henry Gleason: "90% of mutual intelligibility is willingness to
intellige."
The social status of a language might play a role in comprehension.
Perhaps the mutal antagonism of the Czechs and Slovaks contributes to
their lack of mutual intelligibility.
Henry Polard || Tin ears anonymous.
Tristan Miller
On Monday 12 May 2003 22:46, Michael Farris wrote:
> Oh, and if you speak a Slavic language as a second language, learning
> another is a bitch in that you get them hopelessly confused. My
> dabbling in Czech had unintended consequences on my Polish in that
> bits and pieces would pop out at odd times for some time afterwards.
I can only imagine the problems that would cause me. I'm currently learning
both Hungarian and German. They could hardly be more unrelated, and yet I
often find myself accidentally speaking Hungarian in German class and vice
versa. The German class finds this hilarious, because at the beginning of
the semester I had implored the teacher not to teach in Hungarian as I
didn't understand it. The Hungarian class is more forgiving, because we
have students with a wide range of mother tongues, and two teachers who
between themselves speak English, German, Hungarian, Slovakian, Finnish,
and Russian. The Slavic and German students regularly ask questions in
Russian and German, respectively.
One disadvantage of learning German in Budapest is that my German has
assumed a Hungarian accent. The other students in my German class are
mostly Hungarian, and tend to roll every R even when it would normally be
non-rhotic ("Err ist derr Lehrrerr, derr mirr frragt..."). After hearing
this for three months, I sometimes find myself doing it as well, despite
knowing it's non-standard and making concerted attempts to correct myself.
Peter T. Daniels
> To quote Henry Gleason: "90% of mutual intelligibility is willingness to
> intellige."
If you're referring to the author of the celebrated textbook, he's
whittled himself down to "Al Gleason" by now. (Initially Henry Allan
Gleason, Jr.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Gerard van Wilgen
"Grzegorz Zagajewski" <Grzegorz....@indigo.pl> wrote in message
news:b9okbq$oen$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
[en]
I think that Polish, Slovak and Czech are usually classified as "Western
Slavic", Russian, Ukrainian and White Russian as "Eastern Slavic", and
Slovenian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian as "Southern Slavic".
[eo]
Mi kredas ke la pola, slovaka kaj chehha estas ghenerale klasifikitaj kiel
"okcidentslava", la rusa, ukraina kaj belorusa kiel "orientslava", kaj la
slovena, bulgara kaj serbkroata kiel "sudslava."
Gerard van Wilgen
www.majstro.com (Konciza multlingva tradukvortaro)
mb
...
> yet a colleague of mine from Czechia simply said "no way",
> so did all east-europeans I asked. She added that today's children in
> Czechia do not longer understand Slovak, as there are no more
> tv-transmission in Slovak in Czechia (and conversely in Czech in Slovakia).
Even less credible, in the way of nationalist talk, as a Lombard
pretending not to understand Piemontese.
Radovan Garabik
> Tristan Miller wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
>> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
>> more distant than others.
>>
>> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
>> extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's chances of
>> understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic languages as
>> well?
Too bad there is nothing like Slavic Interlingua (or to be more precise,
there are several such languages constructed, but none with the same degree
of coverage and quality as Interlingua)
>> In other words, speakers of which Slavic language tend to have the
>> greatest range of comprehension of other Slavic languages?
>> i
see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=m4h3ha.esb.ln%40127.0.0.1&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i8coha.6n3.ln%40127.0.0.1&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ahv1tn%24qq8%241%40news2.tpi.pl&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=o0j3ha.0hc.ln%40127.0.0.1&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=08l3ia.g9g.ln%40127.0.0.1&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ai6fok%2411q4kh%241%40ID-147738.news.dfncis.de&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
which are some (naïve) comparisions I did some time ago
>> (*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both alphabets
>> and their variations, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)
>>
>
> Someone once told me that there is only one language from Trieste to
> Vladivostok - yet a colleague of mine from Czechia simply said "no way",
actually, there is a continuum from the Czech language to Ukrainian
(Russyn being the transitional dialect between eastern Slovak and Ukrainian,
estern Slovak being transitional between middle/standard Slovak and
Russyn, etc...)
> so did all east-europeans I asked. She added that today's children in
> Czechia do not longer understand Slovak, as there are no more
> tv-transmission in Slovak in Czechia (and conversely in Czech in Slovakia).
There is still a lot of Czech language TV programming being aired in
Slovakia, but only little Slovak TV programming in the Czech Republic.
It all boils down to (un)familiarity with the accent and intonation.
>
> Though, I heard from other sources that Polish and Russian are almost
> mutually understandable.
>
Recently, I had an opportunity to meet some polish linguists and
computer scientists. As a general rule, linguists (no matter what
specialization) did understand slowly spoken Slovak, computer
scientists did not.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Dafydd ap Fergus
> > Vladivostok - yet a colleague of mine from Czechia simply said "no way",
> > so did all east-europeans I asked. She added that today's children in
> > Czechia do not longer understand Slovak, as there are no more
> > tv-transmission in Slovak in Czechia (and conversely in Czech in Slovakia).
> >
> > Though, I heard from other sources that Polish and Russian are almost
> > mutually understandable.
>
> To quote Henry Gleason: "90% of mutual intelligibility is willingness to
> intellige."
>
> The social status of a language might play a role in comprehension.
> Perhaps the mutal antagonism of the Czechs and Slovaks contributes to
> their lack of mutual intelligibility.
>
> Henry Polard || Tin ears anonymous.
I agree. Also, when people talk of 'mutual intelligibility' between
languages they often do so assuming a 'Polish' or 'Slovenian' speaker
has made absolutely no effort to learn to understand another Slav
language. Sadly, Slavs mostly learn languages higher up the linguistic
ladder (English, French, and German). Yet with a little effort you can
understand a lot more in the different languages (that is also true
for Welsh and Breton, for example, although to a speaker of one of
these languages, who has not made an effort to learn the other, there
may appear to be no 'mutual intelligibility').
Dafydd
gec
>
> I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
> various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
> more distant than others.
>
> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
> extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's chances of
> understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic languages as
> well? In other words, speakers of which Slavic language tend to have the
> greatest range of comprehension of other Slavic languages?
What I've heard is that Ukrainian has the most in common with the rest
of the Slavic languages. (I know Russian well as a second language,
and I have studied Ukrainian.) But in any case I think the divide
between the South Slavic languages and the rest is a steep one --
centuries of being separated by Hungarian and Romanian speaking areas
will do that.
I was surprised when Ukrainian friends told me that the one Slavic
language they had the *most* trouble understanding was Polish! But it
makes sense: Polish is quite distinct phonologically, with the nasal
vowels and high frequency of sibilants. One American friend who
doesn't understand any Slavic language told me, just based on
listening to the sounds of TV broadcasts, that Polish sounded a little
like Portuguese sounded. So perhaps Ukrainian speakers find Polish
similar to how Spanish speakers find Portuguese, with the added
problem that potential ease of reading comprehension is inhibited by
the different alphabets.
Viliam Bur
> > Vladivostok - yet a colleague of mine from Czechia simply said "no way",
> > so did all east-europeans I asked.
Tio estus simile al diri: "Estas nur unu lingvo en okcidenta Eu'ropo -
la Latina." ;-) Se vi komprenas neniu el la lingvoj, vi eble
kredus tion...
This would be like to say: "There is only one language in western
Europe - the Latin." If you wouldn't know any of those languages,
perhaps you could believe it...
> > She added that today's children in
> > Czechia do not longer understand Slovak, as there are no more
> > tv-transmission in Slovak in Czechia (and conversely in Czech in Slovakia).
>
> The social status of a language might play a role in comprehension.
> Perhaps the mutal antagonism of the Czechs and Slovaks contributes to
> their lack of mutual intelligibility.
Bonvolu... vi parolas pri infana komprenebleco de fremda lingvo. Tio
necesas iomete plu ol nur bonaj rilatoj.
Pri kelk-jaraj infanoj ni parolas? 3-jara infano komprenas nur sian
lingvon (se g'i ne estas dulingva). 12 jara slovaka [c'eh'a] infano
komprenas lau' mi pli ol 80% de c'eh'a [slovaka] lingvo.
Kiam la nacioj estis en unu s'tato, ili havis komunan televidon kaj
radion... tio estis por infanoj (kiuj sidas ofte c'e televido) iomete
simila al dulingveco, do ili komprenis pli bone kaj pli multe ol nunaj
infanoj. Sed tio nur rilatas al kiom da tempo ili au'skultas la duan
lingvon.
Please... you speak about how much do children understand foreign
language. This requires a little more than just friendly relations.
How many years old children do we talk about? A 3-years old child will
understand his/her language only (if he/she is not bilingual). 12
years old Slovak [Czech] child will understand in my opinion more than
80% of the Czech [Slovak] language.
When the nations were in one state, they had common TV and radio... so
for children (who spent a lot of time by TV) this was kind of similar
to bilingualism, so they did understand better and more than children
of these days. But this only depends on how many time they spend
listening the other language.
Cellus Purfluxius
I have tried to learn some Czech on my own, and as an amatour speaker of
Polish I could make myself understood in Prague quite well. I could
understand nearly all the signs I saw and I could read the Newspapers
(and understand them)
If you are a native speaker of a Slavic language you don't nead much
work to understand other languages, you have to get acquanted with them.
Cellus P.
helge willkowei
> ("Err ist derr Lehrrerr, derr mirr frragt...").
Should be: Err ist derr Lehrerr, derr mich frragt. ;-)
-helge
Tristan Miller
Never underestimate the propensity of second-language learners to make case
errors. I do indeed hear constructions like the above in every class,
sometimes from my own mouth. :)
Raymond Roy
<psych...@nothingisreal.com> écrivit :
>Greetings.
>
>I've been told that there is a fair degree of intelligibility among the
>various Slavic languages, though naturally some pairs will be closer or
>more distant than others.
>
>Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the best
>extant Slavic...
I don't know about the best *extant* Slavic language for you to learn,
but I can recommend you the best *extinct* Slavic language, namely Old
Church Slavonic (the language of the first Slavic Bible back in the 10th
century). It is the key to all modern Slavic languages, like Latin is
the key to all Romance languages.
Knowing all the basic roots of the Slavonic languages will open you the
doors of any other language of this group and facilitate learning. Be
aware also that the grammatical difficulties of a given Slavonic
language are the same in all the others. In other words, once you have
understood the difference between perfective and imperfective verbs or
once you have discovered that quantity and numbers demand genitive in
Slovenian, you have understood the same for Ukrainian or Czech as well.
Get notions of Old Church Slavonic and you'll understand a lot, for
instance why why there are nasal vowels in Polish.
Resources abound on the Net, for instance
http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/oldchurch.html
Raymond
Tristan Miller
In article <3ec24562...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Raymond Roy wrote:
> I don't know about the best *extant* Slavic language for you to learn,
> but I can recommend you the best *extinct* Slavic language, namely Old
> Church Slavonic (the language of the first Slavic Bible back in the 10th
> century). It is the key to all modern Slavic languages, like Latin is
> the key to all Romance languages.
Yes, but will speakers of any modern Slavic languages understand me if I
speak to them in Old Church Slavonic? At least with Russian, for example,
even if the Slovenes won't understand me, then at least there are several
million people on the planet who can.
You raise an interesting point, though. I doubt any English speaker would
understand anything at all if they were addressed with English and German's
most recent common ancestor, even though they're both Germanic languages.
On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some variety
of Latin, though the French and Romanians might have more problems.
Cellus Purfluxius
>Greetings.
>
>In article <3ec24562...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Raymond Roy wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know about the best *extant* Slavic language for you to learn,
>>but I can recommend you the best *extinct* Slavic language, namely Old
>>Church Slavonic (the language of the first Slavic Bible back in the 10th
>>century). It is the key to all modern Slavic languages, like Latin is
>>the key to all Romance languages.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but will speakers of any modern Slavic languages understand me if I
>speak to them in Old Church Slavonic? At least with Russian, for example,
>even if the Slovenes won't understand me, then at least there are several
>million people on the planet who can.
>
>You raise an interesting point, though. I doubt any English speaker would
>understand anything at all if they were addressed with English and German's
>most recent common ancestor, even though they're both Germanic languages.
>On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some variety
>of Latin, though the French and Romanians might have more problems.
>
Le russos lege le Slavico ecclesiastic in un pronunciation multo simile
al russo, non con le nasales etc. e in iste caso le pronunciation a mi
aures es multo simile a rosso moderne e comprensibile.
Amicalmente
Cellus P.
Federico Zenith
> You raise an interesting point, though. I doubt any English speaker would
> understand anything at all if they were addressed with English and German's
> most recent common ancestor, even though they're both Germanic languages.
> On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some variety
> of Latin, though the French and Romanians might have more problems.
Actually I had Latin for 5 years in high school (hated it), and I can
safely say that no, they would only grasp some similar words, as much as
they could do with, say, English. The differences are great, for
instance there is no article in Latin, whereas they swarm in Italian,
much more than in any other language I know: when I speak a foreign
language, I have always to push an "article-brake". In Latin there were
6 cases and 5 declensions, none of this is left in Italian (except
personal pronouns, as in German ich/mich/mir). Latin had only a
subjunctive, in Italian there is a subjunctive and a conditional.
You feel 2000 years of language evolution... :-)
-Federico
Nicola Nobili
> Yes, but will speakers of any modern Slavic languages understand me if I
> speak to them in Old Church Slavonic?
In the Orthodox countries, Old Church Slavonic is still used in
churches, therefore most people would be able to recognise at least some
sentences and follow you if you deal with certain topics. Needless to say,
though, they mostly memorise prayers and the alike, more or like in the same
way as my mum learnt a lot of Latin prayers by heart when she was a child.
> On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some
variety
> of Latin
It depends on how you pronounce Latin. If you stick to the Medieval
pronunciation (the one currently used by the Vatican), then much of it is
understandable, and indeed, once I was astonished to notice some Polish
priests were able to muddle through with some average Italians by resorting
to Latin (!). If you use the classical pronunciations, things become much
harder...
Regards,
Nicola
--
Multa non quia difficilia sunt non audemus, sed quia non audemus sunt
difficilia (Seneca).
[it, en, ru, es, (fr, pt, la, zh, ar)]
Zmicier Lapcionak
TM> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the
TM> best extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's
TM> chances of understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic
TM> languages as well?
IMHO you may try Belarusian.
First, you cover the neighbours Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian.
(I've no info about other Slavic langs)
Second, the Belarusian really has not changed a lot during centures.
Note, this is not an opinion of language expert! :-)
Moreover, I am Belarus-engaged.
You may start from <http://pravapis.org/>
TM> (*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both
The Belarusian has both the Latin and Cyrillic writings.
<http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~np214/lacin.htm>
--
Zmitro [by, en, eo, io, ru]
Zm...@tut.by <http://zmila.at.tut.by>
Deziri komenci labori - estas diagnozo.
Ruud Harmsen
<Grzegorz....@indigo.pl>: in sci.lang:
>Most similar languages to Polish are, in this order:
>
>- Slovak
>- Belorussian and Ukrainian (both in Cyrillic)
>- Czech
>- Russian (in Cyrillic)
Does that mean that Slovak and Czech are more different than Slovak
and Ukranian, Slovak and Belorussian?
--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm 11 May 2003
Jim Tyson
> Tristan Miller wrote:
> > You raise an interesting point, though. I doubt any English speaker would
> > understand anything at all if they were addressed with English and German's
> > most recent common ancestor, even though they're both Germanic languages.
> > On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some variety
> > of Latin, though the French and Romanians might have more problems.
>
> Actually I had Latin for 5 years in high school (hated it), and I can
> safely say that no, they would only grasp some similar words, as much as
> they could do with, say, English.
The most recent common ancestors of Italian and the other modern
Romance languages are vulgar Latin languages, not classical Latin of
the sort that's usually taught in schools. It's entirely predictable
that you would not understand much classical Latin on the basis of
your competence in modern Italian.
> The differences are great, for
> instance there is no article in Latin, whereas they swarm in Italian,
There were articles in vulgar Latin - the differences between the
Vulgar Latin varieties accounts for the difference between Romanian
with it's postposed cliticised articles and other modern romance
Languages.
> much more than in any other language I know: when I speak a foreign
> language, I have always to push an "article-brake". In Latin there were
> 6 cases and 5 declensions, none of this is left in Italian (except
> personal pronouns, as in German ich/mich/mir).
Right and in the late period of vulgar Latin this case system appears
to have broken down into two cases - a nominative and an oblique case
very unlike the classical system and dare I suggest much more like
Italian!
> Latin had only a
> subjunctive, in Italian there is a subjunctive and a conditional.
>
> You feel 2000 years of language evolution... :-)
You certainly do. Questions about intelligibility are clouded by a
host of subjective factors - you for example hated Latin at school.
My first visit to Italy I found it very useful when I didn't have a
vocabulary item to try working it out from the Latin given that I had
several years of Latin and only a few weeks of Italian learning behind
me. In some cases Italians noticed what I was doing and one or two
commented on it and joined in "the game" - using latinate forms to
help me out. I certainly progressed quickly in reading Italian
because in formal registers even classical Latin is an immense help
with vocabulary.
But I'm really trying to agree with you - Classical Latin is quite
likely not readily intelligible to an Italian speaker without
instruction but we should be aware that it's not the classical variety
that matters - it's the vulgar Latin dialects that we should be
looking at.
>
> -Federico
Jim
Marco Cimarosti
> Tristan Miller wrote:
> [...]
> > On the other hand, I imagine Italian speakers might understand some variety
> > of Latin, though the French and Romanians might have more problems.
>
> Actually I had Latin for 5 years in high school (hated it), and I can
And, in most cases, the meaning of these similar words is completely
different from their Italian counterparts... "False friends" are the
rule in Latin lexicon as seen by Italian speakers.
The passage from Latin to Italian (and other Romance language)
involved huge semantic shifts. The meaning of words was often reduced
to the most simple everyday "material" meaning. E.g., Italian "cosa"
and French "chose" ("thing", "object") come from Latin "causa"
("cause", "reason"); Italian "formaggio" and French "fromage"
("cheese") come from Latin "formaticus" ("something which took its
shape from a mould").
All the most abstract meanings were simply forgotten, because Romance
languages for centuries were just vernaculars used by peasants. Later
on, when a few Romance dialects evolved into literary languages, brand
new lexicons for abstract concepts were created from scratch.
Ciao.
Marco
Cellus Purfluxius
For what it is worth Classical Latin reminds me very much of Russian and
Polish. I have often that feeling when I browse through the Latin books
I own.
Cellus P.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Russian or Polish?
ruffnready
> Cellus Purfluxius wrote:
[...]
>> For what it is worth Classical Latin reminds me very much of Russian and
>> Polish. I have often that feeling when I browse through the Latin books
>> I own.
> Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
> Russian or Polish?
Latin <struit> - Russian <stroit> '(he) builds'
RR
Cellus Purfluxius
>Tristan Miller (=TM) skribis:
>
> TM> Ignoring the Roman/Cyrillic split in orthography*, what would be the
> TM> best extant Slavic language to learn if one wanted to maximize one's
> TM> chances of understanding the written and/or spoken text of other Slavic
> TM> languages as well?
>
>IMHO you may try Belarusian.
>First, you cover the neighbours Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian.
>(I've no info about other Slavic langs)
>Second, the Belarusian really has not changed a lot during centures.
>
>Note, this is not an opinion of language expert! :-)
>Moreover, I am Belarus-engaged.
>
>You may start from <http://pravapis.org/>
>
> TM> (*I imagine this is a non-issue provided one is familiar with both
>
>The Belarusian has both the Latin and Cyrillic writings.
><http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~np214/lacin.htm>
>
At first when I read something in Byelorussian I thought it was more or
less Russian as you pronounce it :-) but then I observed the pronouns,
and that is rather a Polish tilt to them.
About Ukrainian: what you will hear on the radio is quite easy to
understand if you know Russian, but talk to people from the countryside,
then you've got to be very good at Russian (provided you don't know
Ukrainian) to be able to understand them.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
> Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
> Russian or Polish?
>
In Polish you can say thing like "Co placzesz" (Why are you crying)
which is an exact correspondence to latin "Quid ploras?"
Compare p'et', zap'et' in Russian to Latin cano, canto etc. As I
understand one cannot say that Latin verbs have aspects like in Russian,
but different sorts of actions can be shown by various morphemes.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
Ah and the way you can use certain prepositions: Sub Upsaliâ ambulo. and
Pol Upsaloy gul'ayu. Where "sub" and "pod" means around a town or city.
People must have seen the towns like castles and outside the town one
was under it.
Cellus P.
Tristan Miller
In article <d6305c73.03051...@posting.google.com>, Jim Tyson
wrote:
> My first visit to Italy I found it very useful when I didn't have a
> vocabulary item to try working it out from the Latin given that I had
> several years of Latin and only a few weeks of Italian learning behind
> me. In some cases Italians noticed what I was doing and one or two
> commented on it and joined in "the game" - using latinate forms to
> help me out.
I think this works for any European language. I can speak German and
French, but by no means fluently, so when I do I am frequently forced to
guess word forms based on probable Latinate cognates. Needless to say, the
chances of spontaneously coming up with a correct word are significantly
higher for French than for German. I've found it even works for Hungarian,
despite its scarcity of Latinate loans. The Hungarians and Germans are
happy to oblige me with this activity, and will deliberately seek out
Latinate forms to use when speaking with me. For example, in my language
classes it is typical for the teachers to define new terms with native
roots by giving a Latinate near-synonym (e.g. der Brauch -> die Tradition).
Wiktor S.
> > Russian or Polish?
> >
> In Polish you can say thing like "Co placzesz" (Why are you crying)
In very colloquial language.
Normally, it should be "czemu/dlaczego placzesz".
--
Azarien
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ruffnready wrote:
>
> >"M. Ranjit Mathews" wrote:
> >>Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
> >>Russian or Polish?
> >
> > Latin <struit> - Russian <stroit> '(he) builds'
How interesting! English "construct" has the same etymology.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: 1con新truct
Pronunciation: k&n-'str&kt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin constructus, past participle of construere, from com-
+ struere to build -- more at STRUCTURE
Date: 1663
1 : to make or form by combining or arranging parts or elements :
BUILD
> Ah and the way you can use certain prepositions: Sub Upsali ambulo. and
> Pol Upsaloy gul'ayu. Where "sub" and "pod" means around a town or city.
I don't see "pod" in your phrases.
I'm not having luck translating these to English using Poltran.
http://www.poltran.com/pl.php4
Cellus Purfluxius
I believe you. I actually heard it. But the point is that when I saw
this construction in Latin I was amased. I had not expected it. But this
is just one of the Slavic traits of Latin, as I see it.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote ...
>
>
>>ruffnready wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"M. Ranjit Mathews" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
>>>>Russian or Polish?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Latin <struit> - Russian <stroit> '(he) builds'
>>>
>>>
>
>How interesting! English "construct" has the same etymology.
>
>
>
>>Ah and the way you can use certain prepositions: Sub Upsali ambulo. and
>>Pol Upsaloy gul'ayu. Where "sub" and "pod" means around a town or city.
>>
Hm, it should be Pod Upsaloy gul'ayu. And in the latin example I put a ^
on the last a in Upsalia to show that it was long, to enhance the
ablative case, but Sub Upsalia whoud do.
>>
>>
>I don't see "pod" in your phrases.
>I'm not having luck translating these to English
>
My fault. See above!
There are more similarities:
video - vizhu - I (am) see(ing)
videt - vidit - he sees.
vid = vista = view
televidene = televisio
etc.
Cellus P
Grzegorz Zagajewski
> http://www.poltran.com/pl.php4
This translator is too simple to handle even basic phrases. It only does
word by word translation.
For example:
ENG:
Good morning!
RESULT:
Dobry rano (poranny)!
SHOULD BE:
Dzien dobry!
GZ
John Atkinson
"Cellus Purfluxius" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote ...
>"M. Ranjit Mathews" wrote:
>
>>Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
>>Russian or Polish?
>
> Ah and the way you can use certain prepositions: Sub
> Upsaliā ambulo. and Pol Upsaloy gul'ayu. Where "sub"
> and "pod" means around a town or city.
> People must have seen the towns like castles and outside
> the town one was under it.
Well, the equation of towns and castles makes sense, in Slavonic anyway.
Proto-Slavonic "gordu" becomes
"grad" = "city" in Bulgarian,
"grad" = "town" in Macedonian,
"grad" = "city" in Serbo-Croat,
"grad" = "town" in Slovene,
"hrad" = "castle" in Czech,
"hrad" = "castle" in Slovak,
"hrod" = "palace" or "castle" in Upper Sorbian,
"grod" = "palace" or "castle" in Lower Sorbian,
"grod" = "medieval castle" in Polish
"gorod" = "town" in Russian
"horad" = "town" in Belorussian
"horod" = "kitchen garden" in Ukrainian.
John.
Marko Cibej
Cellus Purfluxius
Oh, this is like using a dictionary. Dangerous. Cf:
What have you done?
Co mie´c ty robi¨c?
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>"Cellus Purfluxius" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
>>"M. Ranjit Mathews" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Can you give an example showing how Classical Latin is reminescent of
>>>Russian or Polish?
>>>
>>>
>>Ah and the way you can use certain prepositions: Sub
>>Upsaliâ ambulo. and Pol Upsaloy gul'ayu. Where "sub"
>>and "pod" means around a town or city.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>People must have seen the towns like castles and outside
>>the town one was under it.
>>
>>
>
>Well, the equation of towns and castles makes sense, in Slavonic anyway.
>Proto-Slavonic "gordu" becomes
>
>"grad" = "city" in Bulgarian,
>"grad" = "town" in Macedonian,
>"grad" = "city" in Serbo-Croat,
>"grad" = "town" in Slovene,
>"hrad" = "castle" in Czech,
>"hrad" = "castle" in Slovak,
>"hrod" = "palace" or "castle" in Upper Sorbian,
>"grod" = "palace" or "castle" in Lower Sorbian,
>"grod" = "medieval castle" in Polish
>"gorod" = "town" in Russian
>"horad" = "town" in Belorussian
>"horod" = "kitchen garden" in Ukrainian.
>
>
And it is related to English "yard" and Norse "gardr"; They think that
Miklagárdr (sp) "The Big Town" was Constantinople. But I suppose you
already knew that.
C. P.
gec
>
> Le russos lege le Slavico ecclesiastic in un pronunciation multo simile
> al russo, non con le nasales etc. e in iste caso le pronunciation a mi
> aures es multo simile a rosso moderne e comprensibile.
>
> Amicalmente
I am very skeptical about using artificial languages...which is why I
find it rather annoying that, although my study of Romance languages
has been limited to long-ago Latin and intermediate Spanish, I
understand every single freaking word of what you wrote. :-)
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:19:30 GMT, Cellus Purfluxius
> >
> > Le russos lege le Slavico ecclesiastic in un pronunciation multo simile
> > al russo, non con le nasales etc. e in iste caso le pronunciation a mi
> > aures es multo simile a rosso moderne e comprensibile.
> >
> > Amicalmente
>
> find it rather annoying that, although my study of Romance languages
> has been limited to long-ago Latin and intermediate Spanish, I
> understand every single freaking word of what you wrote. :-)
Also in Italian you understand «every single freaking word»:
>| Gli russi leggono lo slavo ecclesiastico con una pronuncia molto simile
>| al russo, senza nasali ecc., e in questo caso la pronuncia ai miei
>| orecchi risulta molto simile al russo moderno e comprensibile.
E questa è una lingua viva, non un misero surrogato artificiale!
Condividendo in pieno il tuo scetticismo contro l'uso di lingue
artificiali, mi sono sempre chiesto perché a nessuno dei
partecipanti alle discussioni in questo gruppo sia mia venuto l'idea
di proporre l'italiano come lingua franca europea. Almeno dai
frequentatori italiani mi sarei aspettato una proposta del genere.
Dove siete, Federico Zenith, Marco Cimarosti, Nicola Nobili? C'è
proprio bisogno che un crucco cerchi di far quello che sarebbe il
vostro originario dovere?
Delusi saluti,
Wolfgang
Peter T. Daniels
Perhaps because the syntax is English pure and simple?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Marco Cimarosti
> Condividendo in pieno il tuo scetticismo contro l'uso di lingue
> artificiali, mi sono sempre chiesto perché a nessuno dei
> partecipanti alle discussioni in questo gruppo sia mia venuto l'idea
> di proporre l'italiano come lingua franca europea. Almeno dai
> frequentatori italiani mi sarei aspettato una proposta del genere.
> Dove siete, Federico Zenith, Marco Cimarosti, Nicola Nobili? C'è
> proprio bisogno che un crucco cerchi di far quello che sarebbe il
> vostro originario dovere?
Se c'è una cosa su cui la mia la coscienza è candida come un giglio è
proprio questa: mai e poi mai in vita mia ho sentito il benché minimo
senso del dovere verso la "patria"!
A parte questo, la lingua franca europea esiste già da anni ed è
l'inglese.
Non vedo come l'italiano potrebbe essere una soluzione migliore: anche
ammettendo che la fonetica e l'ortografia italiane siano più facili di
quelle inglesi, rimane il fatto che la grammatica è molto più
difficile.
Quanto al lessico, buona parte di quello italiano è difficile per chi
parla lingue non neolatine mentre quello inglese, col sui ibridsmo
germanico-latino, è un compromesso che distribuisce vantaggi e
svantaggi un po' a tutti.
Infine, l'inglese lo parlano circa un miliardo di persone in tutto il
mondo, mentre l'italiano lo sappiamo solo in 60 milioni -- non è che
al mondo esista solo questa cavolo di Unione Europea!
Ciao.
Marco
Nicola Nobili
> >| Gli russi
Ohibò, perché mai "gli"?
> Condividendo in pieno il tuo scetticismo contro l'uso di lingue
> artificiali, mi sono sempre chiesto perché a nessuno dei
> partecipanti alle discussioni in questo gruppo sia mia venuto l'idea
> di proporre l'italiano come lingua franca europea. Almeno dai
> frequentatori italiani mi sarei aspettato una proposta del genere.
> Dove siete, Federico Zenith, Marco Cimarosti, Nicola Nobili?
Presente! Tuttavia, devo deluderti: non me ne può importare meno di una
lingua franca europea. Anzitutto non credo sia possibile. In secondo luogo,
mi importa poco, visto che capisco diverse lingue (e sono pure
interprete...). In terzo luogo, questo forum in particolare è concepito per
fungere da ricettacolo di messaggi in qualunque lingua o quasi, e il bello
di parteciparvi è poter passare da un idioma all'altro nel corso dello
stesso filone o dello stesso messaggio, altrimenti userei semplicemente i
gruppi di discussione di linguistica in italiano.
Saluti,
Nicola Nobili
> Actually I had Latin for 5 years in high school (hated it), and I can
> safely say that no, they would only grasp some similar words, as much as
> they could do with, say, English. The differences are great
Not that great, I daresay. Indeed, your frank remark ("hated it") is
quite indicative of the reason why you believe Latin is so remote from
Italian: in all likelihood, you were taught Latin in the usual,
old-fashioned, annoying highschool-like way, that is, as a dead language, in
which discipline was the key to success. If you ever tried, as I quite often
do, to discover what Latin really is, for example by visiting ancient
churches and reading the headstones, or having a look at Medieval documents,
you will find a number of striking resemblances betwen Cicero's language and
our own. What is more, I'm quite sure your teachers insisted on the
intricacies of the language, stygmatised mistakes in the Latin endings and
the alike, but in "real" life, these mistakes are quite irrelevant, the
general meaning will be conveyed in spite of them
As a matter of fact, I witnessed a conversation between some Polish
priests, who couldn't speak Italian but had studied Latin during their years
in the seminar, and some averagely-ignorant Italians. Surprising as it may
seem, they succeeded in mutually understanding each other quite well.
Bye,
gec
I would be very curious to read Wolfgang's and Marco's posts in
Interlingua or whatever it was that Cellus was using, in order to
compare the intelligibility to that of the Italian. Not that I like
the idea of using the artificial language even if it is more
intelligible to a speaker of a Romancized Germanic language like
myself. :) And in response to Peter's post, yes the English-like
syntax certainly aids in comprehension, but I don't think it's syntax
that's the key thing that makes a real Romance language more difficult
-- it's more the small differences in vocabulary, key auxiliary words
and adverbs, and phonology that add up to an impediment to smooth
comprehension.
Of course the answer is not to invent a language for the ignorant (in
this case, me), but for the ignorant to put in a little study of the
real languages! The problem -- at least for an American crippled by
the monolingual educational system, whose fascination with languages
far exceeds his ability to learn them -- is how to balance a little
study of Italian and French with maintaing my Russian, picking up some
Ukrainian, studying Turkish, wanting to study Swahili, etc., etc.,
etc....
Marco Cimarosti
See this word-by-word translation:
| The Russians read the Slavic Church-ish in a pronunciation much
similar
| at-the Russian, not with the nasals etc. and in this case the
pronunciation
| at my ears is much similar at Russian modern and understandable.
|
| Friendly
Quite close, but not 100% identical to English.
Anyway, I guess that one of the goals of Interlingua was in fact a
fair inteligibility for English speakers, beside an optimal
intelligibility for Romance speakers.
Ciao.
Marco
Wolfgang Mueller
> [...]
> [Se c'è una cosa su cui la mia la coscienza è candida come un
> [giglio è proprio questa: mai e poi mai in vita mia ho sentito
> [il benché minimo senso del dovere verso la "patria"!
Conoscendoti abbastanza bene dalle discussioni su i.c.l.it, non mi
sarei neanche per sogno aspettato altro da te. Il mio è solo stato
un gesto di cortesia verso gli italiani, sentendo da tedesco un
certo imbarazzo nell'esortare gli europei all'uso dell'italiano.
Volevo dire che una simile esortazione spettava a te e gli altri
italiani prima che toccasse ad uno come me. Tutto ciò non ha nulla
a che vedere con patriottismo o nazionalismo. Mi dispiacerebbe
sinceramente se fossi stato frainteso da te e gli altri italiani.
> A parte questo, la lingua franca europea esiste già da anni ed è
> l'inglese.
>
> Non vedo come l'italiano potrebbe essere una soluzione migliore:
Migliore dell'inglese forse no (sebbene io non ne sia tanto sicuro).
Ma l'inglese non c'entra.
Mi ero invece riferito chiaramente all'interlingua. In questa lingua
artificiale era infatti redatto un breve post di Cellus Purfluxius,
del quale «gec» disse di averne capito «every single freaking word»,
nonostante le sue modeste conoscenze delle lingue romanze.
Offrendogliene una traduzione in italiano lettera per lettera, ho
cercato di dimostragli che un testo redatto in questa lingua gli
sarebbe risultato altrettanto facilmente comprensibile. Tutto qua.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Cellus Purfluxius
Ego crede que isto es un problema pro cata persona qui imagina crear un
lingua auxiliar del typo interlingua. Le lingua pote apparer troppo
simple pro alcunos e troppo complicate pro alteres.
Pro me con mi cognoscentias passive del linguas romance, lo que postula
tempore pro un activisation, pro exemplo del italiano, es le uso de omne
le formas grammatic.
Probabilemente ego poterea investir un ammonta relative parve de energia
pro apprender le italiano activemente, alminus formalmente. Ego es
conscie que idiomaticos etc. es un totalmente altere cosa!
Cellus P.
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> I would be very curious to read Wolfgang's and Marco's posts
> in Interlingua or whatever it was that Cellus was using, in
> order to compare the intelligibility to that of the Italian.
Translating Cellus' text literally into Italian, I thought the
resulting text was likewise comprehensible as the original one
in Interlingua. Or was I wrong?
> Not that I like the idea of using the artificial language even
> if it is more intelligible to a speaker of a Romancized Germanic
> language like myself. :)
I don't like it either. And I consider it neither necessary nor
of any help. That was exactly what I wanted to demonstrate by my
literal translation of Cellus' short Interlingua text into Italian.
If you understand a text written in a living and natural language of
an ancient and noble tradition, of what use should be an artificial
one?
All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto. But, and that's the ironic
point, it is so close to Italian that there is no reason of it's
existence any more. Why not immediately use Italian?
Bye, Wolfgang
Peter T. Daniels
As is well known, I have no sympathy for conlangs, but you disguise its
similarity to English somewhat by choosing a couple of inappropriate
translation-equivalents. It should be:
| The Russians read the Slavic Church-ish in a pronunciation very
similar
| to-the Russian, not with the nasals etc. and in this case the
pronunciation
| to my ears is very similar to Russian modern and understandable.
There is just one non-English feature of the syntax: the N Adj order
(which is in fact an anomaly in English with respect to the word order
implicational universals).
Peter T. Daniels
> Of course the answer is not to invent a language for the ignorant (in
> this case, me), but for the ignorant to put in a little study of the
> real languages! The problem -- at least for an American crippled by
> the monolingual educational system, whose fascination with languages
> far exceeds his ability to learn them -- is how to balance a little
> study of Italian and French with maintaing my Russian, picking up some
> Ukrainian, studying Turkish, wanting to study Swahili, etc., etc.,
> etc....
Language-learning isn't a zero-sum game -- people can cram dozens of
languages into their head if they're motivated.
gec
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 01:19:37 -0700, gec wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:19:30 GMT, Cellus Purfluxius
> > >
> > > Le russos lege le Slavico ecclesiastic in un pronunciation multo simile
> > > al russo, non con le nasales etc. e in iste caso le pronunciation a mi
> > > aures es multo simile a rosso moderne e comprensibile.
> > >
> > > Amicalmente
> >
> > I am very skeptical about using artificial languages... which is why I
> > find it rather annoying that, although my study of Romance languages
> > has been limited to long-ago Latin and intermediate Spanish, I
> > understand every single freaking word of what you wrote. :-)
>
> Also in Italian you understand «every single freaking word»:
>
> >| Gli russi leggono lo slavo ecclesiastico con una pronuncia molto simile
> >| al russo, senza nasali ecc., e in questo caso la pronuncia ai miei
> >| orecchi risulta molto simile al russo moderno e comprensibile.
>
> E questa è una lingua viva, non un misero surrogato artificiale!
I know, Wolfgang, I know. But, sad as it is to have to admit, when I
read the Interlingua I understand it more quickly and easily than I do
the Italian. :-( The Italian I can figure out; with Interlingua it's
almost like I already read it fluently with no prior knowledge or
study of it.
Let me break it down word by word:
"Gli" is no problem for me because it doesn't take much exposure to
Italian texts to recognize the "g-" articles, even without any study
at all. But I'll bet not everyone who knew, say, just English and
Spanish would pick this up right away.
"leggono" I understand, but it's not as simple as "lege". Such a thing
is no big deal in a short paragraph, but the more one reads the more
one appreciates the simplified forms. I've read through every post in
this sub-thread, and Cellus's three paragraphs of Interlingua were far
quicker and easier to read than the Italian posts of similar length. I
don't like it either, but I'm giving you my honest reaction here!
"molto": Context is enough here of course, but the recognition of
"multo" is more immediate due to the "multi-" cognates in English. Out
of context "molto" could just as easily remind me of "melt", "molten",
etc.
"senza": probably the toughest word in the Italian text. Resembles
"sense" more than "sine" or its Romance cognates. "Non con" may be
ugly to a Romance speaker, but for a non-native speaker the ease of
comprehension is welcome, just like "not with" would be more easily
understood than "without" by a reader who knew as little English as I
do Italian.
"questo": akin to "gli", but harder, especially for me because I
wasn't familiar with the form already. Also because from Latin and
Spanish one expects the qu- words to be interrogative or relative
pronouns, not the simple demonstrative pronoun "this". Before I
figured it out (thanks to comparing it to the Interlingua version!), I
thought your closing sentence which began "E questo è..." meant
something like "What a language...!" rather than "And this is a living
language...!"
"orecchi": I figure this out solely by context; "aures" I recognize
instantly without any context.
Don't worry, Wolfgang, maybe if this discussion continues long enough,
I'll pick up some more Italian in spite of myself, and read it as well
as or better than Interlingua. :) I would certainly prefer the former
to the latter!
Geoffrey
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:09:33 +0200, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 May 2003 01:19:37 -0700, Geoffrey wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:19:30 GMT, Cellus Purfluxius
> > > >
> > > > Le russos lege le Slavico ecclesiastic in un pronunciation
> > > > multo simile al russo, non con le nasales etc. e in iste
> > > > caso le pronunciation a mi aures es multo simile a
> > > > rosso moderne e comprensibile.
> > > >
> >
> > Also in Italian you understand «every single freaking word»:
> >
> > >| Gli russi leggono lo slavo ecclesiastico con una pronuncia
> > >| molto simile al russo, senza nasali ecc., e in questo
> > >| caso la pronuncia ai miei orecchi risulta molto simile al
> > >| russo moderno e comprensibile.
> >
> > E questa è una lingua viva, non un misero surrogato artificiale!
>
> I know, Wolfgang, I know. But, sad as it is to have to admit,
> when I read the Interlingua I understand it more quickly and
> easily than I do the Italian. :-( The Italian I can figure out;
> with Interlingua it's almost like I already read it fluently
> with no prior knowledge or study of it.
>
> Let me break it down word by word:
>
> "Gli" is no problem for me because it doesn't take much
> exposure to Italian texts to recognize the "g-" articles,
Forget "gli" in this context, because it is a mistake I have to
apologize for. The correct form of the article in this context is
"i". Anyway, I doubt that it would have been easier to figure out
its sense.
Only for your information: "i" and "gli" are the same, i.e. they
are both male articles in plural. The choice of the correct one
only depends on the initial sound of the following word (cfr.
English "a" and "an").
> "leggono" I understand, but it's not as simple as "lege". Such a thing
> is no big deal in a short paragraph, but the more one reads the more
> one appreciates the simplified forms. I've read through every post in
> this sub-thread, and Cellus's three paragraphs of Interlingua were far
> quicker and easier to read than the Italian posts of similar length.
> I don't like it either, but I'm giving you my honest reaction here!
I believe you. But what is to be considered easy or difficult
depends very much on the expectations of a person. For me as a
German who is used to personal endings, a unique all-purpose ending
is a strange phenomenon. For you it is vice versa.
> "molto": Context is enough here of course, but the recognition of
> "multo" is more immediate due to the "multi-" cognates in English.
> Out of context "molto" could just as easily remind me of "melt",
> "molten", etc.
There is a lot of changes from «u» to «o» and «i» to «e» in
Italian. But this is common to all Romance languages. I agree
that it can be a difficulty for a non-Romance speaker.
For you with a knowledge of latin, it may be useful to know
that short latin «u» and «i» become «o» and, respectively, «e»
in Romance languages, whereas long «u» and «i» remain unchanged.
The difficulty is that only popular words have been subject to
this development, whereas words artificially introduced by
erudite people remained unchanged. Since the Romance vocabulary
of English almost completely belongs the the latter category,
you often observe discrepancies with respect to the Romance
languages. The most common example is the prefix "re-" which
corresponds to "ri-" in Italian.
> "senza": probably the toughest word in the Italian text.
> Resembles "sense" more than "sine" or its Romance cognates.
In fact "senza" has nothing to with "sine". It is akin to
English "absence", but I admit that this is not just obvious.
> "Non con" may be ugly to a Romance speaker, but for a non-native
> speaker the ease of comprehension is welcome, just like "not with"
> would be more easily understood than "without" by a reader who
> knew as little English as I do Italian.
In my opinion, "non con" sounds ugly even to a (presumptive)
Interlinguan speaker. I do not know why Cellus avoided the
preposition "sin". But whatsoever, I think we have to accept
Interlingua as it is, without taking into account additional
simplifications which may be part of an individual style, but
certainly not of Interlingua as such.
> "questo": akin to "gli", but harder, especially for me because
> I wasn't familiar with the form already. Also because from Latin
> and Spanish one expects the qu- words to be interrogative or
> relative pronouns, not the simple demonstrative pronoun "this".
You are right: the initial "qu-" in a demonstrative pronoun
is somewhat strange indeed.
> "orecchi": I figure this out solely by context; "aures" I
> recognize instantly without any context.
Again you are right. To recognize "orecchio" (the singular)
as coming from "auriculum", diminutive of "auris", needs some
etymological background. Let's analyze it sound by sound:
1. By "au" --> "o", "i" --> "e", "u" --> "o", and vanishing
"m" at the end of the word, we get: "auriculum" --> "orecolo"
2. By syncopation of the unstressed second last syllable
"orecolo" becomes "oreclo"
3. The "l" in such a position becomes "i": "oreclo" --> "orecio".
Now the Italian spelling rules require an "h" for preserving
the sound "k" of "c": "orecio" --> "orechio"
4. Finally there is a general rule that requires duplication
of an occlusive preceded by the stressed syllable and
followed by the semivowel "i": "orechio" --> "orecchio"
And here we are!
> Don't worry, Wolfgang, maybe if this discussion continues long
> enough, I'll pick up some more Italian in spite of myself, and
> read it as well as or better than Interlingua. :)
Apart from some little unimportant details pointed out above, you
are right. But I'm not so sure if we should base our comparison on
the expectations of a completely unprepared reader. It costs very
little, a week say, to study the basic Italian grammar. That's more
of course than the effort you have to invest in Interlingua. But
as a compensation you get access to a living language with a rich
literature of more than eight centuries of tradition and a strong
cultural influence on all kinds of cultural fields from music to
banking, whereas Interlingua does not offer you anything else than
a mere and relatively poor tool of comprehension.
> I would certainly prefer the former to the latter!
(i.e. Italian to Interlingua)
Perhaps our discussion was somehow superfluous, as I feel that we
never really disagreed. So very probably I tried to convince you of
something you have always been convinced of or, as the Italians say,
«di sfondare porte aperte» ('to smash open doors').
Bye, Wolfgang
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
>opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
>ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
>but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
>an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto. But, and that's the ironic
>point, it is so close to Italian that there is no reason of it's
>existence any more. Why not immediately use Italian?
>
Ego ha probate apprender italiano. Mi problema es que ego comprende toto
ma le activisar postula un energia e interesse que ego non possede. Ille
energia ego ha invstite in mantener le linguas slavic a un usabile nivello.
Gente non pensa del grande passo inter uso active e passive de un lingua.
Pro isto justo mi preferentia del idea de Eruopa linguas in le qual on
pote scriber in le lingua que es plus confortabile pro uno. On pote
describer interlingua in mi uso como mi ponte al linguas romanic.
Viste que illo es un altere lingua que italiano lo que poteva esser
vidite como problemas stilistic, si ego scribeva in italiano, funge
forsan nunc como "exotismos".
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>>
>>
>
>As is well known, I have no sympathy for conlangs, but you disguise its
>similarity to English somewhat by choosing a couple of inappropriate
>translation-equivalents. It should be:
>
>| The Russians read the Slavic Church-ish in a pronunciation very
>similar
>| to-the Russian, not with the nasals etc. and in this case the
>pronunciation
>| to my ears is very similar to Russian modern and understandable.
>
>There is just one non-English feature of the syntax: the N Adj order
>(which is in fact an anomaly in English with respect to the word order
>implicational universals).
>
Pro mi personal parte ego ha nihil contra le rection con adjectivo
substantivo e non como in interlingua normal substantivo adjectivo, como
in le linguas romanic.
Personalmente ego prefere un lingua auxiliar (artificial si tu vole) que
es comprendite per personas qui lo non ha studiate e qui in facto non
accepta le idea de un lingua auxiliar! :-)
Viste que interlingua ha non-flexionate adjectivos como in le anglese il
forsan esserea melior scriber: Personalmente ego prefere un auxiliar
(artificial, si tu vole) lingua, que es comprendite per personas qui lo
non ha studiate e qui in facto non accepta le idea de un auxiliari
lingua! :-)
Interlingua permitte que ego non sempre debe usar le anglese. Mi
problema es scriber, non leger. Assi, in le caso que un persona scribe
in anglese, germano, francese o italiano, espaniol ego lo comprende, ben
que pro le momento ego solo scribe anglese e interlingua con un
acceptabile rapiditate e accuratessa.
Cellus P.
>
>
Federico Zenith
> [...]
> All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
> opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
> ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
> but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
> an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto. But, and that's the ironic
(You hit me, I hit you back)
A German-speaker criticising other languages for being ugly??
Next we'll hear Bill Gates ranting about unreliable software in Linux.
:-)))
-Federico
Federico Zenith
> Condividendo in pieno il tuo scetticismo contro l'uso di lingue
> artificiali, mi sono sempre chiesto perché a nessuno dei
> partecipanti alle discussioni in questo gruppo sia mia venuto l'idea
> di proporre l'italiano come lingua franca europea. Almeno dai
> frequentatori italiani mi sarei aspettato una proposta del genere.
> Dove siete, Federico Zenith, Marco Cimarosti, Nicola Nobili? C'è
> proprio bisogno che un crucco cerchi di far quello che sarebbe il
> vostro originario dovere?
Sehr geherter Herr Müller,
ich würde nie Italienisch wie eine Eurosprache vorschlagen, auf
folgenden Gründen:
1- Italienisch ist schwierig, und du sollst es wissen. Die Aussprache
ist einfach, aber die Gramatik ist ein Lebenaufgabe. Italiener können
normalerweise alle Congiuntivi richtig nicht treffen. Nur
Grammatikprofessoren mit einer vieljährigen Aufbildung können es; und
wenn sie könnten nicht, würde niemand es wissen...
2- Eine eventulle Eurosprache soll planiert und neutral sein, leicht für
alle.
3- Wenn alle Italienisch sprechen könnten, könnt'ich nie hinter anderen
Italienisch sprechen. Hier in Norwegen ist's sehr lustig auf Italienisch
mit anderen zu reden, weil fast niemand als die, mit denen ich rede,
verstehen kann, man kann also sich freier ausdrücken. :-)
...kapiert mir hast du? ;-)
-Federico
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 22:24:50 +0200, Wolfgang Müller wrote:
> > [...]
> > All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
> > opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
> > ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
> > but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
> > an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto.
>
E come mai potrei averti colpito? Sei forse un madrelingua?
Chiedo preventivamente scusa a tua madre.
> A German-speaker criticising other languages for being ugly??
Con questa non riesci a colpirmi. Del resto la mia critica
estetica (se a uno come me spetti l'uso di questo aggettivo)
non si era riferita ad altre lingue al plurale, bensí
precisamente a una. Magari avessi saputo che tu ne fossi
un madrelingua! Ripeto la mia predetta scusa...
> Next we'll hear Bill Gates ranting about unreliable software
> in Linux.
Questo paragone è invece davvero offensivo!
Krrrr (*),
Wolfgang
_____
(*) voce onomatopeica per dare agli altri frequentatori
una piú precisa idea di cosa sia un «German-speaker».
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> > [...]
> > All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
> > opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
> > ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
> > but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
> > an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto. But, and that's the ironic
>
> (You hit me, I hit you back)
> A German-speaker criticising other languages for being ugly??
Are you not familiar with the operas of Mozart, the songs of Schubert
and Schumann, the choruses of Brahms?
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Sehr geherter Herr Müller,
Egregio signor Zenith,
«Ci conosciamo già tanto bene: diamoci del lei!»
(Leonardo Sciascia: Nero su nero).
> ich würde nie Italienisch wie eine Eurosprache vorschlagen, auf
> folgenden Gründen:
>
> 1- Italienisch ist schwierig, und du sollst es wissen. Die Aussprache
> ist einfach, aber die Gramatik ist ein Lebenaufgabe. Italiener können
> normalerweise alle Congiuntivi richtig nicht treffen. Nur
> Grammatikprofessoren mit einer vieljährigen Aufbildung können es; und
> wenn sie könnten nicht, würde niemand es wissen...
Meno male se nessuno lo sapesse. O no?
D'altronde, Lei sa bene che ci son tanti suoi connazionali cui del
congiuntivo non importa un tubo. Potrei dunque immaginarmi una
lingua italiana un po' tollerante, l'esatto contrario per dire di
quella dei frequentatori di it.cultura.linguistica.italiano. Tanto
per farLe un esempio, se qualcuno cantasse «il mio materasso è il
massimo che c'è», rinuncerei a correggerla in «... ci sia». La
nobile causa dell'Europa merita certi sacrifici, ahimè...
> 2- Eine eventulle Eurosprache soll planiert und neutral sein, leicht
> für alle.
D'accordo. A me l'italiano è sempre sembrato la lingua piú facile
che ci sia (anzi «c'è»), comunque assai di piú dell'inglese. E
questo glielo dico io da tedesco!
>
> 3- Wenn alle Italienisch sprechen könnten, könnt'ich nie hinter anderen
> Italienisch sprechen. Hier in Norwegen ist's sehr lustig auf Italienisch
> mit anderen zu reden, weil fast niemand als die, mit denen ich rede,
> verstehen kann, man kann also sich freier ausdrücken. :-)
La nobile causa dell'Europa merita pure che Lei rinunci a dare
degli scemi ai vichinghi siano pure extracomunitari, nella fiducia
che essi non La capiscano. Qua ad Hannover, città che pullula di
italiani, tanto ciò non funziona piú. Per dare un cenno a mia moglie
o mia figlia che in un negozio la roba in vendita fa schifo e costa
troppo, senza che la commessa mi capisca, devo ormai ricorrere al
portoghese, dicendo qualcosa come «vendem só chatices a preços
loucos».
> ...kapiert mir hast du? ;-)
Escassamente.
Saudações incompreensíveis,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:35 +0200, Federico Zenith wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > All that does not mean that I do not respect Interlingua. On my
> > > opinion, it is far the best of all artificial languages that have
> > > ever been constructed, not only from a morphosyntactic and lexical
> > > but also from an esthetic point of view, above all compared to such
> > > an ugly monstrosity as is Esperanto. But, and that's the ironic
> >
> > (You hit me, I hit you back)
> > A German-speaker criticising other languages for being ugly??
>
> Are you not familiar with the operas of Mozart, the songs
> of Schubert and Schumann, the choruses of Brahms?
They are nothing compared to the music of Esperanto, its
drammatic crescendi, sweet arpeggi and lyric pianissimi!
Io lo colpii, egli mi ricolpisce: questa č la regola del gioco.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Peter T. Daniels
Has any significant composer set any texts in Esperanto? (Funny,
Esperanto just came up in rec.music.classical too, but it's bad enough
it keeps appearing in sci.lang, so I'm not going to spread this there.)
Edmund Lewis
> Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> >
> Ego ha probate apprender italiano. Mi problema es que ego comprende toto
> ma le activisar postula un energia e interesse que ego non possede. Ille
> energia ego ha invstite in mantener le linguas slavic a un usabile nivello.
>
> Gente non pensa del grande passo inter uso active e passive de un lingua.
>
> Pro isto justo mi preferentia del idea de Eruopa linguas in le qual on
> pote scriber in le lingua que es plus confortabile pro uno. On pote
> describer interlingua in mi uso como mi ponte al linguas romanic.
>
> Viste que illo es un altere lingua que italiano lo que poteva esser
> vidite como problemas stilistic, si ego scribeva in italiano, funge
> forsan nunc como "exotismos".
>
> Cellus P.
Los problemos mas grandes por anglophones quis apprendentes linguas
romanas sono les generes et la phonologia. la secunda est faclis
aprender sed la primero est la problema principale. Lingua inglesa non
teneo las generes(nasales de lingua francesa y la 'j' velar de espanol
sono poco duro, sed habemus multas problemas con el segundo.)In
additione las parolas 'sapere' et 'cognovi': in inglesa 'know'
traductas las dos)
Marco Cimarosti
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Perhaps because the syntax is English pure and simple?
> >
> > See this word-by-word translation:
> >
> > | The Russians read the Slavic Church-ish in a pronunciation much similar
> > | at-the Russian, not with the nasals etc. and in this case the pronunciation
> > | at my ears is much similar at Russian modern and understandable.
> > |
> > | Friendly
> >
> > Quite close, but not 100% identical to English.
> >
> > Anyway, I guess that one of the goals of Interlingua was in fact a
> > fair inteligibility for English speakers, beside an optimal
> > intelligibility for Romance speakers.
>
> As is well known, I have no sympathy for conlangs,
Neither I do. Or, rather, I do like conlangs, provided they remain in
the realm of entertainment, where IMHO they belong. I don't believe in
conlangs designed to be auxlangs.
> but you disguise its
> similarity to English somewhat by choosing a couple of inappropriate
> translation-equivalents. It should be:
> | The Russians read the Slavic Church-ish in a pronunciation very
> similar
> | to-the Russian, not with the nasals etc. and in this case the
> pronunciation
> | to my ears is very similar to Russian modern and understandable.
"A" means both "at" and "to", and "multo" means both "much", and
"very". I deliberately chose the English alternatives which sounded
more similar to the Interlingua words (and which happen to be the
wrong choices, in the above passage) to try and guess the probable
perception of a monolingual English speaker.
For someone totally unfamiliar with Romance languages, it could be
less than obvious that "at" and "to", or "much" and "very", can be
expressed by the same words.
> There is just one non-English feature of the syntax: the N Adj order
> (which is in fact an anomaly in English with respect to the word order
> implicational universals).
Another one, which does not show up in the above passage, is negation
before the verb.
Ciao.
Marco
Nicola Nobili
> They are nothing compared to the music of Esperanto, its
> drammatic crescendi, sweet arpeggi and lyric pianissimi!
Scusami tanto, ma tu faresti il plurale di "crescendo" e "pianissimo"?
Io li userei invariati al plurale: il primo è un gerundio, che quindi non ha
il numero (un crescendo, i crescendo, etc.), mentre il secondo è un avverbio
(si suona "piano", "pianissimo", etc.). "Arpeggi" è corretto, trattandosi di
un sostantivo, che quindi ha correttamente il plurale.
Queste sono le mie impressioni, suffragate da quel poco che ho letto di
teoria musicale, ma non so poi se i musicisti italiani si attengano a queste
regolette grammaticali.
Ciao,
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Scusami tanto, ma tu faresti il plurale di "crescendo" e
> "pianissimo"? Io li userei invariati al plurale: il primo è un
> gerundio, che quindi non ha il numero (un crescendo, i crescendo,
> etc.), mentre il secondo è un avverbio (si suona "piano",
> "pianissimo", etc.). "Arpeggi" è corretto, trattandosi di
> un sostantivo, che quindi ha correttamente il plurale.
>
> Queste sono le mie impressioni, suffragate da quel poco che ho
> letto di teoria musicale, ma non so poi se i musicisti italiani
> si attengano a queste regolette grammaticali.
Neanch'io. Per quanto riguarda i «pianissimi», sono comunque
sicuro che nel gergo dei musicisti usa questo plurale. Quanto ai
«crescendi» però un po' meno. Ma non è detto che «crescendo» sia un
gerundio. Può anche benissimo essere un gerundivo come «laureando»,
«rimpatriando» ecc., vocaboli che formano un plurale regolare.
Cruciposto questa ad it.arti.musica.classica, sperando di ottenere
delle informazioni piú attendibili delle nostre speculazioni.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Peter T. Daniels
Was that supposed to be Interlingua??
Did you notice the funny locution in Edmund Lewis's posting, who wrote
"un poco duro" not to mean 'a small degree of difficulty', but to render
the English idiom "a little hard"?
John Atkinson
"Marko Cibej" <ne...@mind.com> ...
> "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote
> > "grad" = "town" in Slovene,
>
> "castle" in Slovene
Right. Sorry.
Interesting that Slovene agrees with the West Slavonic languages (Czech,
Polish, ...) in this, rather than the other South Slavonic languages (and
the East Slavonic languges).
Similarly, "mesto" (or cognate) is "town" in both Slovene and West Slavonic,
but "place" in all (?) the other languages. (But Czech, besides "mesto" =
"town" also has "misto" = "place", and Polish has "miasto" = "town" and
"miejsce" = "place". What is going on here? What is Slovene for "place"?)
J.
Marco Cimarosti
> [...]
> ...kapiert mir hast du? ;-)
ROTFL! I guess this is the typical expression of German-speaking Sardinians.
Ajööh!
Marco
Marco Cimarosti
> [...]
> > A parte questo, la lingua franca europea esiste già da anni ed è
> > l'inglese.
> >
> > Non vedo come l'italiano potrebbe essere una soluzione migliore:
>
> Migliore dell'inglese forse no (sebbene io non ne sia tanto sicuro).
> Ma l'inglese non c'entra.
>
> Mi ero invece riferito chiaramente all'interlingua. In questa lingua
> artificiale era infatti redatto un breve post di Cellus Purfluxius,
> del quale «gec» disse di averne capito «every single freaking word»,
> nonostante le sue modeste conoscenze delle lingue romanze.
> Offrendogliene una traduzione in italiano lettera per lettera, ho
> cercato di dimostragli che un testo redatto in questa lingua gli
> sarebbe risultato altrettanto facilmente comprensibile. Tutto qua.
L'avevo capito, Wolfgang. E sono anche d'accordo: la "naturalità"
dell'interlingua è il suo solo vantaggio ma anche il suo solo
svantaggio.
Vantaggio perché suona un po' meno orwelliana dell'esperanto e di
altre lingue artificiali; svantaggio perché, se uno riesce a
capire/parlare l'interlingua, riesce con un minimo sforzo in più a
fare la stessa cosa con l'italiano o con lo spagnolo.
[I will now translate this in "my" Interlingua (i.e., a broken
Interlingua as spoken by an Italian speaker who has exposed to it but
never studied it). I am curious to see whether it will be noticeably
more intelligible than Italian. Notice that I deliberately avoided
looking up a dictionary or a grammar, in order to let my natural
blunders and faux amis come out.]
Io le haveva comprendete, Wolfgang. E io anque es de acordo: le
"naturalitate" de Interlingua es su solo advantage ma anque su solo
disadvantage.
Advantage perque illo sona un pauc meno orwellian de Esperanto e de
alter linguas artificial; disadvantage perque, si on succede a
comprender/parlar Interlingua, on succede anque con pauc plus effortie
a facer le mesme cosa con Italiano o con Spaniol.
Ciao.
Marco
Federico Zenith
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:35 +0200, Federico Zenith wrote:
>>(You hit me, I hit you back)
>
> E come mai potrei averti colpito? Sei forse un madrelingua?
> Chiedo preventivamente scusa a tua madre.
Mi hai chiamato in causa, anche se io non ho l'esperanto come madrelingua!
>>A German-speaker criticising other languages for being ugly??
>
> Con questa non riesci a colpirmi. Del resto la mia critica
> estetica (se a uno come me spetti l'uso di questo aggettivo)
> non si era riferita ad altre lingue al plurale, bensí
> precisamente a una. Magari avessi saputo che tu ne fossi
> un madrelingua! Ripeto la mia predetta scusa...
Vabbè stavo a scherzare...
Il punto è che non puoi dire che una lingua è "brutta" o "bella", è una
questione di abitudine. Non so se hai mai sentito l'intonazione del
NOrveGEse che È TUtto un SALIscEndi, ormai ci ho fatto l'abitudine, ma
all'inizio mi sembrava orrida.
Quella dello svedese che sembra un barese che imita l'accento di Quarto
Oggiaro mi perplime ancora.
Tutta abitudine.
E poi cosa ci sarebbe di cosí "ugly monstrosity"-oso in esperanto?
>>Next we'll hear Bill Gates ranting about unreliable software
>>in Linux.
>
> Questo paragone è invece davvero offensivo!
Eh eh qui si andava sul sicuro :-)
[OT] Che OS usi? Qui si scrive da Gentoo Linux!
Ciao,
-Federico
Marco Cimarosti
> Wolfgang Mueller
> > They are nothing compared to the music of Esperanto, its
> > drammatic crescendi, sweet arpeggi and lyric pianissimi!
>
> Scusami tanto, ma tu faresti il plurale di "crescendo" e "pianissimo"?
> Io li userei invariati al plurale: il primo è un gerundio, che quindi non ha
> il numero
Non proprio: è un sostantivo derivato da un gerundio e quindi il
numero ce l'ha, come dici tu stesso subito dopo:
> (un crescendo, i crescendo, etc.),
Sul plurale invariato avresti ragione (secondo www.demauroparavia.it)
se Wolfgang stesse scrivendo in italiano. Ma siccome la frase è in
inglese deve usare il plurale inglese che, stando all'American
Heritage (www.bartleby.com/61), è "crescendi" o "crescendos".
> mentre il secondo è un avverbio
> (si suona "piano", "pianissimo", etc.).
Idem come sopra: è un sostantivo derivato da un avverbio.
Sul plurale italiano invariato avresti ancora ragione tu (sempre
secondo De Mauro) ma, sul plurale inglese, l'American Heritage dà
torto a entrambi e dice "pianissimos".
Ciao.
Marco
Federico Zenith
>>1- Italienisch ist schwierig, und du sollst es wissen. Die Aussprache
>>ist einfach, aber die Gramatik ist ein Lebenaufgabe. Italiener können
>>normalerweise alle Congiuntivi richtig nicht treffen. Nur
>>Grammatikprofessoren mit einer vieljährigen Aufbildung können es; und
>>wenn sie könnten nicht, würde niemand es wissen...
>
> Meno male se nessuno lo sapesse. O no?
>
> D'altronde, Lei sa bene che ci son tanti suoi connazionali cui del
> congiuntivo non importa un tubo. Potrei dunque immaginarmi una
> lingua italiana un po' tollerante, l'esatto contrario per dire di
> quella dei frequentatori di it.cultura.linguistica.italiano. Tanto
In linea di principio, la mia esperienza mi dice che il congiuntivo
viene usato come clava per dare dell'ignorante a qualcuno che per caso
lo sbaglia, spesso da persone che il congiuntivo non lo sanno alla
perfezione, ma che vogliono darsi un contegno.
Per quanto mi riguarda, la cosa migliore sarebbe "opzionalizzare" il
congiuntivo, renderlo cioè facoltativo; non credo che sia possibile
avere frasi con congiuntivi che, sostituiti da condizionali o
indicativi, cambino completamente di significato.
Tu che hai imparato l'italiano come lingua straniera, e che quindi
conosci la grammatica meglio di qualsiasi grammatico madrelingua, hai un
controesempio? Io non ne ho finora trovati, ad eccezione dell'esortativo
("andiamo", "Fantocci, si siedi!"), che però potrebbe essere assimilato
all'imperativo; guardacaso _quel_ congiuntivo, non sostituibile, non lo
sbaglia mai nessuno.
> per farLe un esempio, se qualcuno cantasse «il mio materasso è il
Non tirartela troppo, anche la L maiuscola in mezzo alle parole... :-)
>>2- Eine eventulle Eurosprache soll planiert und neutral sein, leicht
>>für alle.
>
> D'accordo. A me l'italiano è sempre sembrato la lingua piú facile
> che ci sia (anzi «c'è»), comunque assai di piú dell'inglese. E
> questo glielo dico io da tedesco!
Be' piú facile di inglese e tedesco ci vuole poco! Comunque non sono
sicuro sulla grammatica, la pronuncia d'accordo.
Resta che in inglese ci sono 3 voci per ogni verbo (infinito, 3a persona
presente, passato/participio), mentre in italiano ci sono 3 (o 4)
coniugazioni ciascuna con 110 voci (mi pare, contando anche le composte).
Insomma, io so dire "The algorithm has converged" o "Algoritmen har
konvergert", e penso di poter improvvisare "Das Algorithm ist
konvergiert", ma ho dovuto chiedere su icl se si dicesse "l'algoritmo è
convergiuto/convertito/convergito" o che altro diamine fosse (era
"convesso").
>>3- Wenn alle Italienisch sprechen könnten, könnt'ich nie hinter anderen
>>Italienisch sprechen. Hier in Norwegen ist's sehr lustig auf Italienisch
>>mit anderen zu reden, weil fast niemand als die, mit denen ich rede,
>>verstehen kann, man kann also sich freier ausdrücken. :-)
>
> La nobile causa dell'Europa merita pure che Lei rinunci a dare
> degli scemi ai vichinghi siano pure extracomunitari, nella fiducia
> che essi non La capiscano. Qua ad Hannover, città che pullula di
> italiani, tanto ciò non funziona piú. Per dare un cenno a mia moglie
> o mia figlia che in un negozio la roba in vendita fa schifo e costa
> troppo, senza che la commessa mi capisca, devo ormai ricorrere al
> portoghese, dicendo qualcosa come «vendem só chatices a preços
> loucos».
Io passo alla parlata tabbozza variando accento / dialetto ogni 5
secondi e inserendo verbi norvegesi coniugati secondo le regole
italiane, se ho il sospetto che ci sia il rischio di intercettazioni...
chiaro che si può parlare con pochi eletti, ma funziona.
Ciao,
-Federico
Marco Cimarosti
> Was that supposed to be Interlingua??
Which one are you talking about?
The posting by Cellus Purfluxius that we were commenting about is
Interlingua, as far as I can see. As for the posting by Edmund Lewis,
I thought it was Spanish (or an attempt at it). If it was supposed to
be Interlingua, that's a living demonstration that active use of
Interlingua is not all that easy.
> Did you notice the funny locution in Edmund Lewis's posting, who wrote
> "un poco duro" not to mean 'a small degree of difficulty', but to render
> the English idiom "a little hard"?
Do you mean "rather hard", "quite difficult"?
In this case he's been lucky: that's what "un poco duro" means in
Italian(although "un po' duro" or "abbastanza duro" would be more
colloquial). It is probably also acceptable Spanish (although I guess
that, here too, "bastante duro" would be more common).
In Interlingua, I guess he should drop the final "-o": "un poco dur".
But I think other alternatives exist: "un pauc dur", "un poc dur",
"bastante dur", "satis dur", "assatis dur", "un poco difficile", "un
pauc difficile", "un poc difficile", "bastante difficile", "satis
difficile", "assatis difficile", etc. etc. etc.
Interesting language, Interlingua, but a little hard... :-)
Ciao.
Marco
Wolfgang Mueller
> [...]
> In linea di principio, la mia esperienza mi dice che il congiuntivo
> viene usato come clava per dare dell'ignorante a qualcuno che per
> caso lo sbaglia, spesso da persone che il congiuntivo non lo sanno
> alla perfezione, ma che vogliono darsi un contegno.
Purtroppo è vero. Sono però convinto che, ammesso che il congiuntivo
fosse abolito, i boriosi, saccenti e arroganti troverebbero altri
mezzi (e mazze) per dar noia ai suoi contemporanei.
> Per quanto mi riguarda, la cosa migliore sarebbe "opzionalizzare" il
> congiuntivo, renderlo cioè facoltativo; non credo che sia possibile
> avere frasi con congiuntivi che, sostituiti da condizionali o
> indicativi, cambino completamente di significato.
>
> Tu che hai imparato l'italiano come lingua straniera, e che quindi
> conosci la grammatica meglio di qualsiasi grammatico madrelingua, hai un
> controesempio? Io non ne ho finora trovati, ad eccezione dell'esortativo
> ("andiamo", "Fantocci, si siedi!"), che però potrebbe essere assimilato
> all'imperativo; guardacaso _quel_ congiuntivo, non sostituibile, non lo
> sbaglia mai nessuno.
Il piú ovvio controesempio che mi venga adesso è «perché», che
con l'indicativo ha valore causale mentre col congiuntivo diventa
congiunzione finale. Nel tuo italiano semplificato andrebbe
sostituita con «affinché», congiunzione che per me ha un che di
altisonante per cui la eviterei in una chiacchiera fra amici.
Se ne dovrà prendere abitudine.
Dei problemi possono anche sorgere in subordinate esortative come
«Digli che venga subito!»
In questo caso si dovrà ricorrere al verbo servile «dovere» per
sostituire il congiuntivo: «Digli che deve venire subito!»
Ma molto elegante non è.
> [...]
> Resta che in inglese ci sono 3 voci per ogni verbo (infinito, 3a persona
> presente, passato/participio), mentre in italiano ci sono 3 (o 4)
> coniugazioni ciascuna con 110 voci (mi pare, contando anche le composte).
>
> Insomma, io so dire "The algorithm has converged" o "Algoritmen
> har konvergert", e penso di poter improvvisare "Das Algorithm ist
> konvergiert",
Der Algorithmus hat konvergiert (a prescindere dal fatto che
un algoritmo come tale non possa convergere, bensí solo la
successione dei risultati da esso prodotti).
> ma ho dovuto chiedere su icl se si dicesse "l'algoritmo è
> convergiuto/convertito/convergito" o che altro diamine fosse
> (era "convesso").
Comunque non concavo ;) (un refuso freudiano?)
Del resto, anche nelle lingue germaniche ci sono i participi
passati irregolari, e mica poche!
Ciao, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Sul plurale invariato avresti ragione (secondo www.demauroparavia.it)
> se Wolfgang stesse scrivendo in italiano. Ma siccome la frase è in
> inglese deve usare il plurale inglese che, stando all'American
> Heritage (www.bartleby.com/61), è "crescendi" o "crescendos".
Nel frattempo ho fatto una ricerca con google che mi ha fornito
167 pagine in italiano che contengono «crescendi». Non tutte si
occupano d'altronde della musica. Si trova anche qualche pagina
su altri argomenti, in cui si usa «crescendi» in senso metaforico.
> > mentre il secondo è un avverbio
> > (si suona "piano", "pianissimo", etc.).
Sullo Zingarelli figura il plurale «pianissimi» accanto alla forma
invariata.
Sono del resto non tanto inconsueti i plurali regolari formati da
avverbi sostantivati. Pensate solo al bene e al male.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Wolfgang Mueller
> [...]
> Has any significant composer set any texts in Esperanto?
I hope not. And if someone had, I would not qualify him as
significant.
Wolfgang
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>Was that supposed to be Interlingua??
I wonder, is there much difference between Interlingua and
Interlingue? I found the former first, but saw a text in the latter
lately, can't remember where, and could also read it fairly easily.
Any bilingual texts for comparison anywhere?
--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm 19 May 2003
Paul O. BARTLETT
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 19 May 2003 12:04:35 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>
> >Was that supposed to be Interlingua??
>
> I wonder, is there much difference between Interlingua and
> Interlingue? I found the former first, but saw a text in the latter
> lately, can't remember where, and could also read it fairly easily.
InterlinguE is better known as Occidental, published in 1922 (or
thereabouts) by Edgar de Wahl of Estonia. Occidental is slightly more
schematic than (IALA) InterlinguA, but otherwise the languages are
highly similar. (The names can be confusing, because Peano's original
Latino sine Flexione was originally known as Interlingua.)
> Any bilingual texts for comparison anywhere?
I don't know of any right off, although I am sure there must be
some somewhere.
--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett at smart.net
PGP key info in message headers
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Il punto è che non puoi dire che una lingua è "brutta"
> o "bella", è una questione di abitudine.
Finché si tratta di una lingua naturale, d'accordo. Sulle
opere d'arte, fra le quali annovero pure le lingue artificali,
continuo invece a permettermi un giudizio estetico.
> Non so se hai mai sentito l'intonazione del NOrveGEse che
> È TUtto un SALIscEndi, ormai ci ho fatto l'abitudine, ma
> all'inizio mi sembrava orrida.
Non l'ho mai sentito. Credo però di poter evincere dalla tua
descrizione che sia un'avvicendarsi di sillabe toniche e atone.
Come nel ceco, insomma. Ma io non lo trovo affatto brutto,
anzi me ne piace lo spiccato ritmo.
> Quella dello svedese che sembra un barese che imita l'accento
> di Quarto Oggiaro mi perplime ancora.
E dov'è Quarto Oggiaro?
A me la cadenza dello svedese è sempre sembrata molto simile a
quella del tedesco. Trovandomi in un luogo alquanto rumoroso,
mettiamo un ristorante, e cercando di seguire la conversazione
delle persone sedute a un tavolo troppo lontano perché si
potessero distinguere le singole parole, mi capitava piú di
una volta che le ritenessi tedesche mentre davvero erano svedesi.
Delle analoghe osservazioni puoi fare col rumeno, ritenendolo
italiano, e col greco, confondendolo con lo spagnolo.
> [OT] Che OS usi? Qui si scrive da Gentoo Linux!
Non ti risulta dall'intestazione? Infatti ci trovi questa riga:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-4GB i686)
La distribuzione è SuSE 8.1, di cui sono molto contento, perché
l'installazione n'è veramente molto semplice e comoda. Solo
per farti un esempio, per la configurazione di ADSL ho impiegato
appena cinque minuti senza far fatica né dover affrontare alcuna
difficoltà, sebbene la mia scheda di rete fosse ignota. Si serve
di Linux anche mia figlia, laureata in lingue e quindi tutt'altro
che esperta di computer, senza che abbia mai avuto difficoltà.
Di recente è uscita la versione 8.2. Ma qualcuno mi ha detto che
non vale la pena installarla perché le modifiche sarebbero minime.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Nicola Nobili
> > Non so se hai mai sentito l'intonazione del NOrveGEse che
> > È TUtto un SALIscEndi, ormai ci ho fatto l'abitudine, ma
> > all'inizio mi sembrava orrida.
>
> Non l'ho mai sentito. Credo però di poter evincere dalla tua
> descrizione che sia un'avvicendarsi di sillabe toniche e atone.
No, si tratta proprio dell'intonazione che sale e scende, un po' come il
veneto o il gallese, ma piú spiccato, e talvolta anche con valore distintivo
(al punto che qualcuno sostiene che il norvegese e lo svedese siano le
uniche due lingue europee provviste di "toni").
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> No, si tratta proprio dell'intonazione che sale e scende,
> un po' come il veneto o il gallese, ma piú spiccato, e
> talvolta anche con valore distintivo
Adesso l'ho capita. Grazie.
> (al punto che qualcuno sostiene che il norvegese e lo svedese
> siano le uniche due lingue europee provviste di "toni").
In serbo-croato ogni vocale tonica ha un tono o ascendente
o discendente o neutro.
Nessun segno grafico distingue questi toni. E come se ciò
non bastasse, non di rado capita che l'intonazione della
vocale tonica cambi nei diversi casi della declinazione.
Tutto sommato si può senza esagerazione constatare che il
serbo-croato è una delle lingue piú difficili dell'Europa.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Federico Zenith
> Purtroppo è vero. Sono però convinto che, ammesso che il congiuntivo
> fosse abolito, i boriosi, saccenti e arroganti troverebbero altri
> mezzi (e mazze) per dar noia ai suoi contemporanei.
Su questo non c'è dubbio! Torsten Poulin da un'altra parte mi ha detto
che in danese si uccidono sulle virgole...
>>Tu che hai imparato l'italiano come lingua straniera, e che quindi
>>conosci la grammatica meglio di qualsiasi grammatico madrelingua, hai un
>>controesempio? Io non ne ho finora trovati, ad eccezione dell'esortativo
>>("andiamo", "Fantocci, si siedi!"), che però potrebbe essere assimilato
>>all'imperativo; guardacaso _quel_ congiuntivo, non sostituibile, non lo
>>sbaglia mai nessuno.
>
> Il piú ovvio controesempio che mi venga adesso è «perché», che
> con l'indicativo ha valore causale mentre col congiuntivo diventa
> congiunzione finale. Nel tuo italiano semplificato andrebbe
> sostituita con «affinché», congiunzione che per me ha un che di
> altisonante per cui la eviterei in una chiacchiera fra amici.
> Se ne dovrà prendere abitudine.
...E dire che in una discussione piuttosto lunga su icli nessuno mi ha
fatto questo esempio.
Sarebbe bastato per convincermi che il congiuntivo a qualcosa serve.
Ok, cambio ufficialmente opinione. A volte serve.
In norvegese hanno una situazione simile con la
congiunzione/subgiunzione så: come congiunzione regge
soggetto-verbo-avvenbio (SVA) e ha valore consequenziale, come
subgiunzione regge SAV e ha valore finale.
In piú è avverbio con significato di "poi", e in quei casi causa
l'inversione, ed è pure passato di å se, vedere.
Så jeg gikk ikke dit - Quindi non andai lí
Så jeg ikke gikk dit - Perché non ci andassi
Så gikk jeg ikke dit - Poi non andai lí
Puntualmente i norvegesi fanno un casino infernale e piazzano
l'inversione comunque, e ormai ho cominciato a farlo anch'io...
> Dei problemi possono anche sorgere in subordinate esortative come
> «Digli che venga subito!»
> In questo caso si dovrà ricorrere al verbo servile «dovere» per
> sostituire il congiuntivo: «Digli che deve venire subito!»
> Ma molto elegante non è.
..."Digli di venire subito!" mi verrebbe piú naturale.
> [...]
> Del resto, anche nelle lingue germaniche ci sono i participi
> passati irregolari, e mica poche!
...Ma perlomeno non hanno 110 voci ciascuno!
Ciao,
-Federico
Federico Zenith
Chissà se concavo è invece il participio del contrario di convergere,
cioè divergere?
Ah no, quello è "diverso"...
Hoffatto la bbattuta!!! :-)))
-Federico
(sorry non ho saputo resistere)
Wolfgang Mueller
> [...]
>
> Puntualmente i norvegesi fanno un casino infernale e piazzano
> l'inversione comunque, e ormai ho cominciato a farlo anch'io...
A me da tedesco questa inversione sembra del tutto naturale. Ma
non c'è bisogno andare nella lontana Norvegia per osservare questo
fenomeno. S'incontra anche nella tua immediata vicinanza, nei
Grigioni. Su http://www.rumantsch.ch/rumol/manifest.html trovi
all'inizio del secondo paragrafo:
>| Cun gronda maioritad *ha il pievel svizzer*
>| acceptà avant sis onns in nov artitgel da
>| linguatgs en la constituziun federala.
Segue una frase normale. Ma poi eccotene un altra:
>| Tranter auter *prescrivan quels* ch'ils chantuns
>| hajan da determinar lur linguas uffizialas...
> [...]
> > Dei problemi possono anche sorgere in subordinate esortative come
> > «Digli che venga subito!»
>
> ..."Digli di venire subito!" mi verrebbe piú naturale.
Beh, avrei dovuto scegliere un miglior esempio:
«Digli che suo figlio venga subito!»
Ma forse mi obietterai qualcosa come
«Digli di mandare suo figlio subito!»
Ok., se propri c'insisti, ammetto solennemente che il congiuntivo
è superfluo.
> [...]
> > Del resto, anche nelle lingue germaniche ci sono i participi
> > passati irregolari, e mica poche!
>
> ...Ma perlomeno non hanno 110 voci ciascuno!
Cosí tanti? Contiamo un po':
1. Presente ind. e cong.: 12 voci
2. Imperfetto ind. e cong.: 12 voci
3. Passato remoto: 6 voci
4. Futuro e condizionale: 12 voci
5. Infinito, Imperativo, Gerundio: 3 voci
6. Participi presente e passato: 2 voci
-----------------------------------------
Totale: 47 voci
E questo è un conto molto generoso in quanto trascura uguaglianze
come quella di tutt'e tre le forme del singolare del congiuntivo
presente, delle prime due del congiuntivo imperfetto ecc. Anche la
lingua romanza piú ricca di forme verbali, il portoghese, annovera
solo 17 voci in piú. Sarei dunque curioso di sapere in quale lingua
si arrivi alla fantastica cifra di 110.
Contro le nobili idee dei linguisti e filologi vince (quasi) sempre
il meschino spirito contabile di un fisico.
Ciao, Wolfgang
Marco Cimarosti
> > > Del resto, anche nelle lingue germaniche ci sono i participi
> > > passati irregolari, e mica poche!
> >
> > ...Ma perlomeno non hanno 110 voci ciascuno!
>
> Cosí tanti? Contiamo un po':
>
> 1. Presente ind. e cong.: 12 voci
> 2. Imperfetto ind. e cong.: 12 voci
> 3. Passato remoto: 6 voci
> 4. Futuro e condizionale: 12 voci
> 5. Infinito, Imperativo, Gerundio: 3 voci
> 6. Participi presente e passato: 2 voci
> -----------------------------------------
> Totale: 47 voci
>
> E questo è un conto molto generoso in quanto trascura uguaglianze
> come quella di tutt'e tre le forme del singolare del congiuntivo
> presente, delle prime due del congiuntivo imperfetto ecc.
Hai dimenticato i plurali e i femminili dei participi, che ci portano
a quota 50.
Accorpando gli omofoni si hanno risultati diversi secondo le
coniugazioni: io ho contato 43 forme per la 1ª regolare e 48 per la 2ª
regolare; la differenza è data soprattutto dal diverso numero di
omofoni fra indicativo e congiuntivo. (La 3ª coniugazione regolare e i
verbi irregolari li lascio a voi. :-)
Comunque, anche Federico ha dimenticato un po' di di cose nel suo
conteggio per l'inglese: il participio presente ("walking"), le
seconde persone singolari ("thou walkst", "thou walkstedst", ecc. --
che saranno anche rare ma non più che, per esempio, il trapassato
remoto italiano) e, soprattutto, ha dimenticato la croce di ogni
studente di inglese: il fatto che preterito e participio passato in
molti verbi sono diversi.
Inoltre, è a dir poco tendenzioso paragonare l'intero paradigma
italiano con le sole forme non omofone inglesi. Contando tutte le
forme , il paradigma inglese è circa analogo a quello Italiano,
congiuntivi compresi. Anzi, contando anche le forme alternative
contratte ("I shall go" vs. "I will go" vs. "I'll go", "I have gone"
vs. "I've gone", ecc.) ha forse qualche forma in più da imparare.
Ciao.
Marco
Tristan Miller
In article <24ae6154.0305...@posting.google.com>, Eduard Petrov
wrote:
> I had a Bulgarian colleague tell me that Bulgarians can understand
> Russian and Serbo-Croatian with very little difficulty. Not being
> Bulgarian I couldn't tell you if its bullshit. I don't know if this
> is because they don't use a case system in Bulgarian.
I've also got a Bulgarian friend who claims to understand spoken Russian. I
don't think she can speak it, so she's had little or no formal training in
the language.
--
\\\ Tristan Miller [en, (fr, de, ia)]
\\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ (personal)
\\\ http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~psy/ (academic)
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Mer, 21 mag 2003 02:41:24 +0200, Wolfgang Müller ha scritto:
> >
> > 1. Presente ind. e cong.: 12 voci
> > 2. Imperfetto ind. e cong.: 12 voci
> > 3. Passato remoto: 6 voci
> > 4. Futuro e condizionale: 12 voci
> > 5. Infinito, Imperativo, Gerundio: 3 voci
> > 6. Participi presente e passato: 2 voci
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Totale: 47 voci
> >
> > E questo è un conto molto generoso in quanto trascura uguaglianze
> > come quella di tutt'e tre le forme del singolare del congiuntivo
> > presente, delle prime due del congiuntivo imperfetto ecc.
>
> Hai dimenticato i plurali e i femminili dei participi, che ci
> portano a quota 50.
>
> Accorpando gli omofoni si hanno risultati diversi secondo le
> coniugazioni: io ho contato 43 forme per la 1ª regolare e 48
> per la 2ª regolare;
Sul campo della pignoleria mi ritengo modestamente imbattibile.
Facciamo dunque al tuo modo i conti per la 1ª coniugazione:
1. Presente ind. e cong.: 8 voci (6 + 2ª e 3ª pl. del cong.)
2. Imperfetto ind. e cong.: 11 voci (1ª = 2ª pers. del cong.)
3. Passato remoto: 5 voci (6 meno la 2ª plurale)
4. Futuro e condizionale: 12 voci
5. Infinito e gerundio: 2 voci
6. Participi pres. e pass.: 6 voci (comprese femm. e plur.)
-----------------------------------
Totale 1ª coniugazione: 44 voci
La 3ª ha una voce in piú, ossia il singolare del
congiuntivo presente, il quale porta il totale a 45 voci.
Per la 2ª coniugazione ci si devono aggiungere le tre forme
doppie del passato remoto, cosicché arrivo anch'io a 48 voci.
Contabili saluti,
Wolfgang
Marco Cimarosti
> Sul campo della pignoleria mi ritengo modestamente imbattibile.
Sorry. :-)
> Facciamo dunque al tuo modo i conti per la 1ª coniugazione:
>
> 1. Presente ind. e cong.: 8 voci (6 + 2ª e 3ª pl. del cong.)
> 2. Imperfetto ind. e cong.: 11 voci (1ª = 2ª pers. del cong.)
> 3. Passato remoto: 5 voci (6 meno la 2ª plurale)
> 4. Futuro e condizionale: 12 voci
> 5. Infinito e gerundio: 2 voci
> 6. Participi pres. e pass.: 6 voci (comprese femm. e plur.)
> -----------------------------------
> Totale 1ª coniugazione: 44 voci
Hai contato due volte "tornate": al punto 1 come 2ª plur. ind. e al
punto 6 come femm. plur.
Ciao.
Marco
P.S. Ovviamente, la mia vittoria verrà poi invalidata dal gran giurì
della Federazione Mondiale Pignoli, perché quelle due "-te" finali,
etimologicamente, non c'entrano niente l'una con l'altra.
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Hai contato due volte "tornate": al punto 1 come 2ª plur. ind.
> e al punto 6 come femm. plur.
Grunf.
> P.S. Ovviamente, la mia vittoria verrà poi invalidata dal gran giurì
> della Federazione Mondiale Pignoli, perché quelle due "-te" finali,
> etimologicamente, non c'entrano niente l'una con l'altra.
Non cercare di consolarmi. Omonimo è omonimo e basta.
Ciao, Wolfgang