Ido - an auxiliary language for Europe
James Chandler
Better than ESPERANTO
Better than INTERLINGUA
Ido has an active community of speakers around the world and is the
most suitable candidate for an auxiliary language for Europe and the
world.
Ido es konstruktita helpolinguo quo es:-
Plu bona kam ESPERANTO
Plu bona kam INTERLINGUA
Ido havas aktiva komuneso di parolanti cirkum la mondo ed es la maxim
apta kandidato por auxiliara linguo por Europa e la mondo.
For more information (por plusa informo):
http://www.ido.li/index.html
http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5037/yindex.html
Ido mailing list (idista postolisto):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/idolisto
Send empty message to (sendez vakua mesajo a):
Ido is the solution to the world language problem. Be part of the
solution!
Ido es la solvo di la mondala linguo-problemo. Esez parto di la
solvo!
Kordiale, James Chandler
id...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/idojc - IALs index
http://www.geocities.com/idojc/yindex.html - Ido index
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/idolisto - Idolisto home
"I believe in the virtue of small nations. I believe in the virtue of
small numbers. The world will be saved by the few." - Andre Gide
Peter Kleiweg
> Ido is a constructed auxiliary language which is:-
>
> Better than ESPERANTO
> Better than INTERLINGUA
To coin a popular Sunnydale phrase: "Bored now"
--
Peter Kleiweg
Cellus Purfluxius
>Ido is a constructed auxiliary language which is:-
>
>Better than ESPERANTO
>Better than INTERLINGUA
>
>Ido has an active community of speakers around the world and is the
>most suitable candidate for an auxiliary language for Europe and the
>world.
>
Ido es certo un bonissime lingua, como anque esperanto. Question: Quante
personas qui non ha studiate ido e non ha studiate esperanto pote
comprender iste linguas?
Quante personas, crede tu, comprende iste parve (micre) texto in
interlingua?
Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
comprende sin previe studios!
Amicalmente
Cellus P.
Larry G
I'm almost at the point of proposing a separate europa* group for auxiliary
languages. Anybody agree?
Larry
Peter Kleiweg
> I'm almost at the point of proposing a separate europa* group for auxiliary
> languages. Anybody agree?
I doubt that would do any good. I count 35 dedicated Esperanto
groups on my news server. Then why do they bother us here?
Because they are on a mission.
Adding an auxiliary language group (a wannabe language group)
might just as well increase the Esperantist trafic in all of
europa.* as these activists would see it as an additional
justification of their actions.
--
Peter Kleiweg
@falsa.falsa KaGu:-}
"Cellus Purfluxius" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EF89873...@nospam.com...
> James Chandler wrote:
>
> >
> Ido es certo un bonissime lingua, como anque esperanto. Question: Quante
> personas qui non ha studiate ido e non ha studiate esperanto pote
> comprender iste linguas?
>
> Quante personas, crede tu, comprende iste parve (micre) texto in
> interlingua?
Mi ne scias kiom da personoj kiuj komprenas vian "pravan teksteton" en
"inteligentua". Fakte, mi ne komprenas ec unu vorton car mi nur regas la
svedan
krom tiu kiun mi nun uzas por komenti vian afison.
Komparante la tekstojn en IDO kaj Interlingua mi konstatas ke la estimata
Goode sajne kopiis IDO-n kiam li konstruis sian lingvon 1952 kun la intenco
detrui la eblecojn por Esperanto plue evoluigi same kiel Beaufront intencis
fari per sia IDO. Kaj Beaufront ja kopiis Esperanton ;-)
La sukceso de tiuj du projektoj estas evidenta hodiau, cu ne? ;-)
KaGu:-}
Jag vet inte hur många som förstår Er lilla "sanna text" på "Inteligentua".
Ärligen, jag förstår inte ett enda ord eftersom jag bara behärskar Esperanto
och det språk jag just nu använder för att kommentera Eder affish.
Jämförande texterna på Ido och Interlingua konstaterar jag att den gode
Gode tydligen kopierade IDO när han konstruerade sitt språk 1952 i avsikt
att förstöra möjligheterna för Esperanto att vidareutvecklas precis som
Beaufront avsåg att göra förmedelst IDO. Och, Beaufront kopierade Esperanto
;-)
De två projektens framgångar är uppenbara idag, eller hur? ;-)
>
> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> comprende sin previe studios!
>
La vero estas ke oni devas scipovi almenau du ja ec tri el la grandaj
lingvoj en Europo por ke oni povu sukcesi kompreni vian tekston sen antaua
studado de Interlingua.
Sanningen är att man måste behärska minst två, ja till och med tre av
Europas stora språk för att klara bedriften att förstå Eder text utan
föregående studier av Interlingua.
> Amicalmente
>
> Cellus P.
>
James Chandler
Anyone would think my post was off-topic. What is the topic of this
group again? europe.languages - languages in Europe... exactly how do
Peter and Larry arrive at the conclusion that a post about a language
which is actively used in Europe, and is a potential solution to
language problems in Europe, is somehow not relevant to this group???
I have seen this sort of thing before - a small select group of
skillful debaters take over a forum and make it their own little
fiefdom - sitting on any newcomer or new idea they disagree with.
Peter Kleiweg, you have an opposite number on sci.lang called Peter T.
Daniels - maybe you are even the same person, qua savas? I think it
is a very unwelcoming and unproductive attitude.
Now how about allowing some discussion of Ido as a solution to
European language problems - like the gigantic EU translation bill -
like the fact that ordinary Europeans still in 2003 by and large have
no language in common. Do Peter and Larry, in their infinite wisdom,
have their own solution in mind? I'm all ears.
Dafydd ap Fergus
> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> comprende sin previe studios!
> Amicalmente
> Cellus P.
How many people understand English better than Interlingua?
Understanding a language is not everything. I understand Romanian,
Swedish or Czech, but can't speak them, and probably never will.
Dafydd
Philippe Vigeral
James Chandler <id...@hotmail.com> a exposé :
> Anyone would think my post was off-topic.
It is not, but rather boring because about the 2347th of that kind...
> What is the topic of this
> group again? europe.languages - languages in Europe... exactly how do
> Peter and Larry arrive at the conclusion that a post about a language
> which is actively used in Europe, and is a potential solution to
> language problems in Europe, is somehow not relevant to this group???
It's not actually. However, posts with such a ""typical" intro as:
> [XXXX] is a constructed auxiliary language which is
> better than [YYYY]
are becoming so usual on europa.linguas that one could understandably
consider useful giving their authors a dedicated battlefield. :-|
IMHO, it would not be so efficient however: proselytes would just get
_two_ battlefields on europa.*, with heavily crossposted articles. We'd
rather try to ignore them.
--
Philippe Vigeral
fr,en,es (ia,it,pt,ca)
Torsten Poulin
> Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
>> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
>> comprende sin previe studios!
>> Amicalmente
>> Cellus P.
>
> How many people understand English better than Interlingua?
No doubt lots and lots of people, simply because they are either
native English speakers or they learned it in school. Had I not
learned English, French, and a smattering of Italian, I would
have been unable to make heads or tails of the Interlingua quoted
above.
I would have recognized "milliones" and possibly "texto" and
"studios". "Texto" could be Danish "tekst" (text), but it could
also be "tekstur" (texture). "Studios" could be "studie" meaning
studio or study (as in draft or investigation). It could also be
"studium" as in (university) studies.
There is no way I could guess which, if any, of the possible
choices that would be correct. It is doubtful that I would have
made the connection between "era" and the Danish verb "er"
(present tense of "være") when "milliones" is the only word I
would have been able to recognize with any degree of confidence.
A Danish translation of Cellus's text could be
Denne tekst er skrevet i interlingua, sproget (som) millioner
forstår uden forudgående studier!
Med venlig hilsen (or simply: Venligst)
...
--
Torsten
Stefano MacGregor
> Ido is a constructed auxiliary language which is:-
>
> Better than ESPERANTO
> Better than INTERLINGUA
>
> Ido has an active community of speakers around the world and is the
> most suitable candidate for an auxiliary language for Europe and the
> world.
How big an active community? Bigger than that of Esperanto? Bigger
than that of Interlingua?
And by the way, "most sutible" is definitely a matter of opinion. I
personally believe that Esperanto is the best candidate, if you want a
neutral constructed language, but have to agree that IALA Interlingua
has a lot going for it.
It's interesting[1] that no one has proposed Volapük as the most
sutible candidate for European auxiliary language.
--
Stefano
[1] for extremely small values of "interesting"
Larry G
> Anyone would think my post was off-topic. What is the topic of this
> group again? europe.languages - languages in Europe... exactly how do
> Peter and Larry arrive at the conclusion that a post about a language
> which is actively used in Europe, and is a potential solution to
> language problems in Europe, is somehow not relevant to this group???
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a minute. You're jumping the gun a bit, as we
say in American English. You're topic is quite on-topic here. This is a
topic that is brought up in this newsgroup quite a bit. At times, it
dominates the discussions. A cursory look at the group would reveal that
posts such as yours are more than welcomed here and debated, I would even
say at the expense of other linguistic topics.
Yes, this group is about languages spoken in Europe. A part of the mission
of all of the europa* groups is to encourage conversations in the languages
of those posters who are not so fluent in English, the dominant language of
the Big-8, in the process we can learn something about other languages and
cultures in the process. And, frequently that aspect is overlooked by the
artificial language debate, which is quite frequent.
As Philippe said, it is quite common here to have posts that "X language is
better than language Y", and that often sparks debates we have all heard
before. Hence, my post. The purpose of which was not to make you feel
unwelcome, but perhaps my attempt to channel these kinds of discussions to a
specific forum so that the other topics about the natural languages don't go
overlooked, for example.
> I have seen this sort of thing before - a small select group of
> skillful debaters take over a forum and make it their own little
> fiefdom - sitting on any newcomer or new idea they disagree with.
> Peter Kleiweg, you have an opposite number on sci.lang called Peter T.
> Daniels - maybe you are even the same person, qua savas? I think it
> is a very unwelcoming and unproductive attitude.
LOL, I think Peter Daniels over at Sci.Lang would be quite surprised to hear
that I was he in disguise. That would be news to him. I'll take that as a
compliment if you feel that I'm as popular and knowledgable as him, and that
my presence here has made you think this was my own personal "fiefdom".
Honestly, I didn't think I posted here all that often. ;-) We've had our
moments too, James. I chalk it up to the fact that Mr. Daniels is so
knowledgable of so many different languages and writing systems, that my
guess is that he gets agitated every time he has to explain what to him is
every day basic knowledge. I do enjoy his knowledge over there, but rest
assured I'm not him, lol.
> Now how about allowing some discussion of Ido as a solution to
> European language problems - like the gigantic EU translation bill -
> like the fact that ordinary Europeans still in 2003 by and large have
> no language in common. Do Peter and Larry, in their infinite wisdom,
> have their own solution in mind? I'm all ears.
Yes I do. My solution is IALA Interlingua (www.interlingua.com). It is the
language that newsgroups in this hierarchy are based upon, and even the
website is published in, in addition to English.
(www.europa.usenet.eu.org). Based upon the Romance languages and English,
it can be understand by the most people familiar with either of those two
groups without previous study. Being based upon Latin, it also has a
connection to Europe's common heritage as that language was used throughout
the continent in times past. Admittedly, it has a strong bias toward
Romance languages, specifically to Spanish and Italian. Considering the
goal is a common tongue, and common understanding with regard to Europe, I
feel this auxilary language is optimal if one must be used. Ideally, I
think it would be great if a common Germanic tongue was also available. I
know that Folkspraak and Nordien are being developed.
I don't denegrate Esperanto or Ido, however. Personally, I've found
Esperanto easier to write (from my little knowledge of it) and IALA
Interlingua easier to understand. That's my experience. My post wasn't
directed to you or your ideas. Merely to the fact that the topic has been
discussed here many times before often to the point of overshadowing other
potential topics.
Larry
Gerard van Wilgen
> "Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bda6dn$qjl0o$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Peter Kleiweg" <pk...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message ...
> > > # aldus James Chandler :
> Now how about allowing some discussion of Ido as a solution to
> European language problems - like the gigantic EU translation bill -
> like the fact that ordinary Europeans still in 2003 by and large have
> no language in common. Do Peter and Larry, in their infinite wisdom,
> have their own solution in mind? I'm all ears.
There is no doubt that the problems are real, but promoting all those
artificial languages that are reputedly better than Esperanto, is not the
solution. Even if one of them were really better (according to everyone's
definition of "better"), it could not counter-balance the weight of the many
thousands of Esperanto speakers and the large amount of learning material
that is available.
And personally I am not convinced that Ido is better than Esperanto. For
instance the lack of agreement in number between nouns and adjectives is
presented as an advantage. But if it is an advantage, then why did the
inventors not go all the way and also got rid of the agreement between nouns
that are connected with a copula? So, why not "La animali es kato" instead
of "La animali es kati"?
And why is that supposedly inconvenient plural ending still present when an
adjective is used as a plural noun? There is after all not much difference
between "La kati es la nigra animali" and "La kati es la nigri".
Gerard van Wilgen
www.majstro.com (On-line translation dictionary / Enreta tradukvortaro)
www.travlang.com/Ergane (Free translation dictionary for Windows / Senpaga
tradukvortaro por Windows)
Peter Kleiweg
> > Now how about allowing some discussion of Ido as a solution to
> > European language problems - like the gigantic EU translation bill -
> > like the fact that ordinary Europeans still in 2003 by and large have
> > no language in common. Do Peter and Larry, in their infinite wisdom,
> > have their own solution in mind? I'm all ears.
>
> There is no doubt that the problems are real,
Translation: There is no doubt among us Esperantists that we are
fighting for a just cause.
Of course any sensible discussion about the 'language problem'
is impossible. The 'language problem' is the dogma the
Esperantist believe system was built on, and therefore
unavailable as topic for discussion.
--
Peter Kleiweg
Matthias Peick
> Ido es certo un bonissime lingua, como anque esperanto. Question: Quante
> personas qui non ha studiate ido e non ha studiate esperanto pote
> comprender iste linguas?
Oh, ganz sicher, wenn man wie ich Deutsch, Englisch, Latein und Spanisch als
"offizielle" Sprachen hat (+ noch ein bisschen). Darunter dürfte das
Verständnis arg leiden. In Deutschland gibt es folglich einige zehn
Millionen, die leiden werden.
> Quante personas, crede tu, comprende iste parve (micre) texto in
> interlingua?
Das ist auch nicht das Problem. Nur ist Esperanto deutlich einfacher, wenn man
es aktiv einsetzen muss. Nach den ganzen Hispanismen in den obigen Texten
hätte ich ganz enorme Schwierigkeiten, quante/quanto, question/pregunta usw.
auseinander zu halten.
> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> comprende sin previe studios!
ha, era, das vieldeutige que und dazu recht komplexe Rechtschreib- und
Ausspracheregeln (Certo/Como, QUAnte/QuI/QuE) machen den Gebrauch deutlich
schwerer als Esperanto.
Pablo
Peter Kleiweg escribió:
If you don't like these mesages, why do you read them?.
Pablo
Cellus Purfluxius escribió:
> Ido es certo un bonissime lingua, como anque esperanto. Question: Quante
> personas qui non ha studiate ido e non ha studiate esperanto pote
> comprender iste linguas?
Pocas, pero como ya te han dicho en otro mensaje, eso no quiere decir
nada, porque un idioma internacional no debe servir sólo para que todos
sean capaces de entender un texto escrito, sino que también deben ser
capaces de hablar, entender y escribir la lengua.
>
> Quante personas, crede tu, comprende iste parve (micre) texto in
> interlingua?
>
> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> comprende sin previe studios!
Pero desgraciadamente que muy pocos pueden hablar o escribir. Estoy
seguro que si este mismo texto lo hablaras en lugar de escribirlo,
habría mucha menos gente que lo entendería, porque hay muchas palabras
que aunque se parecen mucho escritas en las lenguas romances, cuando son
leídas suenan muy diferentes, por lo que siendo fácil para todos
reconcerlas por escrito, es difícil para muchos hacerlo cuando son
pronunciadas. Eso, junto con el hecho de que es una lengua más difícil
de aprender que el esperanto, son los puntos flacos que en mi opinión
tiene Interlingua para ser propuesta como lengua común europea.
>
> Amicalmente
>
> Cellus P.
>
Pawel Wimmer
news:hVbKa.13395$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
>
> Mi ne scias kiom da personoj kiuj komprenas vian "pravan teksteton" en
> "inteligentua". Fakte, mi ne komprenas ec unu vorton car mi nur regas la
> svedan krom tiu kiun mi nun uzas por komenti vian afison.
Ecx ne "texto", ecx ne "personas", ecx ne "micre"? Ho, mirinda afero :-)
> Komparante la tekstojn en IDO kaj Interlingua mi konstatas ke la estimata
> Goode
Gode
> sajne kopiis IDO-n
Absurda eraro
> kiam li konstruis sian lingvon 1952
1951
> kun la intenco
> detrui la eblecojn por Esperanto
Absurda aserto
Cellus Purfluxius
Likaväl som jag har rätt att skriva på svenska om jag tycker det är
roligt så bör jag väl har rätt att skriva på interlingua om jag tror att
någon förstår mig.
As well as I have the right to write in Swedish, if I thint that is fun,
I should have th right to write in Interlingua, if I think that someone
can understand me.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
so you English only may comfortably skip it. I say this just in the
beginning so you can jump it if you don't like these darn auxiliary,
manmade languages. Next message, please!
And if you understand interlingua, jump to next message!
(SE) Det här svaret är på svenska. Gå till nästa meddelande om du vill
lläsa interlinguaversionen.
(EO) Tiu chi respondo estas en la sveda lingvo. Daurigu al la sekvanta
mesagho se vi legas interlingua-n.
KaGu:-} wrote:
(SE) och torgförde en del missuppfattningar om interlingua och esperanto
som jag gärna vill rätta till.
(SE) Faktum är att vi är många som har börjat med esperanto och sedan
tröttnat på det eller hoppats på något nytt. Den processen började redan
med Ido och följdes av Occidental och Novial och Interlingua.
Det som skiljer Interlingua från de andra språken är att det i högre
grad är en - så vetenskapligt korrekt registrering som det är möjligt av
det gemensamma ordförrådet i de stora romanska språken franska,
italienska, spanska/portugisiska + engelska (som många anser på sätt och
vis också vara ett romanskt språk genom de många lånorden från franska
och latin.
Det lustiga är att Interlingua publicerades samma år som jag började
lära mig Esperanto, och när jag först 20 år senare fick reda på att
interlingua fanns, var min första tanke, fan, att jag inte hade hört
talas om det här tidigare!
Jag var ganska aktiv i esperantorörelsen i Sverige till en bit in på
60-talet när jag fick andra intressen. Min erfarenhet från
esperantotiden är att folk alltid sade till mig att "man borde lära sig
esperanto" men det blev aldrig av för dem...
Jag insåg att jag skulle ha nytta av interlingua, även om jag vore den
enda människan i världen som kunde det!!! Va?? Jo, därför att genom att
lära mig interlingua fick jag bättre grepp om de främmande orden i
svenskan och engelskan, och jag upptäckte att jag plötsligt förstod
mycket mer franska, spanska och italienska än förut. Och ändå har jag
läst franska på gymnasienivå, och spanska av eget intresse, men jag kan
inte skriva en rad på de romanska språken, jag kan bara tala och läsa
dem! (Och grammatiken ska vi inte tala om!) Jag är kanske för lat! :-)
och mina rostiga latinkunskaper fick nytt liv genom interlingua. Med
interlingua kunde jag förklara för en italiensk turist i Polen var han
kunde växla pengar, förklara för en spansk turist hur man åker till
Gamla Uppsala. (Min spanska har blivit totalförstörd genom mitt
sysslande med interlingua, hur jag än försöker prata spanska numera blir
det interlingua!) :-) )
(Ålderns höst, kanske!)
Särskilt esperantister brukar missförstå det här med interlingua. Det är
inte så att man behöver _behärska_ alla de romanska språken för att
kunna lära sig interlingua. Det räcker med att man förstår dem passivt.
Dessutom känner vi igen många ord i interlingua därför att de redan
finns i svenskan. De tre verben "demonstrar, scriber, dormir" är t.om.
lätta att förstå för en esperantotalande, och den som kan svenska känner
igen "demonstration, subskribera, auditorium". Om man bara skulle
använda svenska främmande ord skulle det bli bra likt interlingua:
"Administrationen subventionerar delegaternas lunch", "le administration
subventiona le lunch del delegatos". Eller när Karl IX sade om sonen som
skulle bli Gustan II Adolf" "Han ska göra det" (Ille faciet") och detta
_ille_ är också "han" på interlingua.
På interlingua behöver man inte grunna över om man ska översätta
"redaktion" med "redakcio", "redaktantaro", "redaktoraro" eller något
annat.
En klar fördel med interlingua är att de som förstår det förstår det,
och kommer kanske att lära sig det, om de tycker att det är mödan värt.
Med esperanto måste jag först övetyga någon om att det är bra att lära
sig esperanto, och sedan måste jag också ha garantier för att
vederbörande gör det också, och till sist att den esperantotalande in
spe verkligen har kapacitet att lära sig esperanto, som ju faktiskt är
svårare än många tror.
Med vänlig hälsning
Cellus Purfluxius
Cellus Purfluxius
> (EN)This reply to Ka-Gu is about yet one of these auxiliary languages,
> so you English only may comfortably skip it. I say this just in the
> beginning so you can jump it if you don't like these darn auxiliary,
> manmade languages. Next message, please!
>
> And if you understand interlingua, jump to next message!
>
> (SE) Det här svaret är på svenska. Gå till nästa meddelande om du vill
> lläsa interlinguaversionen.
> (EO) Tiu chi respondo estas en la sveda lingvo. Daurigu al la sekvanta
> mesagho se vi legas interlingua-n.
(IA) Ka-Gu:-} scribeva e expressava alcun malconceptiones in re
interlingua e esperanto le quales ego voluntariemente vole corriger.
Le facto es que il ha multes de nos qui comenciava con esperanto e
postea era fatigate o sperava de alcun cosa nove. Iste processo
comenciava jam con ido, continuava per Occidental e novial e Interlingua.
Lo que distingue interlingua del altere linguas es que illo in plus alte
grado es un registration scientific maximalmente possibile del
vocabulario commun in le grande linguas romance, francese, italiano,
espaniol/portugese + anglese, le qual multes opina esser un lingua
romance pro omne su prestos de francese e latino.
Le cosa amusante es que interlingua era publicate in le mesme anno que
io (ego) comenciava apprender esperanto :-) e quando io 20 annos plus
tarde faceva le cognoscentia del existentia de interlingua, mi prime
pensata (indecente lingua, averto!) "Futuer, que io non habeva audite de
isto antea!"
Io era satis active in le movimento esperanto in Svedia usque alcun
annos del 60's quando io habeva altere interesses. Mi experientia del
tempore esperantista era que gente sempre me diceva que "on deberea
apprender esperanto", solo que isto nunquam occurreva a illes...
Io comprendeva que io profitara de interlingua, mesmo si (etiam si, even
if) io esseva le sol persona in le mundo qui lo sape!!! Que?? Si, nam
apprendente interlingua io habeva un melior comprension del parolas
estranier in le svedese e le elevate vocabulario in le anglese, e io
discoperiva que io subito comprende multo plus del francese, espaniol e
italiano que antea. E tamen io ha studiate francese a nivello gymnasial
(!) e le espaniol de proprie interesse. Ma io non es capabile de scriber
un sol linea in le linguas romance, io solo pote parlar e leger los! E
non vale le pena parlar del grammatica! Forsan io es troppo pigre. E mi
corrodite cognoscentias del latino era reanimate per interlingua. Con
interlingua io poteva explicar a un tourista italian in Polonia ubi ille
pote cambiar moneta, explicar a un espaniol como on viagia a Uppsala
Ancian. (Mi espaniol ha devenite totalmente destruite pro mi occupation
con interlingua. Non importa como io proba parlar espaniol, lo que sorti
de mi bucca es interlingua :-) Forsan le vetuste etate!
Particularmente esperantistas habitualmente miscomprende le cosa de
interlingua. Il non es assi que on debe _maestrar_ omne le linguas
romance pro poter apprender interlingua, suffice que on los cognosce
passivemente. Salvo isto nos recognosce plure parolas interlingua, nam
illes anque existe in le svedese. Le tres verbos "demonstrar, scriber,
dormir" es mesmo facilemente comprencibile a un parlator de esperanto, e
un persona qui parla svedese comrpende "demonstration, subskribera,
auditorium". Si on solmente poterea usar parolas estranier in svedese le
resultato esserea satis simile in interlingua: "Administrationen
subventionerar delegaternas lunnch". O quando le rege Carlo IX de su
filio le futur rege Gustavo II Adolfo diceva "Ille faciet" nos vide in
iste "ille" le pronomine del 3:e persona in interlingua.
In interlingua on non debe cogitar de como on debe traducer "redaction",
per "redakcio, redaktantaro, redaktoraro" o alque altere in esperanto.
Un clar avantage con interlingua es que illes qui lo comprende, lo
comprende, e va apprender lo, si illes pensa que vale le pena.
Con esperanto io debe primo convincer alcuno que il es bon apprender
esperanto, postea io debe anque haber garrantias que ille vermente lo
apprende e finalmente que le parlator futur de esperanto vermente habera
le capabilitate apprender lo.
In facto esperanto es in alcun senso plus difficile que on generalmente
dice al publico.
Amicalmente
Cellus Purfluxius
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>How many people understand English better than Interlingua?
>
Certainly many more understand English. But the other side of the coin
is how well I can write English. Certainly you can understand
interlingua, if I write something real interesting in it.
>Understanding a language is not everything. I understand Romanian,
>Swedish or Czech, but can't speak them, and probably never will.
>
Correctly. If I cannot use English I can use Interlingua. In Roumania
they woudl understand me fine. And my knowledge of Polish can help me
out in the Czech Republic.
With the knowledge in languages that you have, you will certainly
understand the vast space between passive knowledge and active mastery
of a language, as well as the fact that if you have not learnt a
language as a child and gone to school in it, then very few of us
non-native speakers will be able to write without mistakes in English.
And that's the reason why I try to use Interlingua as an alternative to
English. Intelringua is French, Italian and Spanish etc. without all the
irregular verbs etc. and this makes a tremendous difference, believe me!
Greetings
Cellus P.
>
>
Cellus Purfluxius
>Dafydd ap Fergus skrev:
>
>
>>How many people understand English better than Interlingua?
>>
>>
>
>No doubt lots and lots of people, simply because they are either
>native English speakers or they learned it in school. Had I not
>learned English, French, and a smattering of Italian, I would
>have been unable to make heads or tails of the Interlingua quoted
>above.
>
But there are a lot of us who have learnt - at least - to understand
those language that form the base for interlingua.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>It's interesting[1] that no one has proposed Volapük as the most
>sutible candidate for European auxiliary language.
>
As I se it the relation between Esperanto and Volapük is equal to that
between Esperanto and Interlingua. In relation to Interlingua esperanto
is Volapük.
Compare:
Esperanto: Kiel mi vidas, la rilato inter esperanto kaj volapük egalas
al tiu inter esperanto kaj interlingua. Rilate al interlingua esperanto
estas volapük.
Intelringua: Como io vide, le relation inter esperanto e volapük es
equal a illo inter esperanto e interlingua. In relation a interlingua,
esperanto es volapük.
Amicalmente
Kjell R
Stefano MacGregor
> Compare:
> Esperanto: Kiel mi vidas, la rilato inter Esperanto kaj Volapuko egalas
> al tiu inter Esperanto kaj Interlingvo. Rilate al Interlingvo, Esperanto
> estas Volapuko. [teksto korektita]
>
> Intelringua: Como io vide, le relation inter esperanto e volapük es
> equal a illo inter esperanto e interlingua. In relation a interlingua,
> esperanto es volapük.
Your example might have been clearer if you had translated it into
Volapük for a complete comparison, as well as into Esperanto and
Interlingua. Would you care to clarify your explanation?
--
Stefano
"Diable, Jac`jo! Mi estas kirurgisto -- ne masonisto!"
Marcelo Casartelli
>
> >(...)
> >
> >It's interesting[1] that no one has proposed Volap k as the most
> >sutible candidate for European auxiliary language.
> >
> between Esperanto and Interlingua. In relation to Interlingua esperanto
>
> Compare:
> Esperanto: Kiel mi vidas, la rilato inter esperanto kaj volap k egalas
> al tiu inter esperanto kaj interlingua. Rilate al interlingua esperanto
>
> Intelringua: Como io vide, le relation inter esperanto e volap k es
>
> Amicalmente
>
> Kjell R
Any comparison between Esperanto,Volapuk and Interlingua is
irrelevant. Nowadays Esperanto is the best candidate to become the
International Language. According to the World Almanac Book of Facts
(Prof.Sidney Culbert- University of Washington),there are 2.000.000
Esperanto-speakers worldwide.
Esperanto: Iu komparo inter Esperanto,Volapuk kaj Interlingua estas
sensignifa. Nuntempe Esperanto estas la plej bona kandidato por
farigxi la Internacia Lingvo. Lau la "World Almanac Book of Facts
(Prof.Sidney Culbert- University of Washington),estas 2.000.000 da
Esperanto-parolantoj en la tuta mondo.
Marcelo C.
Kurso de Esperanto per Interreto (versio en 7 lingvoj):
http://www.institutoesperanto.com.ar
http://www.hzmj.org/e-kurso/index.htm
James Chandler
> Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3EFDC9B1...@nospam.com>...
> > Stefano MacGregor wrote:
> >
> > >(...)
> irrelevant. Nowadays Esperanto is the best candidate to become the
> International Language. According to the World Almanac Book of Facts
> (Prof.Sidney Culbert- University of Washington),there are 2.000.000
> Esperanto-speakers worldwide.
Unfortunately, no-one outside Esperantujo actually believes that
figure. I would put it at 100.000, at the very most.
However, even if there are 2.000.000 speakers of Esperanto, that
figure is so insignificant compared to the number of people who could
benefit from an auxiliary language, that it has no bearing on the
suitability of Esperanto vis-a-vis other languages for that role.
Gerard van Wilgen
news:<a8dc4d37.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3EFDC9B1...@nospam.com>...
> > > Stefano MacGregor wrote:
> > >
> > > >(...)
> figure is so insignificant compared to the number of people who could
> benefit from an auxiliary language, that it has no bearing on the
> suitability of Esperanto vis-a-vis other languages for that role.
[en]
True, but Esperanto does not lack popularity as an international means of
communication for the reason that it would be too difficult to learn.
English is not an easy language for most non-native speakers, but many
millions have learned it nevertheless (more or less).
Even if Ido were easier to learn for more people than Esperanto, the effect
would be so miniscule that it could never convince those 100,000
Esperantists to throw away the huge investment they have made in their
language, and start all over again.
[eo]
Vi pravas, sed al esperanto ne mankas popularecon kiel internacia
komunighilo kial ghi estus tro malfacile lernebla. La angla estas ne facila
lingvo por la plej multaj negepatraj parolantoj, sed multe da milionoj
malgrau tio lernis ghin (pli malpli).
Ech se Ido estus pli facile lernebla por pli da homoj ol esperanto, la efiko
estus tiel eta ke ghi neniam konvinkus tiujn 100.000 esperantistojn por
forjheti la grandegan investon kiujn ili faris pri sia lingvo, kaj tute
rekomenci.
Gerard van Wilgen
--
Peter Kleiweg
> > However, even if there are 2.000.000 speakers of Esperanto, that
> > figure is so insignificant compared to the number of people who could
> > benefit from an auxiliary language, that it has no bearing on the
> > suitability of Esperanto vis-a-vis other languages for that role.
>
> [en]
>
> True, but Esperanto does not lack popularity as an international means of
> communication for the reason that it would be too difficult to learn.
> English is not an easy language for most non-native speakers, but many
> millions have learned it nevertheless (more or less).
>
> Even if Ido were easier to learn for more people than Esperanto, the effect
> would be so miniscule that it could never convince those 100,000
> Esperantists to throw away the huge investment they have made in their
> language, and start all over again.
Ah, you point at the central weakness of this international
language thingy: There Can Be Only One! Unlike natural
languages, which each have there own reason for existence. Learn
a true language, and there is no chance your effort will be a
waste of investment. Learn an artificial one and you're screwed
if the other side wins.
By the way, if Esperanto and the like were truly so easy as its
adherents claim, learning it should not represent a "huge
investment".
> [eo]
[cut waste of bandwidth]
--
Peter Kleiweg
Cellus Purfluxius
I must shamefully confess that my mastery of Volapük is nill.
But the tendency seams to go from less understandable to more
understandable languages.
English: Our father
Volapük: O pat obas (I think)
Esperanto: Patro nia
Interlingua: Patre nostre
This is the only thing I remember from Volapük so it is not much of an
example of the language, but if you understand the system it is not
difficult to learn, but you will have to do a lot of memorizing work.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
(EN) In that case there are still more people speaking Englsih than
Esperanto.
(IA) In iste caso il ha ancora plus de gente parlante le anglese que
esperanto.
(EO) Tiukaze ekzistas ankorau pli da homoj parolantaj la anglan ol
esperanton.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>casar...@uolsinectis.com.ar (Marcelo Casartelli) wrote in message news:<a8dc4d37.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3EFDC9B1...@nospam.com>...
>>
>>
>>>Stefano MacGregor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>Any comparison between Esperanto,Volapuk and Interlingua is
>>irrelevant. Nowadays Esperanto is the best candidate to become the
>>International Language. According to the World Almanac Book of Facts
>>(Prof.Sidney Culbert- University of Washington),there are 2.000.000
>>Esperanto-speakers worldwide.
>>
>>
>
>Unfortunately, no-one outside Esperantujo actually believes that
>figure. I would put it at 100.000, at the very most.
>
>However, even if there are 2.000.000 speakers of Esperanto, that
>figure is so insignificant compared to the number of people who could
>benefit from an auxiliary language, that it has no bearing on the
>suitability of Esperanto vis-a-vis other languages for that role.
>
>
(EN) Tthe Universala Esperanto-Asocio's magazine Esperanto has, if I
remember correctly, a circulation of 6,000 copies. So 1,994,000 people
don't subscribe to it.
(IA) Le magasin del Universala Esperanto-Asocio "Esperanto" ha, si ego
ben memora, un tiirage de 6.000 exemplares. Ergo 1.994.000 personas non
lo subscribe.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
(IA) Mi proprie opinion es que le esperantistas e idistas pote multo ben
collaborar, nam lor linguas differe forsan minus que svedese e
norvegese. Illes poterea pro exemplo leger lor litteratura mutualmente.
(EO) Mia propra opinio estas ke la esperantistoj kaj idistoj povas tre
bone kunlabori, char iliaj lingvoj malsimilas malpli ol la sveda kaj
norvega lingvoj. Ili povus ekzemple legi sian komunan literaturon
ambauflanke.
Amicalmente
Amike
Cellus P.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> Even if Ido were easier to learn for more people than Esperanto, the effect
> would be so miniscule that it could never convince those 100,000
> Esperantists to throw away the huge investment they have made in their
> language, and start all over again.
Yes, especially the investment in those damnable supersigned
letters used for no other language on earth. They just make things
harder, and silly me, I thought an auxiliary language was supposed
to make things easier, not make people jump through hoops to
accommodate an orthography that never should have been created in
the first place.
--
Paul Bartlett
bartlett at smart.net
PGP key info in message headers
Marcelo Casartelli
When I wrote that Esperanto has 2.000.000 speakers,I didn´t say that I
believe that. That´s a statistical study performed by the University
of Washington. However, I don´t want to mean that the number of
speakers is the most important factor. In that case,Chinese should be
"de facto" the international language.
Marcelo C.
(EO) Kiam mi skribis ke Esperanto havas 2.000.000 da parolantoj,mi ne
diris ke mi kredas tion. Tiu estas statistika studo plenumita per la
Universitato de Vashingtono. Tamen,mi ne volas diri ke la nombro da
parolantoj estas la plej grava faktoro. Tiukaze,la china lingvo devus
esti "de facto" la internacia lingvo.
Marcelo C.
Robert Weemeyer
> (EN) The Universala Esperanto-Asocio's magazine Esperanto has, if I
> remember correctly, a circulation of 6,000 copies. So 1,994,000 people
> don't subscribe to it.
For example me. Most people speaking Esperanto don't subscribe to this
magazine. There are hundreds of magazines published in Esperanto.
Robert Weemeyer
Berlin, Germany
Robert Weemeyer
> casar...@uolsinectis.com.ar (Marcelo Casartelli) wrote:
>
> > According to the World Almanac Book of Facts
> > (Prof.Sidney Culbert - University of Washington), there are 2.000.000
> > Esperanto-speakers worldwide.
>
> Unfortunately, no-one outside Esperantujo actually believes that
> figure. I would put it at 100.000, at the very most.
2 million might be a high guess, but 100.000 seems a bit low to me.
How did you come to this number? And what's the number of Ido speakers
then?
Robert Weemeyer
Berlin, Germany
Cellus Purfluxius
But you must admitt that this kind of thinking is common in auxiliary
language construction, like: we should have a completely neutral
alphabete, a completely neutral language etc. I don't know if this is an
urban legend, but Zamehof is said to have used the ^ over some
consonants in Esperanto in order to differentiate it from Czech or
Lithuanian.
On thi other hand there is a story from the Polish time of Experanto
that somebody read a text in Esperanto claiming that it was Italian, and
then the listners thought that the languge was beautiful, but "knowing"
that the read text was Esperanto they thought it was ugly.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>For example me. Most people speaking Esperanto don't subscribe to this
>magazine. There are hundreds of magazines published in Esperanto.
>
Comparation de texto in esperanto e in interlingua. Conclusion?
(EO) Sed kial ni devas diskuti tiujn aferojn en la sola monda lingvo,
kiam ni havas le bonegan helplingvon Esperanto?
Esperanto certe havas siajn avantaghojn. Sed, lau mi, unu granda
malavantagho de ghi estas ke nur la homoj kiuj studis ghin, kaj principe
neniuj aliaj komprenas ghin. En tiu senso la komparo de tekstoj en
diversaj internaciaj lingvoj estas interesa.
Interlingua, ekzemple, estas komprenebla ankau al personoj kiuj neniam
studis ghin. Ghi do pli bone, lau mi, utiligas la jam existantajn
lingvokonojn de homoj.
(IA) Ma pro que debe nos discuter tal cosas in le sol lingua mundial,
quando nos h le bonissime lingua auxiliar Esperanto?
Esperanto certo ha su avantages. Ma secundo me, un grande disavantage de
illo es que solo le humanos qui ha studiate lo, e principalmente nulle
alteres, lo comprende. In iste senso le comparation de textos in varie
linguas international es interessante.
Interlingua, pro exemplo, es comprensibile anque a personas qui nunquam
lo ha studiate. Illo dunque, secundo me, in un melior maniera utilisa le
jam existente cognoscentias de linguas in le humanos.
Amik/e -almente
Cellus P.
Dafydd ap Fergus
I'm not a subscriber (I get the 'Ondo de Esperanto') but a friend in
Brussels gets two (or his girlfriend who has been a member almost
since birth! Kleiweg could use that to claim UEA is a sect abusing
children etc etc). In Africa and China the magazine does get passed
around.
With magazines generally you never know how many people read them.
Publishers claim 3-4 times as many as the 'printed' number but that's
probably an exaggeration to sell advertising.
Dafydd
Taneli Huuskonen
Hash: SHA1
En la mesagxo <Pine.LNX.4.21.030629...@smarty.smart.net>
"Paul O. BARTLETT" <bart...@smart.net> skribis:
[...]
> Yes, especially the investment in those damnable supersigned
>letters used for no other language on earth. They just make things
>harder, and silly me, I thought an auxiliary language was supposed
>to make things easier, not make people jump through hoops to
>accommodate an orthography that never should have been created in
>the first place.
Surely everyone would be happy if Esperanto were written according to
the English orthography!
Tsairtay chiewooy estewce felleachye say Espareantaw estewce screebahtah
lowe la anglah oretawgrapheeyaw!
Taneli Huuskonen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBPwAEIF+t0CYLfLaVEQKOQACeLuOO1E0X51HIvNnjjqjQvubK/u4AoOlS
kbrAruymk8KtVFgv1uwPKzCs
=5apM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stefano MacGregor
> Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> comprende sin previe studios!
That's all well and good, but can millions of people =write= it
without previous study?
--
Stefano
http://www.steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo/vortaro/
Cellus Purfluxius
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>En la mesagxo <Pine.LNX.4.21.030629...@smarty.smart.net>
>"Paul O. BARTLETT" <bart...@smart.net> skribis:
>
>[...]
>
>
>> Yes, especially the investment in those damnable supersigned
>>letters used for no other language on earth. They just make things
>>harder, and silly me, I thought an auxiliary language was supposed
>>to make things easier, not make people jump through hoops to
>>accommodate an orthography that never should have been created in
>>the first place.
>>
>>
>
>Surely everyone would be happy if Esperanto were written according to
>the English orthography!
>
>Tsairtay chiewooy estewce felleachye say Espareantaw estewce screebahtah
>lowe la anglah oretawgrapheeyaw!
>
>
That was a good one!
Cellus P.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> Surely everyone would be happy if Esperanto were written according to
> the English orthography!
No, I am not at all saying that Esperanto must follow English
orthography (which even as a native speaker I admit is horrible), only
that the supersigned letters of the E-o alphabet are a hindrance, a
bother, and a nuisance.
Stefano MacGregor
> No, I am not at all saying that Esperanto must follow English
> orthography (which even as a native speaker I admit is horrible), only
> that the supersigned letters of the E-o alphabet are a hindrance, a
> bother, and a nuisance.
Do you have the same opinion of the augmented letters in other
languages, such as German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Swedish,
Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, French, Vietnamese, Finnish, and
Turkish? Or were you not aware that such things exist?
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3EF89873...@nospam.com>...
>
>
>
>>Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
>>comprende sin previe studios!
>>
>>
>
>That's all well and good, but can millions of people =write= it
>without previous study?
>
Certo non. Ma ego ha vidite plure exemplos de personas qui ha legite
textos in interlingua e proba scriber lo, e le lingua deveni melior post
cata proba. Face un probation!
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
(IA) Il es tamen un certe differentia. Le linguas mentionate es parlate
per milliones de humanos in multe paises, ubi le diacriticos es
standard. Esperanto, del altere latere, es apprendite e usate per un
relativemente micre diaspora in multe paises.
(EN) There is still a difference. The languages mentioned are spoken by
millions of people in many countries where the diacritics are standard.
Esperanto, on the other hand is learnt and used by a relatively small
diaspora in many countries.
(IA) Considera le facto que mesmo si tu debe publicar textos in svedese
in un altere pais, isto pote esser un grande problema. Vos parla con un
persona qui ha experientia de isto...
(EN) Consider the fact that even if you have to publish texts in Swedish
in an other country this can mean great problems. You are talking to a
person who has got a certain experience of matters like this.
(IA) E un lingua international, le qual on debe apprender, debe anque
demandar un minimo de effortios pro esser usate.
(EN) And an international language which you have got to learn must
demand a minimum of effort in order to be used.
Cellus P.
Lan Yu
"Stefano MacGregor" <esper...@yahoo.com>
??????:6b9b63b5.03063...@posting.google.com...
> Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3EF89873...@nospam.com>...
>
> > Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> > comprende sin previe studios!
>
> That's all well and good, but can millions of people =write= it
> without previous study?
No language can be written, or spoken, without previous study. But some
languages require a very short time of studies before one can write them -
though probably not perfectly.
I discovered Interlingua one month ago, and I can already write and argue in
this language. I must say, it's a very user-friendly language.
regards,
Lan Yu, from Shanghai
Taneli Huuskonen
Hash: SHA1
En la mesagxo <Pine.LNX.4.21.030630...@smarty.smart.net>
"Paul O. BARTLETT" <bart...@smart.net> skribis:
>On 30 Jun 2003, Taneli Huuskonen wrote (excerpt):
>> Surely everyone would be happy if Esperanto were written according to
>> the English orthography!
> No, I am not at all saying that Esperanto must follow English
>orthography (which even as a native speaker I admit is horrible), only
>that the supersigned letters of the E-o alphabet are a hindrance, a
>bother, and a nuisance.
OK, I understood what you meant, but somehow a complaint about the
orthography of Esperanto, written in English, tickled my ironic bone so
much I couldn't resist. :-) Anyway, seriously, I think you're making a
mountain, a dune, and a ridge out of a molehill. Sure, the accented
letters do have some drawbacks. They might slow down handwriting a wee
bit, and some outdated and/or badly installed computer programmes may
not handle them properly. Moreover, I haven't yet seen a version of the
lowercase Esperanto h-with-hat that doesn't look ugly. However, in
exchange you get a close correspondence between the spelling and the
pronunciation, which, IMHO, far outweighs the minor disadvantages of the
supersigned letters.
Taneli Huuskonen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBPwGFA1+t0CYLfLaVEQLB+wCfX5QQq0fZujjtdeGpL0dxJoowjTcAoO74
M2cNwHYzC0WdMtZXkMeBqwkS
=n+M4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Larry G
> Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3EF89873...@nospam.com>...
>
> > Iste texto era scribite in interlingua, le lingua que milliones
> > comprende sin previe studios!
>
> That's all well and good, but can millions of people =write= it
> without previous study?
I agree with Yu. Now, I must say that Yu has a marvelous gift for languages
that I envy <g>, but no language can be learned without previous study. I
will say that I found Esperanto easier to write than Interlingua. And, that
is because even though Interlingua has a similar vocabulary to the Western
Romance languages, it is different slightly from each, and has some
eccentricities akin to English.
Larry
Paul O. BARTLETT
> "Paul O. BARTLETT" <bart...@smart.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.21.030630...@smarty.smart.net>...
>
> > No, I am not at all saying that Esperanto must follow English
> > orthography [...]
>
> Do you have the same opinion of the augmented letters in other
> languages, such as German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Swedish,
> Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, French, Vietnamese, Finnish, and
> Turkish? Or were you not aware that such things exist?
Yes, I am fully aware that such things exist. My complaint is that
the E-o supersigned letters are used by no other language on earth (so
far as I know) and thus are a nuisance and a complication. Other
character sets for other languages are used by speakers of real
languages, and many of them by several languages. I can say from my
own, personal, direct experience that the E-o supersigned letters are a
nuisance, a bother, and a difficulty. I consider them a blunder, pure
and simple.
Robert Weemeyer
> Sed kial ni devas diskuti tiujn aferojn en la sola monda lingvo,
> kiam ni havas le bonegan helplingvon Esperanto?
Mi angle respondis al via angla mesagxo. Nun mi Esperante respondas al
via Esperanto mesagxo.
> [...] granda malavantagho de ghi [Esperanto] estas
> ke nur la homoj kiuj studis ghin [...] komprenas ghin.
Vi pravas, oni devas iom lerni Esperanton por kompreni gxin.
> Interlingua, ekzemple, estas komprenebla ankau al personoj kiuj neniam
> studis ghin.
Mi komprenas viajn mesagxojn en Interlingua. Sed cxu komprenas gxin
homoj, kiuj neniam lernis la latinan, la francan aux similan lingvon?
> Ghi do pli bone, lau mi, utiligas la jam existantajn
> lingvokonojn de homoj.
La franca ankaux "utiligas" hispanajn aux latinajn lingvokonojn ...
Internacia lingvo estu facile lernebla - kun aux sen antauxkonoj de
aliaj lingvoj. Mi ne konas Interlingua suficxe bone por decidi, cxu
gxi estus por mi same facile lernebla kiel Esperanto.
Tre helpa por la lernado de Esperanto estas la relative granda kaj tre
bunta lingvokomunumo. Cxu Interlingua ofertas lokajn grupojn (ankaux
junularajn) kaj internaciajn renkontigxojn kun centoj da junuloj? Cxu
ekzistas muziko, miloj da libroj, radio-elsendoj?
Cxio cxi ekzistas en Esperantujo. Gxi ne nur faciligas la lernadon,
sed ankaux donas instigon al gxi - cxar Esperanto ne nur estas
interesa lingvo, sed ankaux malfermas la pordon al internacia kulturo.
Robert Weemeyer, Berlin
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>I agree with Yu. Now, I must say that Yu has a marvelous gift for languages
>that I envy <g>, but no language can be learned without previous study.
>
Ma reguarda le cosa de iste puncto: Tu es capabile comprender mi
interlingua, ma que tu non pote scriber in interlingua ma pote usar tu
lingua maternal le anglese, non es un impedimento pro me. Ego comprende
ben le anglese, ma in alcun casos prefere scriber in interlingua. Assi
(in iste maniera, so, in that way) nos pote (can) usar le lingua que es
plus convenibile a nos, e nos va comprende nos mutualmente.
Quanto a apprender linguas, mi problema es le correctitude. Ego apprende
relativemente rapido, ma incorrectemente. In facto a data solo
interlingua es un lingua que ego senti que ego pote scriber
relativemente correctemente. Anglese es como luctar con un petra runic
(a rune stone), del quales nos ha milles in Uppland, mi provincia.
> I
>will say that I found Esperanto easier to write than Interlingua.
>
Ha tu probate, e quanto tempore?
Ego ipse (myself) apprendeva esperanto in un etate (age) formative e
pote anocra maestrar lo relativemente ben, etsi (even though, even if)
ego lo non ha usate in multe annos. Mi problema con esperanto era
memorar quando un consonante es tonic o non, como "kagho" (cavia) e
"kacho" (pappa, porridge). Ma energetic uso de un dictionario era un bon
adjuta (help).
> And, that
>is because even though Interlingua has a similar vocabulary to the Western
>Romance languages, it is different slightly from each, and has some
>eccentricities akin to English.
>
Narra, (tell me, pensa de "narration, narrative") per favor de iste
eccentricitates.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>>[...] granda malavantagho de ghi [Esperanto] estas
>>ke nur la homoj kiuj studis ghin [...] komprenas ghin.
>>
>>
>
>Vi pravas, oni devas iom lerni Esperanton por kompreni gxin.
>
Tio signifas ke mi devas unue esti konvinkita ke esperanto estas bona
afero kaj poste lerni ghin. Konsekvenco de tio estas ke se estos tre
multaj esperantistoj la atrakcia povo estos ankoraj pli granda!
>>Interlingua, ekzemple, estas komprenebla ankau al personoj kiuj neniam
>>studis ghin.
>>
>>
>
>Mi komprenas viajn mesagxojn en Interlingua. Sed cxu komprenas gxin
>homoj, kiuj neniam lernis la latinan, la francan aux similan lingvon?
>
Vi devas kompreni vian probran lingvon tre bone, kun fremdaj vortoj ktp.
praktike tio signifas ke videvas ankau havi studojn de la latina,
hispana au franca lingvoj. La demando estas: chu ne estas tre multaj
homoj kiuj havas tian lingvan bazon.
Aliflanke, en pli bona futuro, se ni sukcesos disvastigi interlingua-n
pli bone ni eble havos bonajn lernolibrojn en ne-latinidaj lingvoj kiel
ekz. la sveda, rusa, finna, ech germana, kaj post studado de tiuj
lernolibroj, au post kursoj, la parolantoj de interlinngua havos raketan
starton en la studoj de la franca, itala kaj hispana!
>>Ghi do pli bone, lau mi, utiligas la jam existantajn
>>lingvokonojn de homoj.
>>
>>
>
>La franca ankaux "utiligas" hispanajn aux latinajn lingvokonojn ...
>
Fakte se vi studas interlingua-n tiu "utiligado" estas du-direkta. Tute
ne malbona afero.
>Internacia lingvo estu facile lernebla - kun aux sen antauxkonoj de
>aliaj lingvoj.
>
Persone mi ne vidas ke interlingua estas pli malfacila ol esperanto,
(eher, kiel oni diras tion en esperanto) ghi estas pli facila, char oni
havas en la plej multaj europaj lingvoj fremdvortojn al kiuj oni povas
glui la interlinguajn vortojn por pli bona memoro.
La lerniloj de interlingua povus esti pli bonaj por multaj lingvoj,
nuntempe la lernado okazas chefe per motivado. Sed oni devas ie komenci,
kaj _multaj_ personaj lernis rapidege interlingua-n por aktiva uzo. En
Svedio pli da homoj partoprenas kursojn en latino ke en esperanto o
interlingua ! Oni povas diri ke per interlingua la studentoj de la
latina lingvo finfine povas uzi sian latinan konon aktive.
>Mi ne konas Interlingua suficxe bone por decidi, cxu
>gxi estus por mi same facile lernebla kiel Esperanto.
>
Vi devus probi ghin! Kiel esperantisto oni ofta havas psikan blokadon en
la lernado de interlingua, char oni estas komence desturbita de la
diferencaj reguloj de akcentado ktp. sed se oni nur povas superi tion
kaj pensi en iom alia maniero, interlingua certe estas pli facila ol
esperanto.
Mia impreso estas ke personoj kiuj lernis esperanton kiel sian unuan
lingvon, trovas ghin tre facila (kiel mi), sed inter la
interlinguaparolantoj mi renkontis plurajn personojn kiuj rakontis al mi
ke ili probis lerni esperanton, sed chesis, char la vortoj estis tiom
aliaj ol la vortoj en lingvoj kiujn ili jam lernis je certa grado.
Shajnas al mi, ke esperanto sukcesas bonege en landoj kie le edukado
estas sufiche bona, sed kie la kontakto kun fremdaj lingvoj (kiel la
angla) estas malalta. Tiam esperanto funkcias bonege. Chiuj
esperantoparolantoj uzas la "lernejan" elparolon. Tiel kiel la germanoj
certege ne parolas la germanan kiel mi lernis ghin en la lernejo! Kiam
la vivnivelo altighas kaj la kontaktoj kun la angla lingvo plivastighas,
esperanto perdas sian atrakcion al la popolo.
Oni povus vidi interlingua-n kiel ilo konservi la intereson en la ideo
de internacia helplingvo.
>Tre helpa por la lernado de Esperanto estas la relative granda kaj tre
>bunta lingvokomunumo.
>
La grandan signifon de tia bunta lingvokomunumo ni vidas ankau en la
angla kun ankorau pli da bona muziko kaj amuzaj homoj. Kompare al tio
esperantio aspektus kiel ankorau unu fermita diasporo.
> Cxu Interlingua ofertas lokajn grupojn.
>
Ni ne havas multajn lokajn grupojn. Ni havis grupeton en Stokholmo antau
kelkaj jaroj, sed ni dissolvis ghin. En Kopenhago regule renkontighas
grupo da interlingua-parolantoj. Sed interlingua estas por inter-etnika
kontakto. La ideo ke homoj kun la sama lingvo sidu kaj parolu
interlingua-n ne estas tiom nervstrechiga, ech se ghi havas siajn
avantaghojn.
> (ankaux
>junularajn) kaj internaciajn renkontigxojn kun centoj da junuloj?
>
Kiam mi kontaktighis kun esperanto (en longe jam pasinta pasinteco!)
neniu povis literumi la vorton junularorganizo. Fakte mi havis etan
fingron en la organizado de sveda junulara unuigho!
>Cxu
>ekzistas muziko, miloj da libroj, radio-elsendoj?
>
Ni havas bonegajn muzikistojn kiuj ludas dum niaj konferencoj. Vidu
sube. Unu firmao en Svedio ech uzas interlingua en sia reklamo (kiel
alternativo al la angla).
>Cxio cxi ekzistas en Esperantujo. Gxi ne nur faciligas la lernadon,
>sed ankaux donas instigon al gxi - cxar Esperanto ne nur estas
>interesa lingvo, sed ankaux malfermas la pordon al internacia kulturo.
>
Sed la angla malfermas pli da pordoj al la sama internacia kulturo.
Persone mi trovis la etozon en esperantujo sufiche sufoka. En
"Interlingvio" mi fakte trovis multe pli da intellekta vigleco kaj
paradokse pli da interesaj kontaktoj kun personoj en aliaj landoj. Ni
estu honestaj: Kiom da malbone skribitaj leteroj en esperanto mi legis
en mia vivo! Kun interlingua tio quazau neniam okazis. Kompreneble novaj
interlinguanoj faris erarojn, sed sufiche ofte ili rapide lernis kiel
uzi la lingvon nor imitante ghin.
Chiun duan jaron ni organizas internaciajn konferencojn de interlingua.
Kompare al la esperantaj kongresoj ili estas ridinde malgrandaj. Inter
la internaciajn konferencojn ni logiigas nordajn konferencojn de
interlingua. Ilin partoprenas ankau personoj de Polonio, Nederlando kaj
kelkfoje Anglio.
Nia chijara konferenco okazos en Bulgario - ni ne volas disturbi la UK
de esperanto en Gotenburgo :-)
Amike
Cellus P.
Dafydd ap Fergus
> Cxio cxi ekzistas en Esperantujo. Gxi ne nur faciligas la lernadon,
> sed ankaux donas instigon al gxi - cxar Esperanto ne nur estas
> interesa lingvo, sed ankaux malfermas la pordon al internacia kulturo.
>
> Robert Weemeyer, Berlin
Tion faras la plejparto de lingvoj iel. Eble ne tiomgrade internacia
sed tamen ili permesas la konatighon kun novaj eroj de internacia
kulturo.
Vi kaj Kjell sekvas la longan tradicion de diskutado pri la meritoj de
la "plej bona" internacia lingvo. Jen mesagho de Don Harlow en
Soc.Culture.Esperanto pri la sama temo:
Amike
dafydd
(**) Por anglalingvaj interesitoj, la koncerna letero -- de 11a de
januaro
1963 -- estis unu el tiuj, kiuj interfluis inter kelkaj homoj pri
eventuala
"debato" inter Gode kaj Ivo Lapenna, kaj aperis en la "International
Language Review" de aprilo-junio 1963. Esperantan tradukon faritan de
Auld
oni povas trovi en "Enkonduko en la originalan literaturon de
Esperanto"
(Iltis: 1980). Oni povas legi la tutan leteraron cxe
http://donh.best.vwh.net/Languages/debate.html .
-- Don HARLOW
Gerard van Wilgen
[en]
In correspondence I usually use the traditional non-supersigned equivalents
for those letters, for example "ch" instead of a "c" with a circumflex
accent. I think that all Esperantists should do likewise and reserve the
superscripted letters for use in books and magazines only (though these
could obviously be printed in pure ASCII too). Cases in which ASCII-spelling
could lead to mispronunciation are possible but rare (e.g. "flughaveno") and
can always be avoided by using a hyphen ("flug-haveno").
So, if you do not like the superscripted letters, just do not use them!
[eo]
Korespondajhe mi kutime uzas la tradiciajn nesupersignajn ekvivalentojn por
tiuj literoj, ekzemple "ch" anstatau "c" kun cirkumflekso. Mi opnias ke
chiuj esperantistoj devus fari same kaj rezervi la supersignajn literojn
sole por uzo en libroj kaj revuoj (kvankam tiujn oni povas ankau presi en
pura ASCII). Kazoj en kiu ASCII-literumado povus igi misprononcon estas
eblaj sed maloftaj (ekz. "flughaveno") kaj oni chiam povas eviti ilin per
uzi kunigan streketon ("flug-haveno").
Do, se iu ne shatas supersignajn literojn, li ne devus uzi ilin!
Gerard van Wilgen
--
www.majstro.com (On-line translation dictionary / Enreta tradukvortaro)
www.travlang.com/Ergane (Free translation dictionary for Windows / Senpaga
tradukvortaro por Windows)
Peter Kleiweg
> So, if you do not like the superscripted letters, just do not use them!
If you don't like Esperanto, just don't use it.
Oh, no, that can't be right. It is the International Language,
so everybody is supposed to use it.
Ah, well.
> [eo]
[bandwidth]
--
Peter Kleiweg L:NL,af,da,de,en,ia,nds,no,sv,(fr,it) S:NL,en,(da,de,ia)
info: http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/ls.html
Dafydd ap Fergus
> # aldus Gerard van Wilgen :
>
> > So, if you do not like the superscripted letters, just do not use them!
>
> If you don't like Esperanto, just don't use it.
>
> Oh, no, that can't be right. It is the International Language,
> so everybody is supposed to use it.
>
> Ah, well.
>
>
> > [eo]
>
> [bandwidth]
Chu vi estas mensmalsana? Kial daure skribi la samajn tedajn tekstojn
pri Esperanto? Se vi ne shatas ghin au alian lingvon simple ignoru
ghin.
Cetere mi tre shatas legi Interlingua kaj gratulas tiujn kiuj faras la
vortaro de Babylon por la sveda-interlingua.
Dafydd
James Chandler
> Of course any sensible discussion about the 'language problem'
> is impossible. The 'language problem' is the dogma the
> Esperantist believe system was built on, and therefore
> unavailable as topic for discussion.
Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
Dear Peter, Where are you living?
Kordiale, James Chandler
id...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/idojc - IALs index
http://www.geocities.com/idojc/yindex.html - Ido index
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/idolisto - Idolisto home
"I believe in the virtue of small nations. I believe in the virtue of
small numbers. The world will be saved by the few." - Andre Gide
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg:
> > Of course any sensible discussion about the 'language problem'
> > is impossible. The 'language problem' is the dogma the
> > Esperantist believe system was built on, and therefore
> > unavailable as topic for discussion.
>
> Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
Indeed.
> Dear Peter, Where are you living?
Not in Esperantistan.
James Chandler
> And personally I am not convinced that Ido is better than Esperanto. For
> instance the lack of agreement in number between nouns and adjectives is
> presented as an advantage. But if it is an advantage, then why did the
> inventors not go all the way and also got rid of the agreement between nouns
> that are connected with a copula? So, why not "La animali es kato" instead
> of "La animali es kati"?
What does this have to do with noun-adjective concord?
> And why is that supposedly inconvenient plural ending still present when an
> adjective is used as a plural noun? There is after all not much difference
> between "La kati es la nigra animali" and "La kati es la nigri".
This is a special case, since the adjective here is being used
anaphorically. In this case some mark of the plural is necessary,
however it need not be marked on the adj in Ido, you could also use
the plural form of the article 'le':
Yen plura flori; ka vu volas le blanka o le reda? (the white ones or
the red ones)
James Chandler
> How big an active community? Bigger than that of Esperanto? Bigger
> than that of Interlingua?
Smaller than that of Esperanto :( and comparable to that of
Interlingua :|
> And by the way, "most sutible" is definitely a matter of opinion. I
> personally believe that Esperanto is the best candidate, if you want a
> neutral constructed language, but have to agree that IALA Interlingua
> has a lot going for it.
I would actually go as far as to say that both Esperanto and
Interlingua are UNsuitable for this role, because they both contain
design faults which effectively rule them out from the start. You can
only (in good conscience) offer the world a language that is free of
obvious design faults.
> It's interesting[1] that no one has proposed Volapük as the most
> sutible candidate for European auxiliary language.
They have, but not for a very long time.
Larry G
> Peter Kleiweg <pk...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03062...@kleigh.nl>...
> > Of course any sensible discussion about the 'language problem'
> > is impossible. The 'language problem' is the dogma the
> > Esperantist believe system was built on, and therefore
> > unavailable as topic for discussion.
>
> Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
Do you care to comment about the solution of Interlingua, James, as you were
so quick to offer me your insults when you first posted to this forum?
Larry
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>
>Do, se iu ne shatas supersignajn literojn, li ne devus uzi ilin!
>
>Gerard van Wilgen
>
Ghuste. Mi chiam tiel faras, chis le eventuala estonto kiam estos tute
nature uzi le "korektajn" literojn, sed tie ni ankorau ne estas!
Cellus P.
>
>
Cellus Purfluxius
>Tion faras la plejparto de lingvoj iel. Eble ne tiomgrade internacia
>sed tamen ili permesas la konatighon kun novaj eroj de internacia
>kulturo.
>
>Vi kaj Kjell sekvas la longan tradicion de diskutado pri la meritoj de
>la "plej bona" internacia lingvo. Jen mesagho de Don Harlow en
>Soc.Culture.Esperanto pri la sama temo:
>
>
Tiam mi tre malbone sukcesis klarigi mian pozicion en tiu afero.
Chu vi elektos dedichi vian tempon al la uzo de esperanto au interlingua
dependas de kiel vi rigardas la mondon kaj kiajn eblecojn vi vidas por
la lingvo kiun vi elektis.
Kaj Esperanto kaj interlingua povas, same kiel la angla, esti uzataj
kiel internaciajn lingvojn. La elekto dependos de kiel vi kredas ke vi
povos disvastigi ilin. Rilate la anglan tion faras jam amaso da milionoj
da homoj, kaj mi ne devas pensi pri tio. Esperanton propagas ankau
multege da homoj, kaj ghi bezonas multan filosofadon en naciaj lingvoj.
Interlingua kontraue, disvastighas per si mem. Mi preferas tiun lastan
alternativon.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>Peter Kleiweg <pk...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03062...@kleigh.nl>...
>
>
>>Of course any sensible discussion about the 'language problem'
>>is impossible. The 'language problem' is the dogma the
>>Esperantist believe system was built on, and therefore
>>unavailable as topic for discussion.
>>
>>
>
>Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
>
>Dear Peter, Where are you living?
>
>
(IA) Un problema lingual? Hmmm..... In mi radio national io ha hodie
ascoltate un parte, naturalmente le plus scandalose, del oration del
nove presidentia del Union Europee, in le persona del premier
Berlusconi. Ille era del opinion que ille habeva jocate, essite un poco
ironic, quando ille proponeva al parlamentario Schulze impersonar le
rolo de un KAPO in un campo de concentration nazi. Le presidente
Berlusconi era del opinion que ille habeva essite mal interpretate!
Hm, esserea un lingua auxiliar functionabile? "Le alteres non comprende
mi uso del lingua auxiliar!" es un fictive responsa a un fictive
situation (le uso de un lingua auxiliar).
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>"Gerard van Wilgen" <gvanw...@planet.nl> wrote in message news:<bdd5eh$2s$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>...
>
>
>>And personally I am not convinced that Ido is better than Esperanto. For
>>instance the lack of agreement in number between nouns and adjectives is
>>presented as an advantage. But if it is an advantage, then why did the
>>inventors not go all the way and also got rid of the agreement between nouns
>>that are connected with a copula? So, why not "La animali es kato" instead
>>of "La animali es kati"?
>>
>>
>
>What does this have to do with noun-adjective concord?
>
>
>
>>And why is that supposedly inconvenient plural ending still present when an
>>adjective is used as a plural noun? There is after all not much difference
>>between "La kati es la nigra animali" and "La kati es la nigri".
>>
>>
>
>This is a special case, since the adjective here is being used
>anaphorically. In this case some mark of the plural is necessary,
>however it need not be marked on the adj in Ido, you could also use
>the plural form of the article 'le':
>
>Yen plura flori; ka vu volas le blanka o le reda? (the white ones or
>the red ones)
>
>
I would say that Esperanto and Ido are equally good. If you know one of
them, you can also understand the other. As a fluent speaker of
Esperanto I have difficulties in learning Ido, and when trying I was
critisized by a very conspiratory idist to be an Interlingua (or was it
Esperanto) mole in the Ido movement, so I quit.
So I say. If your temperament is rather in the Ido vein learn it. Ido is
not without charm. You will anyway be able to understand all interesting
texts (and the boring as well) in both languages.
So the message is: Ido is equally good as Esperanto. Why not study it?
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>esper...@yahoo.com (Stefano MacGregor) wrote in message news:<6b9b63b5.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>How big an active community? Bigger than that of Esperanto? Bigger
>>than that of Interlingua?
>>
>>
>
>Smaller than that of Esperanto :( and comparable to that of
>Interlingua :|
>
>
>
>>And by the way, "most sutible" is definitely a matter of opinion. I
>>personally believe that Esperanto is the best candidate, if you want a
>>neutral constructed language, but have to agree that IALA Interlingua
>>has a lot going for it.
>>
>>
>
>I would actually go as far as to say that both Esperanto and
>Interlingua are UNsuitable for this role, because they both contain
>design faults which effectively rule them out from the start. You can
>only (in good conscience) offer the world a language that is free of
>obvious design faults.
>
>
Designfaults generally spell _incapability to learn the language_.
I learnt Esperanto in a rather formative age so I have no problem
whatsoever with its allegedly difficult -n for the accusative case and
direction and adverbials of time and measure. Esperanto is very
expressive when you master that one.
I failed in learning Ido because of too heavy interference from
Esperanto that I allready know. It is like Swedish and Norwegian. I have
no plans to learn the latter, I understand it, and the Norwegians
understand me. Same with Ido. I underständ the Ido speakers.
So if you are new to them, take a look and see what you like best, and
persue that one.
Then the competition will be: who carries more interesting material?
Cellus P.
Gerard van Wilgen
> "Gerard van Wilgen" <gvanw...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:<bdd5eh$2s$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>...
> > And personally I am not convinced that Ido is better than Esperanto. For
> > instance the lack of agreement in number between nouns and adjectives is
> > presented as an advantage. But if it is an advantage, then why did the
> > inventors not go all the way and also got rid of the agreement between
nouns
> > that are connected with a copula? So, why not "La animali es kato"
instead
> > of "La animali es kati"?
>
> What does this have to do with noun-adjective concord?
If noun-adjective concord is bad, then why is noun-noun concord not bad?
What is the difference?
> > And why is that supposedly inconvenient plural ending still present when
an
> > adjective is used as a plural noun? There is after all not much
difference
> > between "La kati es la nigra animali" and "La kati es la nigri".
>
> This is a special case, since the adjective here is being used
> anaphorically. In this case some mark of the plural is necessary,
Why is that? The plural is already indicated by the noun ending. Showing it
twice (as is mandatory in Esperanto) would be rather superfluous according
to the philosophy of Ido grammar (Which seems to be "don't use endings if
they are not really necessary.")
> however it need not be marked on the adj in Ido, you could also use
> the plural form of the article 'le':
> Yen plura flori; ka vu volas le blanka o le reda? (the white ones or
> the red ones)
That makes sense, though in this case the plural ending of "flori" is
superfluous because the numeral "plura" suffices to indicate that there is
more than one flower (Or "plura" is superfluous because "flori" are always
"plura").
But can you also use "le" with a singular noun to indicate plurality or do
nouns and adjectives here behave differently too?
Anyway, I fail to see the advantage of being able to indicate plurality in
two different ways (or maybe three if "le redi" is also correct).
Gerard van Wilgen
Gerard van Wilgen
"Dafydd ap Fergus" <dafydda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc9bf5a4.03070...@posting.google.com...
> Peter Kleiweg <pk...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03070...@kleigh.nl>...
> > # aldus Gerard van Wilgen :
> >
> > > So, if you do not like the superscripted letters, just do not use
them!
> >
> > If you don't like Esperanto, just don't use it.
> >
> > Oh, no, that can't be right. It is the International Language,
> > so everybody is supposed to use it.
> >
> > Ah, well.
> >
> >
> > > [eo]
> >
> > [bandwidth]
>
> Chu vi estas mensmalsana? Kial daure skribi la samajn tedajn tekstojn
> pri Esperanto? Se vi ne shatas ghin au alian lingvon simple ignoru
> ghin.
>
Mi jam antaulonge metis la nomon de tiu monomaniulo en la liston de mia
retposhta filtrilo kiam li komencis enuigi min, kaj mi konsilas ke vi faru
saman.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> [concerning the Esperanto supersigned letters]
> So, if you do not like the superscripted letters, just do not use them!
My experience has been that the supersigned letters require
additional effort in order to use them. An international auxiliary
language should make communication easier, not more difficult by
requiring extra effort. That is one thing I like about Ido and
Interlingua over E-o: they are written strictly in the unadorned Latin
alphabet (except possibly when dealing with quoted proper names), so
the issue of accented or supersigned letters simply does not arise at
all.
Marcelo Casartelli
Miaopinie,disputi pri la temo chu Esperanto estas pli bona au ne ol
Ido au Interlingua estas sensenca kaj senfrukta,char finfine tiuj
lingvoj estas idoj de Esperanto. La komparoj kaj disputoj alportas
neniun profiton al la progreso de la kerna ideo,tio estas,ke "planita"
au arta lingvo,por esti uzata kiel internacia,estus granda avantagxo
por la homaro. En sia libro "Fundamenta Krestomatio",Zamenhof
inkluzivas eseon de iu S-ro Unuel,kun la titolo "Esenco kaj estonteco
de la ideo de lingvo internacia". En tiu bonega verko S-ro Unuel
skribis:"...ne forgesu ke la perfektigxado de lingvo arta estas ebla
gxis senfineco,char chiun bonan regulon,bonan formon,bonan
esprimon,kiu ekzistas en kiu ajn lingvo,lingvo arta havas plenan
rajton aligxi al si,chian mankon,kiu povus trovigxi en gxi,gxi havas
la rajton plibonigi kaj shangxi,...". Mi bone scias ke multaj,ni
diru,"ortodoksaj" esperantistoj,ne kundividas tiun opinion,sed mi
pensas ke iam ni devos serioze konsideri gxin se ni deziras la
triumfon de nia Afero.
Marcelo C.
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F0305A5...@nospam.com>...
>
>
>>Dafydd ap Fergus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tion faras la plejparto de lingvoj iel. Eble ne tiomgrade internacia
>>>sed tamen ili permesas la konatighon kun novaj eroj de internacia
>>>kulturo.
>>>
>>>Vi kaj Kjell sekvas la longan tradicion de diskutado pri la meritoj de
>>>la "plej bona" internacia lingvo. Jen mesagho de Don Harlow en
>>>Soc.Culture.Esperanto pri la sama temo:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Tiam mi tre malbone sukcesis klarigi mian pozicion en tiu afero.
>>
>>Chu vi elektos dedichi vian tempon al la uzo de esperanto au interlingua
>>dependas de kiel vi rigardas la mondon kaj kiajn eblecojn vi vidas por
>>la lingvo kiun vi elektis.
>>
>>Kaj Esperanto kaj interlingua povas, same kiel la angla, esti uzataj
>>kiel internaciajn lingvojn. La elekto dependos de kiel vi kredas ke vi
>>povos disvastigi ilin. Rilate la anglan tion faras jam amaso da milionoj
>>da homoj, kaj mi ne devas pensi pri tio. Esperanton propagas ankau
>>multege da homoj, kaj ghi bezonas multan filosofadon en naciaj lingvoj.
>>Interlingua kontraue, disvastighas per si mem. Mi preferas tiun lastan
>>alternativon.
>>
>>Cellus P.
>>
>>
>
>Miaopinie,disputi pri la temo chu Esperanto estas pli bona au ne ol
>Ido au Interlingua estas sensenca kaj senfrukta,char finfine tiuj
>lingvoj estas idoj de Esperanto.
>
Tipa esperanta desinformado! Interlingua ne estas "infano" de esperanto.
Ghi estas registrajho de la internacia vortaro, kiel definita en la
enkonduko al Interlingua-English Dictionary.
Cellus P.
Dafydd ap Fergus
I'm struggling with Czech and Slovak letters at the moment. It is
frustrating but not just something that relates to Esperanto.
ASCII is not "language-neutral", nor is Windows or any other major
system (didn't the ASCII-man pass away a couple of weeks ago?). So
from that point of view, any non-standard (non-English) language
requires "extra effort".
In Welsh we have a "w" with a hat on it! I don't know how to get it on
my machine... I'd say abolish it!
The European Union could do something about this making standard
language support software obligatory within the Union (or making it
easier).
Yesterday, I installed a Russian language support which worked great
with TextReader (an instant no-click translator). But it messed up my
other text-based applications.
Dafydd
Gerard van Wilgen
"Dafydd ap Fergus" <dafydda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc9bf5a4.03070...@posting.google.com...
news:<Pine.LNX.4.21.030702...@smarty.smart.net>...
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Gerard van Wilgen wrote:
> >
> > > [concerning the Esperanto supersigned letters]
> >
> system (didn't the ASCII-man pass away a couple of weeks ago?). So
> from that point of view, any non-standard (non-English) language
> requires "extra effort".
>
> In Welsh we have a "w" with a hat on it! I don't know how to get it on
> my machine... I'd say abolish it!
Technology should be adapted to human needs, not the other way round. The
latest versions of Windows at least do support characters like the
circumflexed w (code point 373), but there is still a lot of old software in
use that supports only a small character set.
Here is a circumflexed w: w. It looks okay in this message while I am typing
it, but it is quite possible that all of you will see a question mark or
something else instead of a circumflexed w, because in David's message
header the character set is specified as "ISO-8859-1" (Western European),
which will probably override the specification "UTF-8" (international) in my
response (Not his fault; the character set specification seems to be
inherited from the first message in a thread).
>
> The European Union could do something about this making standard
> language support software obligatory within the Union (or making it
> easier).
Easier said than done.
> Yesterday, I installed a Russian language support which worked great
> with TextReader (an instant no-click translator). But it messed up my
> other text-based applications.
>
Then either TextReader or the other applications do probably not support
Unicode.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>The European Union could do something about this making standard
>language support software obligatory within the Union (or making it
>easier).
>
This should be a standardization that they might like in the EU
commission. I think it is a minimal demand that you should be able to
write in any language of the Union with any computer.
Cellus P.
>
>
Larry G
> Quanto a apprender linguas, mi problema es le correctitude. Ego apprende
> relativemente rapido, ma incorrectemente. In facto a data solo
> interlingua es un lingua que ego senti que ego pote scriber
> relativemente correctemente. Anglese es como luctar con un petra runic
> (a rune stone), del quales nos ha milles in Uppland, mi provincia.
Yes, I understand. I don't always get the syntax correct myself, and I'm a
native speaker. LOL It can be a difficult language sometimes.
>
> > I
> >will say that I found Esperanto easier to write than Interlingua.
> >
> Ha tu probate, e quanto tempore?
Yes, briefly. With the help of a dictionary and a cursory look at some
basic Esperanto grammar, I was able to form a basic sentence in a couple of
minutes. It took me twice as long to do so with Interlingua, precisely
because of its similarity and yet differences with other Romance languages,
even though I understood the Interlingua sentence much better than the
Esperanto sentence.
> Narra, (tell me, pensa de "narration, narrative") per favor de iste
> eccentricitates.
Well, for instance the basic verb "esser" as well as a few others can have
irregular forms. So it is difficult to know how to form the verb. Also,
Interlingua is English-like because there are no (little) genders and like
English the definite article is not plural. Being somewhat familiar with
Spanish, my mind wants to pluralize the article along with the noun (le
libro, le libros). So, that can be frustrating.
That having been said, for the purposes of an international medium, I think
Interlingua is a most logical choice because it standardizes the Romance
languages and forms a bridge between them and English. In addition, because
much of the world, and especially Europe has adopted Latin international
forms in their vocabulary, at least in terms of science and government, etc.
So, there is a kind of common heritage in that way.
Esperanto and Ido (I assume) do the same and do more to incorporate German
and Slavic words, but the vocabulary is so altered that it often times
renders familiar words unrecognizable or odd forms: patro = father, patrino
= mother.
Esperanto can be a beautiful spoken language, however, like Italian.
Overall, I prefer Interlingua for that purpose though and it has a pleasing
orthography.
Larry
Robert Weemeyer
> En
> Svedio pli da homoj partoprenas kursojn en latino ke en esperanto o
> interlingua !
Mi ne komprenas tiun cxi frazon. Cxu vi celis skribi: "En Svedio pli
da homoj partoprenas kursojn de la latino ol de Esperanto aux
Interlingua"?
Se jes: Same estas versxajne en cxiuj Euxropaj landoj.
Robert Weemeyer, Berlin
Dafydd ap Fergus
> >Miaopinie,disputi pri la temo chu Esperanto estas pli bona au ne ol
> >Ido au Interlingua estas sensenca kaj senfrukta,char finfine tiuj
> >lingvoj estas idoj de Esperanto.
> >
> Tipa esperanta desinformado! Interlingua ne estas "infano" de esperanto.
> Ghi estas registrajho de la internacia vortaro, kiel definita en la
> enkonduko al Interlingua-English Dictionary.
>
> Cellus P.
Jen komenco de alia longega diskuto! bonan nokton!
Kjell, chu vi loghas en Gotenburgo? Mi estos tie fine de la monato.
amike
dafydd
Stefano MacGregor
> Esperanto certe havas siajn avantaghojn. Sed, lau mi, unu granda
> malavantagho de ghi estas ke nur la homoj kiuj studis ghin, kaj principe
> neniuj aliaj komprenas ghin.
Kaj en tiu relato, gxi estas kiel cxiu alia lingvo en la mondo,
inkluzive de Interlingvo. Jes ja, oni fojfoje povas kompreni
Interlingvon skribitan sen studi gxin, sed oni nepre ne povas =skribi=
gxin sen studo.
Studi Esperanton por skribi gxin estas pli facile ol studi
Interlingvon por skribi gxin.
James Chandler
> Do you care to comment about the solution of Interlingua, James, as you were
> so quick to offer me your insults when you first posted to this forum?
I recently did a sketch on Auxlang where I compared each language to a
make of car. Esperanto was an old Lada, Ido a precision-engineered
Audi or BMW; I compared Interlingua to a Rolls-Royce: coachbuilt, very
grand but ultimately I wouldnt give one houseroom.
There are two major problems I have with Interlingua, one of which I
consider a fatal flaw in an IAL: multiple verb conjugations (just as
bad as Esp's noun-adj concord or mandatory accusative). The other -
the archaic orthography - I just find completely unnecessary and out
of place in a planned auxiliary. Why Interlingua doesnt make
simplifications that Spanish does is quite beyond me. I dont see how
such an archaic spelling is defensible when you have the opportunity
to start from scratch with a phonemic spelling.
James Chandler
> > Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Dear Peter, Where are you living?
>
> Not in Esperantistan.
You dont have to live in Esperantujo to realize there is a problem.
What do you propose as a solution to the number of languages in the
post-enlargement EU, for example? Should the annual translation bill
really continue as it is? Is there really no better use for the money
(schools, hospitals, pensions - just some suggestions).
Another example: recently the European football final was held in
Manchester, England, and contested by two Italian teams. What a great
idea to stage the match at Old Trafford: great stadium, a warm
Manchester welcome for the Italian fans. Only one problem, soon
noticed by the journalists at the ground: none of the Italian guests
could speak a word of English!
I'm sorry, I just dont want to live in a world where human beings cant
talk to each other. We are an advanced species - technologicly
speaking. We have been to the moon, split the atom and we can watch
events live by satellite from the other side of the world. In social
terms we are way behind some of our fellow creatures on this planet.
Providing a common language so that all human beings could communicate
effectively is childs play compared to a manned Mars mission - but I
will wager that we manage the latter long before the former.
Be part of the solution, Peter.
Peter Kleiweg
> "Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bduso9$10f0ae$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Do you care to comment about the solution of Interlingua, James, as you were
> > so quick to offer me your insults when you first posted to this forum?
>
> I recently did a sketch on Auxlang where I compared each language to a
> make of car. Esperanto was an old Lada, Ido a precision-engineered
> Audi or BMW;
If Esperanto were and old Lada, Ido would be an old Lada with a
new coat of paint. You can hide the rust, but it's still there.
> There are two major problems I have with Interlingua, one of which I
> consider a fatal flaw in an IAL: multiple verb conjugations (just as
> bad as Esp's noun-adj concord or mandatory accusative). The other -
> the archaic orthography - I just find completely unnecessary and out
> of place in a planned auxiliary. Why Interlingua doesnt make
> simplifications that Spanish does is quite beyond me. I dont see how
> such an archaic spelling is defensible when you have the opportunity
> to start from scratch with a phonemic spelling.
Well, Interlingua is not a planned language, it is a derived
language.
You go at it the wrong way. The properties of Interlingua you
don't like are quite natural. They don't need defending. On the
contrary, you need to give a justification to do away with these
properties, something Esperantist refuse to do.
You may think that it would be much easier if we assume pi
equals 3, but such a pi would be quite worthless.
You (Esperantists in general) have all naive assumptions how
language should be to make it simple. But you don't really care
to study how language really works. If you don't understand the
reason for the existence of some language property, you call it
'illogical' and want to abolish it.
Understanding the way a language actually works is quite
different from using a language. You may think that language has
all these nasty properties to annoy people, but just think about
it! If all these properties are so bad, why did they develop in
the first place? Language is in constant development, finely
attuned to the constantly shifting needs of its users. Language
is not complex to make it difficult, but because it makes
languages much more efficient.
Irregularities are there because they make language easier and
more flexible. Writing systems don't use just phonemic spelling
because writing is something different than speech.
Language development is not unlike the development of biological
species. You wouldn't do away with biological processes because
they are hard to understand. You would not get a better animal.
You would get a dead thing. Scientists, until a few years back,
have been baffled by the fact that all analyses proved that a
fly could not fly. Still, the fly flies. Is the fly smarter than
does scientists? Of course not. Not understanding the reason of
a certain mechanism does not mean the mechanism is bad. It just
means you need to try harder to discover the reason for its
existence.
Peter Kleiweg
> You dont have to live in Esperantujo to realize there is a
> problem. What do you propose as a solution to the number of
> languages in the post-enlargement EU, for example? Should the
> annual translation bill really continue as it is? Is there
> really no better use for the money (schools, hospitals,
> pensions - just some suggestions).
Money... Everything of value costs. Should we abolish art just
because it costs? The EU will manage. They may not deal with the
multitude of languages in the way you like, but that is not a
language problem, that is a James Chandler problem.
> Another example: recently the European football final was held
> in Manchester, England, and contested by two Italian teams.
> What a great idea to stage the match at Old Trafford: great
> stadium, a warm Manchester welcome for the Italian fans.
> Only one problem, soon noticed by the journalists at the
> ground: none of the Italian guests could speak a word of
> English!
So what?
> I'm sorry, I just dont want to live in a world where human
> beings cant talk to each other.
People can talk to each other quite nicely. Have done so for a
very long time.
> We are an advanced species - technologicly speaking. We have
> been to the moon, split the atom and we can watch events live
> by satellite from the other side of the world. In social
> terms we are way behind some of our fellow creatures on this
> planet. Providing a common language so that all human beings
> could communicate effectively is childs play compared to a
> manned Mars mission - but I will wager that we manage the
> latter long before the former.
You and I have not been to the moon, have not split the atom.
Some people have done some of these things in a cooperative
effort. Not everybody can do everything. We do all these great
things because a society is more than a collection of
individuals. You can't talk to everybody in the world. There are
more than six billion people! How much time would you spend to
talk to each of them in turn?
I can't talk to everybody. I can't bake bread. I can't generate
my own gas and electricity, or the appliances that use these. I
can't make a bicycle, or pave the road to use my bicycle
comfortably. I can't split an atom or go to the moon. Human kind
can do all these things. Human kind can go to the moon or split
the atom quite recently. Human kind can talk to all of human
kind as long as human kind has existed.
> Be part of the solution, Peter.
Stop creating problems, James.
Cellus Purfluxius
On pote describer isto como un regula general. Si on cognosce un lingua
on ha le tendentia de usar le regulas de iste lingua etiam (also, as
well) pro un lingua simile.
Io etiam mixava un massa de expressiones espaniol in interlingua quando
io comenciava usar lo activemente.
Forsan (perhaps) functiona pro te leger (to read) multissimo de textos
in interlingua pro activar le lingua. A http://www.interlingua.com tu
pote haber inspiration, io crede.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
No, io habita Uppsala, proxime a Stockholm, lo que tu certo jam sape.
Cellus P:
Cellus Purfluxius
Arrrrrgg! Interferentia de interlingua. In loco de "que" lege
ntarualmente "ol" ::-)
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>Cellus Purfluxius <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3EFFE8E3...@nospam.com>...
>
>
>
>>Esperanto certe havas siajn avantaghojn. Sed, lau mi, unu granda
>>malavantagho de ghi estas ke nur la homoj kiuj studis ghin, kaj principe
>>neniuj aliaj komprenas ghin.
>>
>>
>
>Kaj en tiu relato, gxi estas kiel cxiu alia lingvo en la mondo,
>inkluzive de Interlingvo. Jes ja, oni fojfoje povas kompreni
>Interlingvon skribitan sen studi gxin, sed oni nepre ne povas =skribi=
>gxin sen studo.
>
Isto es le grande cosa que le esperantistas non pote comprender.
Primo debe esser le comprension, postea veni le apprension. Isto es como
con norvegese e danese. Io comprende iste linguas ma non pote parlar o
scriber los. Lo esme se con espaniol pro un italiano. Ille certo
comprende multo, forsan toto, lo que non significa que ille pote scriber
o parlar espaniol sin studios!
Io non vole un lingua si appellate "auxiliar" como esperanto le qual io
non solo debe apprender, me la qual io anque non comprende del prime
momento. Quando io le prime vice (fojo in esperanto) videva un texto in
interlingua, io poteva comprender lo.
>Studi Esperanton por skribi gxin estas pli facile ol studi
>Interlingvon por skribi gxin.
>
Studiar esperanto pro scriber lo es plus facile que studiar interlingua
pro scriber lo.
Hmm, Que le diabulo lo crede!
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>There are two major problems I have with Interlingua, one of which I
>consider a fatal flaw in an IAL: multiple verb conjugations (just as
>bad as Esp's noun-adj concord or mandatory accusative).
>
I think we should be honest here. Esperanto's numerus and case
congruence - there are only two cases to think of, nominative and
accusative - are not at all difficult. I admit that Ido is somewhat
simpler here, but on the other hand you have to know if the original
stem of a word is a noun or not.
The difference between Ido and Esperanto is basically that some things
are mor difficult in ido and others are mor difficult in Esperanto.
In interlingua the verbs behave in another way than in Esperanto and
Interlingua. I cannot say that the "thre conjugations" were difficult.
Excuse me for using some examples here. Those bored can jump to next
message:
Take the verbs:
demonstrar
scriber
dormir
Now, the usual question will be: How can I know what ending to use?
Reply: Look into your own language. You certainly has "demonstration,
subscription, dormitory". So we can say that the ver ends in -a, -e, or -i.
demonstra = demonstrate(s)
scribe = write(s)
dormi = sleep(s).
These simple forms work as imperatives as well. In English you skip the e.
Demonstrate! etc.
It is the same form. You show the person with the personal pronouns.
io, tu, ille illa, illo; nos, vos, illes, illas, illos demonstra etc.
infintive: to demonstrate add an -r.
past: demonstrated add -va
perfect has demonstrated add ha -te. Ha demonstrate.
For scriber and dormir you do the same, but you change the -e into -i-
before te. So you have one form: has written = ha scribite; has slept =
ha dormite.
So I would say it is easy.
Cellus P.
Cellus Purfluxius
>(...)
>
>What a great
>idea to stage the match at Old Trafford: great stadium, a warm
>Manchester welcome for the Italian fans. Only one problem, soon
>noticed by the journalists at the ground: none of the Italian guests
>could speak a word of English!
>
They could have tried Ido or why not Interlingua :-)
Cellus P.
Paul O. BARTLETT
> There are two major problems I have with Interlingua, one of which I
> consider a fatal flaw in an IAL: multiple verb conjugations (just as
> bad as Esp's noun-adj concord or mandatory accusative).
Although I find the "multiple verb conjugations" almost trivially
easy to handle, considering how few forms there are, as a trade-off for
Interlingua's goal of naturalism. I myself find them easier to handle
that the Esperanto characteristics that you mention.
> The other -
> the archaic orthography - I just find completely unnecessary and out
> of place in a planned auxiliary. Why Interlingua doesnt make
> simplifications that Spanish does is quite beyond me.
There is an "official" alternative orthography which goes a long
way in that direction. It's just that almost no one uses it.
Gerard van Wilgen
news:<bduso9$10f0ae$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Do you care to comment about the solution of Interlingua, James, as you
were
> > so quick to offer me your insults when you first posted to this forum?
>
> I recently did a sketch on Auxlang where I compared each language to a
> make of car. Esperanto was an old Lada, Ido a precision-engineered
> Audi or BMW; I compared Interlingua to a Rolls-Royce: coachbuilt, very
> grand but ultimately I wouldnt give one houseroom.
>
> There are two major problems I have with Interlingua, one of which I
> consider a fatal flaw in an IAL: multiple verb conjugations (just as
> bad as Esp's noun-adj concord or mandatory accusative). The other -
> the archaic orthography -
[en]
Archaic? Like Latin Ido uses "x" for /ks/ and "qu" for /kw/. That is in not
really an innovation either, is it?
[eo]
Chu arkaika? Kiel la latina lingvo ido uzas je "x" por /ks/ kaj je "qu" por
/kw/. Tio nek vere estas renovigo, chu ne?
Gerard van Wilgen
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03070...@kleigh.nl>...
> > > Are you really saying there is no such thing as the Language Problem?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > Dear Peter, Where are you living?
> >
> > Not in Esperantistan.
>
> You dont have to live in Esperantujo to realize there is a problem.
> What do you propose as a solution to the number of languages in the
> post-enlargement EU, for example?
Petro simple neas ke problemo ekzistas, do solvo ne estas necesa!
Pablo
Peter Kleiweg escribió:
> You (Esperantists in general) have all naive assumptions how
> language should be to make it simple. But you don't really care
> to study how language really works. If you don't understand the
> reason for the existence of some language property, you call it
> 'illogical' and want to abolish it.
No, te equivocas. No pretendemos abolir esas cualidades en las lenguas
nacionales. Comprendemos que toda lengua evoluciona de una determinada
manera. Lo que vemos ilógico es repetir esos esquemas en una lengua
artificial creada desde cero. Si hay que crear una lengua desde la nada,
lo más sensato es hacerla lo más fácil y regular posible, pero eso no
significa que estemos en contra de las irregularidades de las lenguas
nacionales, todo lo contrario, comprendemos que forman parte de su riqueza.
>
> Understanding the way a language actually works is quite
> different from using a language. You may think that language has
> all these nasty properties to annoy people, but just think about
> it! If all these properties are so bad, why did they develop in
> the first place? Language is in constant development, finely
> attuned to the constantly shifting needs of its users. Language
> is not complex to make it difficult, but because it makes
> languages much more efficient.
De nuevo te equivocas. Que los verbos del español son irregulares en
muchos casos y difíciles de aprender no es algo contra lo que nos
manifestemos. Yo mismo uso el español más o menos bien, y creo que todas
las irregularidades del español forman parte de la riqueza de la lengua,
sobre todo porque tienen una explicación histórica. Pero en el caso de
una lengua artificial todo es diferente, porque la lengua nace desde
cero, y sobre todo porque es una lengua pensada para ser de todos, por
eso debe ser sencilla. Pero de nuevo te repito que no estamos encontra
de las lenguas nacionales, y que las irregularidades en las lenguas
nacionales sólo son defectos si se repitieran en una lengua artificial,
porque en una lengua nacional no son defectos sino virtudes.
>
> Irregularities are there because they make language easier and
> more flexible. Writing systems don't use just phonemic spelling
> because writing is something different than speech.
Para esto vale la misma respuesta que te he dado antes.
Peter Kleiweg
Spanish is not a language I studied, so I hope my responses
are sensible to your arguments.
# aldus Pablo :
> Peter Kleiweg escribió:
>
>
> > You (Esperantists in general) have all naive assumptions how
> > language should be to make it simple. But you don't really
> > care to study how language really works. If you don't
> > understand the reason for the existence of some language
> > property, you call it 'illogical' and want to abolish it.
>
> No, te equivocas. No pretendemos abolir esas cualidades en las
> lenguas nacionales. Comprendemos que toda lengua evoluciona de
> una determinada manera. Lo que vemos ilógico es repetir esos
> esquemas en una lengua artificial creada desde cero. Si hay
> que crear una lengua desde la nada, lo más sensato es hacerla
> lo más fácil y regular posible, pero eso no significa que
> estemos en contra de las irregularidades de las lenguas
> nacionales, todo lo contrario, comprendemos que forman parte
> de su riqueza.
First of all, Interlingua is not a language designed from
scratch, so whatever you think a new language should be like,
you cannot use that as an argument against Interlingua, such as
a previous poster did.
Now, you want to design a language, and do a better job than
nature did. That makes sense, to a point. Making an aeroplane
was much more successful when people stopped to imitate birds.
However, there are still basic rules of nature you should adhere
to. You cannot change the laws of aerodynamics. If you want to
design a language that is better than a language designed by
nature you should at least understand the aerodynamics of
language. And this is very hard. Decades of linguistic research
have lead to models about the workings of language that are so
complex that they are unworkable in computer applications.
Models that take four, eight or even sixteen as much time to
process a sentence when the sentence only doubles in length,
while humans can process language in real time, however long a
sentence is. In other words, the way natural language works is
far from understood. Sure, you can design a language that leaves
out all the things of natural languages that are not understood
or cannot be modelled easily. The problem is, unlike the bird
and flying, the human mind is part of the rules of language. You
might cut out things of a language design that the human mind
depends on for efficient language processing. A bird won't fly
better if you cut of his wings an substitute them with the wings
of an aeroplane.
The point is: you generally cannot say that Interlingua has
properties that cannot be justified, when these properties are
natural properties. You *do* need to justify why you avoid such
properties *if* your claim is that leaving out these properties
improves the language design.
> >
> > Understanding the way a language actually works is quite
> > different from using a language. You may think that language
> > has all these nasty properties to annoy people, but just
> > think about it! If all these properties are so bad, why did
> > they develop in the first place? Language is in constant
> > development, finely attuned to the constantly shifting needs
> > of its users. Language is not complex to make it difficult,
> > but because it makes languages much more efficient.
>
> De nuevo te equivocas. Que los verbos del español son
> irregulares en muchos casos y difíciles de aprender no es algo
> contra lo que nos manifestemos. Yo mismo uso el español más o
> menos bien, y creo que todas las irregularidades del español
> forman parte de la riqueza de la lengua, sobre todo porque
> tienen una explicación histórica. Pero en el caso de una
> lengua artificial todo es diferente, porque la lengua nace
> desde cero, y sobre todo porque es una lengua pensada para ser
> de todos, por eso debe ser sencilla. Pero de nuevo te repito
> que no estamos encontra de las lenguas nacionales, y que las
> irregularidades en las lenguas nacionales sólo son defectos si
> se repitieran en una lengua artificial, porque en una lengua
> nacional no son defectos sino virtudes.
Irregularities may be hard to master for a second language user,
they *do* make processing of the language easier. I am sorry, I
don't quite understand how this works either, but it has
something to do with the entropy of a language. Did you know
that adding just a little noise to an audio signal makes it
easier to process than a clear signal? It seems illogical.
Understanding this requires higher mathematics. Ironing out
nasty complications of language as much as possible is really
harmful.
> >
> > Irregularities are there because they make language easier
> > and more flexible. Writing systems don't use just phonemic
> > spelling because writing is something different than speech.
>
> Para esto vale la misma respuesta que te he dado antes.
Language is a process of coding, transmission, and decoding of
thought. The primary form is speech. Writing is not a capturing
of the speech signal, but a separate transmission method of
language at a higher level. Why do you assume a phonemic writing
system would be the most suitable? All kinds of writing systems
exist, from phonetic to idiomatic, with intermediate forms as
phonemic, morphological, syllabic, usually a combination of two
or more levels. There is nothing in principal that makes the
phonemic representation the most effective.
Pablo
Peter Kleiweg escribió:
> Spanish is not a language I studied, so I hope my responses
> are sensible to your arguments.
>
I'm sorry, I thought you speak spanish. I'll try with English, but my
English is too poor.
> First of all, Interlingua is not a language designed from
> scratch, so whatever you think a new language should be like,
> you cannot use that as an argument against Interlingua, such as
> a previous poster did.
You understood my mesage like an critic to Interlingua, and it's not. I
don't know well how interlingua is.
>
> Now, you want to design a language, and do a better job than
> nature did. That makes sense, to a point. Making an aeroplane
> was much more successful when people stopped to imitate birds.
> However, there are still basic rules of nature you should adhere
> to. You cannot change the laws of aerodynamics. If you want to
> design a language that is better than a language designed by
> nature you should at least understand the aerodynamics of
> language. And this is very hard. Decades of linguistic research
> have lead to models about the workings of language that are so
> complex that they are unworkable in computer applications.
> Models that take four, eight or even sixteen as much time to
> process a sentence when the sentence only doubles in length,
> while humans can process language in real time, however long a
> sentence is. In other words, the way natural language works is
> far from understood. Sure, you can design a language that leaves
> out all the things of natural languages that are not understood
> or cannot be modelled easily. The problem is, unlike the bird
> and flying, the human mind is part of the rules of language. You
> might cut out things of a language design that the human mind
> depends on for efficient language processing. A bird won't fly
> better if you cut of his wings an substitute them with the wings
> of an aeroplane.
>
What I tried to say is that the irregularities are not necesary for an
artificial language. I understand that the national languages have those
irregularities, I don't fight against that. I like my language, I don't
want to change the Spanish language for eliminate the irregularities. I
like the language like it is, with irregularities. But that rule doesn't
work for the constructed languages (like esperanto), because the
objectives are different. If we want everybody be able to speak the
common language without problems, that language must be as easy as
possible. If not, only a few people could learn the language.
>
> Language is a process of coding, transmission, and decoding of
> thought. The primary form is speech. Writing is not a capturing
> of the speech signal, but a separate transmission method of
> language at a higher level. Why do you assume a phonemic writing
> system would be the most suitable? All kinds of writing systems
> exist, from phonetic to idiomatic, with intermediate forms as
> phonemic, morphological, syllabic, usually a combination of two
> or more levels. There is nothing in principal that makes the
> phonemic representation the most effective.
For an artificial language who want to be the neutral language for
everybody I think
the phonemic writting is the best system. The Spanish language has (with
exceptions) a
phonetic writting. Because that, after a short time of studying, you can
read in Spanish,
even if you don't know what are you reading. That system is the most
suitable for an
artificial language, because allows the students spend time.
Pablo
> artificial language, because allows the students spend time.
because allows the students spare time.
Dafydd ap Fergus
> Well, Interlingua is not a planned language, it is a derived
> language.>
Kara Petro,
You're lying not only to yourself! Of course Interlingua is a planned
language.
By the way why do always write in your school English? Why not use
Interlingua if it is so wonderful? Or are you scared of making
mistakes?
> You go at it the wrong way. The properties of Interlingua you
> don't like are quite natural. They don't need defending. On the
> contrary, you need to give a justification to do away with these
> properties, something Esperantist refuse to do.>
Propaganda!
> Irregularities are there because they make language easier and
> more flexible. Writing systems don't use just phonemic spelling
> because writing is something different than speech.>
Any scientific evidence that irregularites make language easier?
Sorry but reading your propaganda is quite tiring my friend.
Dafydd
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg escribió:
> > Spanish is not a language I studied, so I hope my responses
> > are sensible to your arguments.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I thought you speak spanish. I'll try with English, but my
> English is too poor.
The languages I understand are listed in my signature.
> > First of all, Interlingua is not a language designed from
> > scratch, so whatever you think a new language should be like,
> > you cannot use that as an argument against Interlingua, such as
> > a previous poster did.
>
>
> You understood my mesage like an critic to Interlingua, and it's not. I
> don't know well how interlingua is.
I was refering to the previous poster, who did use design as an
argument against Interlingua. That is what the message you
responded to was about.
For the rest, what you write in English is exactly what I
guessed from your Spanish text, so I have nothing new to add.
(Perhaps I could add 'es' to my signature?)
Cellus Purfluxius
Non volente render le mundo felice per mi anglese de scola io vole
discuter le question de regularitate o non in un lingua auxiliar con
special referentia a interlingua. Le ordinales in interlingua (compara
anglese first = prime; second = secunde ....) es in general 1e = prime;
2e = secunde; 3e = tertie; 4e = quarte; 5e = quinte: Ma lo amusante es
que il existe ordinales in interlingua totalmente regular: 1e = unesime,
2e = duesime, 3e = tresime, 4 = quatresime; 5e = cinquesime.
Qual es le causa que on usa le formas irregular, prime, secunde...? Le
responsa es que ille formas irregular es simile a parolas que nos ha in
nostre linguas national. In svedese io ha primär, sekundär (anque
sekund), tertiär, kvartär, kvintett, sextett etc.
In interlingua on pote anque usar formas del participio pefrecte
irregular, pro exemplo: Io ha scripte = I have written. Ma in iste caso
le majoritate de parlatores de interlingua prefere le formas regular,
assi: Io ha scribite.
Personalmente io ha le opinion que le formas regular del participios del
verbos es a preferer.
Un difficultate quando on discute probemas de regularitate o
irregularitate es que le personas qui se occupa con un lingua,
artificial o ethnic, ha un tendentia oblidar (= poner in oblivion) le
processo de apprender le lingua. "Le casos o le participios irregular es
in facto facile!" dice le professor de latino qui ha oblidate su labor
(= le labor del professor) de apprender iste formas...
Assi, quando esperanto ha totalmente regular formas del ordinales (prime
= unua; secunde = dua etc. on debe judicar isto secundo le principios de
esperanto. Iste lingua non ha como objectivo de esser immediatemente
comprensibile a personas con un fundo in linguas europee, e iste lingua
prefere le regularitate grammatic al immediate comprensibilitate. Un
totalmente legitime tradeoff, si assi dicer!
Cellus P.