On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:57:35 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:51:02 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> >Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com
> >>>>> Not enough. You don't understand the method of extraction for
> >>>>> Interlingua. What is needed is 3 out of 4 languages.
> >>>> Where do they get 'tamen' from?
> >>> Esperanto. But don't tell anyone.
> >A lousy choice, it's too similar to _tamben_.
> Not for me. I seriously never thought of that connection. I learnt
> 'tamen' from Esperanto in 1972 or so, as the reflex of Dutch toch, and
> never forgot it since. I probably encountered 'también' and 'tambem'
> only later, and didn't confuse them at all.
Can you see how that would be different for a Portuguese- or Spanish-
speaker, and thus be somewhat antithetical to the supposed purpose of
> Re-encountering 'tamen', and also 'sed' in Interlingua in 2003 or 2013
> was like meeting old friends. Interlingua, by the way, also has
> 'nonobstante' and 'totevia' for 'tamen'; and anque, alsi, etiam,
> equalmente for tamben.
(It doesn't help us outside kibitzers that you haven't provided a gloss
for any of the words you have mentioned.)
> >> More seriously: the 3 out of 4 method often doesn't work for function
> >> words a.k.a. particulas.
> >Doesn't it, or is it more difficult to apply? Sometimes people give up too
> >easily. Is IL subject to corrections?
Does Interlingua encode the differences between _ser_ and _estar_, or
_aber_ and _sondern_, two pairs that can confuse English-speakers; or
_as_ and _like_, which definitely confuse German-speakers?
How do conlangs in general deal with distinctions that are "natural"
for speakers of one language but difficult for speakers of another?