Newsgroups: alt.language.artificial,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!data.ramona.vix.com!news1.digital.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!brg
From: brg@netcom.com (Bruce R. Gilson)
Subject: Re: Judging Esperanto
Message-ID: <brgE7I21G.BC1@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
References: <brgE78KpL.DnF@netcom.com> <01bc34dc$fe3273a0$a5c7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de> <01bc361f$a759d660$bbc7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de> <01bc3657$6036f3c0$9cc7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de>
Distribution:  world
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 14:10:28 GMT
Lines: 290
Sender: brg@netcom23.netcom.com

In article <01bc3657$6036f3c0$9cc7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de>,
sebastiano hartviga <h0444wow@rz.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Bruce R. Gilson <brg@netcom.com>:
>
>>sebastiano hartviga <h0444wow@rz.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>Bruce R. Gilson:
>
>>>which version of novial are you talking about? the one from 1928? the=20
>>>recodification from 1930? the second recodification from 1934? the=20
>>>current recodification of 1997?
>>
>>Any of them. What I said applies equally to all.
>>
>>Unlike Zamenhof, Jespersen felt that his decisions were not an =
>untouchable
>>Fundamento. So Novial was contnually subject to refinement.
>
>come on! you definitively know what you said about zamenhof is not true. =
>you certainly know a book by a certain otto jespersen, creator of =
>novial? its german title is "eine internationale sprache", published in =
>1928. (i lack the english original, but if i remember rightly, you =
>understand german.) i quote from page 21:=20

In fact, I _own_ a copy of the English original, "An International Language"
so I need not translate your German.

>
>"Er selbst [Zamenhof] war Aenderungen nicht abgeneigt und machte im =
>Jahre 1894 sogar einen umfassenden Reformvorschlag, der, wenn er =
>angenommen worden waere, das Aussehen der Sprache vollstaendig geaendert =
>haben wuerde."

p. 35 of the English original:

"He himself was not averse to changes, and in 1894 even put forward a
comprehensive scheem of reform, which if it had been accepted would have
changed the whole apect of the language,"

and, continuing beyond your quote:

"and done away with some of those features of the language which have always
ruffled people more than anything else: the circumflexed letters, the fanci-
ful 'correlative' words, the accusative, the _aj's_ and _oj's_, etc."

However, I'm not talking about the Zamenhof of 1894. I'm talking about the
Zamenhof of 1907, disavowing Beaufront, who proposed reforms to E-o in the
hope of getting it adopted by the proponents of other IALs.

>and:
>
>"...; auch da taten die Konservativen alles, um Reformen zu verhindern =
>und Zamenhofs eigene zaghaften Aenderungsvorschlaege zu unterdruecken =
>(selbst noch 1907 sandte er der Delegation derartige Vorschlaege)."

p. 36, English original:

" when they [the conservative elements] did everything to hinder reforms
and to hush up Zamenhof's own half-hearted proposals of change (even so late
as 1907 he sent to the Delegation a few proposals of that kind)."

However, note the term "half-hearted" ("zaghaft"? I don't know that word,
but from context it must be the corresponding German word) in the above,
also note that when such proposals WERE adopted by the Delegation, Zamenhof
refused to consider them.

>jespersen is pretty much biased in this text (of course -- he wants to =
>introduce another language in competition to esperanto), but =
>nevertheless it's obviously contrary to your assertation.

See what I said above.

>>>nevertheless it is not so regular as esperanto. to start with: why do =
>=3D
>>>you need three different letters (k, q, x) to express the k-sound? =3D
>>>maybee because this is the way the major romance languages and english =
>=3D
>>>express it? the letter "h" in novial is normally pronounced "h". the =
>=3D
>>>letter "s" normally "s". but when they appear in the sequence "sh" =
>than =3D
>>>neither the "s" nor the "h" are pronounced, but it is pronounced the =
>=3D
>>>sound of english "sh" ore german "sch" or italian "sci". similar is =
>true
>=3D
>>>for "ch". how are they pronounced in compound words?
>>
>>Far better to use "sh" than an s with a circumflex that my computer =
>cannot
>>even print. For that reason, some Esperantists use s^, others ^s, =
>others
>sx,
>>and none of these agrees with Zamenhof's solution, which was to use, =
>guess
>>what! sh!=20
>
>no. machines have to be adjusted to men, not men to machines. there was =
>a time when computers didn't understand anything other than punched =
>cards. so did you at that time advocate a script by punctures in paper? =
>what you laugh at is what most internet users outside the english =
>speaking countries have to deal with every day. see for example the =
>german quotes in this article.
I cannot spend hundreds of dollars to buy a special program that would read
an s-circumflex if you typed it. I TOTALLY disagree with you there.

Note that because you use software to post that is incompatible with my
system, I get all sorts of =20's and other garbage in your post. You have to
type "sx" to represent something that is a single phoneme. Why is that better
than "sh"?

>the circumflex per se is no problem to computers. and now prick up your =
>ears (i guess you use windows95 (you use ms news 3.1)): windows95 is =
>distributed with the unicode scripts. and the esperanto letters are part =
>of unicode. so mabe _you_ cannot use the esperanto letters. your =
>computer _can_ right now.

Not in any way that is visible to me. BTW I do not use MS news 3.1. I _do_
use Windows 95, but I am dialed to a shell account on a unix system and I use
trn as a news reader. And my terminal program, though it lets me READ such
things as u-umlaut, does not let me TYPE them. And because you use MIME enco-
ding, I cannot even READ them, when you do. But I certainly cannot read 
s-circumflex, or put it on a webpage (&uuml; exists, but not &scirc; as a
HTML code).

>>The rules for Ido are hardly different from those of Esperanto. There =
>is a
>>parallelism of -ul with the E-o -in, causing a less sexist arrangement.
>And
>>a few suffixes exist that E-o did not have, but it is an expansion of =
>the
>E-o
>>system.
>>
>>Novial has a list of affixes, just as does E-o, but they are different.
>Look
>>at my Novial pages; I will not repeat here what I've already put up =
>there.
>
>before you start sneering at esperanto, please be so good and actually =
>learn at least some basics of esperanto.
>
>the 'affixes' in esperanto are independent words. but it is not =
>astonishing that you don't know that, if your only source on esperanto =
>is jespersen. he already made the same mistake. in the above quoted book =
>he writes at page 89:
>
>"Z[amenhof] behauptet allerdings, jedes seiner Suffixe usw. sei =
>selbstaendig und abtrennbar (und das fuehrt dazu, dass Suffixe wie =
>_inda_ und _igi_ als alleinstehende Woerter gebraucht werden), aber von =
>den Verbalendungen _as_, _is_, _u_, _i_ usw. gilt das nicht."
>
>this assertation is wrong. because this theme was treated in this group =
>some days ago, i will not repeat it here, except you demand it.
>
>>>> To Esperanto
>>>> granda homo, grandan homon, grandaj homoj, grandajn homojn
>
>>>> corresponds
>
>>>> and Novial
>>>> grandi home, grandi home, grandi homes, grandi homes
>>>> (again - no need to mark accusative, except in inverted order!))
>
>>>hm. in esperanto you have to learn one rule to mark subject and direct =
>=3D
>>>object which is alway applied. in ido and in novial you have to learn =
>=3D
>>>two rules and additionally the rules, when to use which.
>>
>>No. In Novial, you can essentially ignore the -m ending. In 99.99% of =
>all
>>Novial text, you follow one rule. The subject immediately precedes the
>verb.
>>So you learn ONE rule.
>
>ah. i see. you have one rule you nor learn neither use. yes, that's =
>easy,
>indeed.
>
>>Esperantists need to learn that the accusative ending does not always =
>mark
>the
>>direct object. It can also mean a preposition has been omitted (Rule =
>13)
>In
>>Novial, you don't need an accusative ending, almose _ever_.
>
>look, there are only 16 rules. why can't people just never quote them =
>correctly?
>you are talking about rule 14, not 13. its whole text is in the english =
>version as follows:
>
>"14. Every preposition in the international language has a definite =
>fixed meaning. If it be necessary to employ some preposition, and it is =
>not quite evident from the sense which it should be, the word _je_ is =
>used, which has no definite meaning; for example _ghoj'i je tio_, "to =
>rejoice _over_ it"; _rid'i je tio_, "to laugh _at_ it"; _enu'o je la =
>patr'uj'o_, a longing _for_ one's fatherland". In every language =
>different prepositions, sanctioned by usage, are employed in these =
>dubious cases, in the international language, one word, _je_, suffice =
>for all. Instead of _je_, the objective without a preposition may be =
>used, when no confusion is to be feared."

No, I am quoting rule 13, which states:

To show direction, lhe words receive the termination of the accusative.

>>>in all three languages, it has to be marked, which adjectives belong =
>to
>>>which substantives. whether you mark this by word order or by =
>"suffixes"
>>>is per se pretty much unimportant. but in ido and in novial you have =
>to
>>>learn and to use _both_ ways. why is learning and use of two rules
>>>easier than that of one rule?
>>>
>>No, in Novial the adjective is always adjacent to the noun. There is
>nothing
>>gained by marking an adjective for case or number, as there is never =
>going
>>to be confusion as to which noun an adjective goes with if you just =
>keep
>the
>>adjective near the noun.
>
>so you have a mainly fossilized word order, which strangles everyone =
>from languages with relativly free word order or from languages with =
>different word order.

If you think it's strangulation, so be it. English and Chinese together, with
this fixed word order, have as many speakers as all the free-word-order lan-
guages combined.

>but the problem is even harder in novial. there are 3 different =
>adjective inflections, according to the grammatical structure of the =
>sentence:
>
>1. the adjective ends invariablely in -i.
>2. the adjective ends in -a, -e, -o or -um (female, unspecified, male, =
>neutrum), -s may be added to mark the plural, -m to mark the accusative

Adjectives do not end in -a, -e, -o, or -um. Nouns do. Your knowledge of
Novial is far poorer than mine of E-o.

>3. the adjective ends in -i but the plural -s may be added (rule 3 =
>applies if the adjective is used "anaphorisch" (sorry, i don't know the =
>english translation. "anaphoricly"?)

Surely this is the pot calling the kettle black. E-o uses anaphora so thoroughly
that this comment is laughable coming from an Esperantist!

>i think esperanto is hardly more complicated:
>
>1. the adjective ends in a. -j may be added to mark the plural, -n to =
>mark the objective.
>
>so again, what do you gain by novial over esperanto?
>
>>Actually, even in 1928 Novial, plurals are not compulsory. But here you
>are
>>asking for a feature in Novial (which actually _was_already_ put into =
>the
>>original version!) that does not exist in Esperanto!
>
>sorry, you are right. this is indeed an interesting facet (<=3D?) of =
>novial which i wish esperanto would also have.
>
>>>btw, how do you translate "the child who sees me" into novial? and how =
>=3D
>>>"the child i see"?
>>Li puere ke vida(r) me. Li puere ke me vida(r). (The r's in 1997 Novial
>only)
>>
>>The word order rule says that the subject immediately precedes the =
>verb.
>>Simple?
>
>yes. same as "the objective adds an _n_" ;-)

Except that "-n" has two other meanings in E-o.

It can mean that a preceding preposition has motion toward implied.
It can mean that a preposition has been omitted.


                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: brg@netcom.com
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)
