Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Dobrodoli na forum Meduslovjanskogo jezyka! elajemo vam mnogo prijemnosti.
Добродошли на форум Меджусловјанского језыка! Желајемо вам много пријемности.
Welcome to Interslavic! We hope you enjoy your visit.

Sejčas pogledajete nae forum kako gosť. To znači, e imajete ograničeny dostup do někojih česti forum i ne moete koristati vse funkcije. Ako li pristupite v nau grupu, budete imati svobodny dostup do sekcij preznačenyh jedino za členov, na pr. zaloeňje profila, izsylaňje privatnyh poslaň i učestničstvo v glasovaňjah. Zapisaňje se jest prosto, bystro i vpolno bezplatno.

Сејчас погледајете наше форум како гость. То значи, же имајете ограничены доступ до некојих чести форум и не можете користати все функције. Ако ли приступите в нашу групу, будете имати свободны доступ до секциј презначеных једино за членов, на пр. заложеньје профила, изсыланьје приватных послань и учестничство в гласованьјах. Записаньје се јест просто, быстро и вполно безплатно.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Pristupite v nau grupu! Приступите в нашу групу! Join our community!
Ako li u jeste člen, prijavite se, e byste mogli koristati vse monosti:
Ако ли уж јесте член, пријавите се, же бысте могли користати все можности:
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
j/'; The use of i, j or ' after consonants
Topic Started: Aug 18 2008, 01:33 PM (4,111 Views)
iopq
Administrator
Well, we can say that as a rule we should only add a j if the imperative is -i

l'ubi -> l'ubl'eni
vid' -> videni

but you misunderstand the pj -> pl' rule
pjat' doesn't have pj in it, it's etymology is пѧть

what I mean by pj is proto-Slavic pj not Slovianski pj

that rule is actually not very hard, zemja becomes zeml'a, big deal
it's good in cases like korabl' where korabj is not an option and korab is just retarded

now, the passives are another issue because we really have three passive suffixes: -t-, -n-, and -en-
so objat' will have a objat passive
sejat' will have a sejan passive
dvignut' will have a dvižen passive (g -> ž change from the next e vowel)
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
Well, we can say that as a rule we should only add a j if the imperative is -i

l'ubi -> l'ubl'eni
vid' -> videni


Slovianski has no imperative on -i. It's ljubij.

Quote:
 
but you misunderstand the pj -> pl' rule
pjat' doesn't have pj in it, it's etymology is пѧть

what I mean by pj is proto-Slavic pj not Slovianski pj


Hehe, I know, of course. I was charging. What I meant to say is that I am very much against all kinds of phonological IF ... ELSE rules. If Slovianski were meant to be an altlang instead of an auxlang, it would be a different story. It's not, and therefore Slovianski must be easy. It's bad enough we need to have four declensions and two conjugations to make it look and feel natural, but that's about it. For the rest, I can't see why p should be treated differently from t, and I can't see the additional value of plj

Quote:
 
it's good in cases like korabl' where korabj is not an option and korab is just retarded


I'd say: korab', gen. korabja.

Quote:
 
now, the passives are another issue because we really have three passive suffixes: -t-, -n-, and -en-
so objat' will have a objat passive
sejat' will have a sejan passive
dvignut' will have a dvižen passive (g -> ž change from the next e vowel)


Regarding the latter, I've always postulated dvignuti. Any reason for the change?

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
One more thing regarding plj/blj/mlj/vlj...

If you ask me, this is introducing a new conjugation in Slovianski. It means that we have three conjugations now: one for verbs with stems that end in a vowel, one for verbs with stems that end in a consonant, and one for verbs that end in -pit', -bit', -mit' or -vit'.

What's next? The t/d stems? Obviously, it would be best to have ja vidim/vidu for "I see", and ja platim/plaču for "I pay". Right now we have vidju and platju. But the truth is: this too would mean introducing a new conjugation. Now, I wouldn't object if anybody wrote vidu or plaču in a Slovianski text. But it shouldn't be prescribed, or, for that matter, be in the grammar.

All these new conjugations, exceptions, phonological rules etc. IMO would belong in Slovianski-A (A standing for "altlang" or perhaps "advanced"), but not in Slovianski-N or -P.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
b' doesn't exist as a letter, and korabj is unpronounceable (well b' is unpronounceable for anyone but Russian and Polish speakers)
this is why korabl' is a better solution because it lets us indicate soft labials WITHOUT having them
I've already introduced three types of conjugation in Slovianski:

-e conjugation
-je conjugation
-i conjugation

examples:
neseš, zoveš
znaješ, kupuješ, kol'eš
lubiš, vidiš, kričiš


Now, you could propose to get rid of the -je conjugation, but you would have to propose it in a way that isn't confusing

obviously, kupuš doesn't doesn't like "you buy" while kupuješ does
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
b' doesn't exist as a letter, and korabj is unpronounceable (well b' is unpronounceable for anyone but Russian and Polish speakers)
this is why korabl' is a better solution because it lets us indicate soft labials WITHOUT having them


Of course b' is not a letter. But I treat ' as a separate letter (alternating with j) and I can't see why the nominative singular couldn't be korab' (gen. korabja). Pronunciation is of secondary importance, IMO. Personally, I'd pronounce it like "korab", but if a Russian would say "korablj", I wouldn't have a problem with that.

And, if you really have a problem with "korab'", then we might just establish that the root is "korabl'" (gen. korablja, pl. korabli) in this particular case.

Quote:
 
I've already introduced three types of conjugation in Slovianski:

-e conjugation
-je conjugation
-i conjugation


Hang on, conjugations??? Well, I wasn't aware of that. It seems that Slovianski-N has drifted away from my original grammar much more than I thought. In any case, I have to take some reservation to that. Slovianski-N is supposed to be some sort of Slavic Interlingua, not to be some sort of Slavic French. ;) Verbal conjugations don't belong in a language like that. What IMO is so nice about Slovianski-N is that it can achieve a pretty naturalistic result without having them. Introducing conjugations now is pretty much in violation of its design criteria.

That reminds me of an anecdote. Sometime in the 1950s, the Borodin Quartet gave a recital in the United States. After the concert, a rich American lady came to their room, handed them over a cheque of 10,000 $, and said: "Here, gentlemen, this is for you. To make your band a lot bigger than it is now!"

Quote:
 
examples:
neseš, zoveš
znaješ, kupuješ, kol'eš
lubiš, vidiš, kričiš


What is "kol'eš"?

Quote:
 
Now, you could propose to get rid of the -je conjugation, but you would have to propose it in a way that isn't confusing


As far as I am concerned, we don't need any conjugation at all. All we need is to make a difference between stems ending in a vowel and stems ending in a consonant.

Quote:
 
obviously, kupuš doesn't doesn't like "you buy" while kupuješ does


Quite so. Infinitive: kupovat'. Present tense stem: kupuj-. Add -eš for the second person singular, and Bob's your uncle.

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
you also some roots like vopl' from vopit' that are a conversion of i class verbs into nouns
let's not forget rubl' from rubit' :)

kol'eš is from klot' to stab

You say the present tense root is kupuj-
Does that mean that the present tense root of neseš is nes-?

In regards to your "conjugations" comment... take a look at this page
http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/grammar2.html
it has a conjugation table RIGHT THERE

plus, instead of saying "we will have -e, -je, and -i conjugations" you just make "roots" of words include the initial -j of the conjugation
How can I tell that kupuvat' has a kupuj- root and delat' has a dela- root?
Couldn't I conclude that delat' has a delaj- root? Certainly to an East-Slavic speaker delaju, delaješ, etc. are more natural. So you claim to have an easy conjugation table, but no rules to determine the "present tense root"
so far you've only given the rules for one-syllable verbs and -ova/-iva verbs
but verbs like šumet' are of the -i type and you never give rules to cover them

let's list some verbs that your table doesn't cover:

belet', dubet', etc. -i type
kašl'at', lajat', etc. -e type
dišat', mučat', etc. -e type
spat' -i type

Also kradnut' has a krad- root because -n- is a suffix
so all of the forms should be kradu, kradeš, etc.

Maybe the forms like spat' are unpredictable
But you have to take care of the -šat', -čat', -žat' verbs by either changing them to -šet' or adding a rule that they sometimes represent -e stems

That's logically equivalent to having conjugation classes since you allow for irregularity anyway

Anyway, korab' is a terrible spelling because no Slavic language allows bj to be the syllable coda and we should follow the phonological structure of Slavic languages
Russian allows b to be soft, but certainly not a [bj] sound at the end of the word

My spelling reflects pronunciation as long as you apply Slavic phonological rules like regressive voicing assimilation which you'd have to do while reading even Serbian or Czech, some of the more phonetic alphabets
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
I'll probably post a reply the day after tomorrow. I've been waiting for an occasion, but during the last few days, I've been way too busy (sometimes more than 18 hours of work a day). So stay tuned...

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabriel Svoboda

Quote:
 
I'm still using the Serbian/Macedonian spelling


Me too, we obviously can't agree on anything better.

Quote:
 
On the contrary, я/ја and ю/ју are just as universal as й/j.


The point is, я is not an universal equivalent of ја - ягня can't be converted to јагнја (nor to ьагньа).

---

And don't please make Slovianski so difficult. Yes, it may seem difficult to have rules like "'o always changes to e" and "pj always becomes pl'". But such rules are still very easy compared to "'o doesn't become e, except for exceptions like moje, more, etc." and "pj always becomes pl', except for words like pjat', <insert other 56 words>". So I prefer to have 'o>e always and pj>pl' never - ordinary users of Slovianski should not be required to study proto-Slavic in order to apply phonological processes correctly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
Well, when I say pj becomes pl' I don't mean it's a rule that Slovianski learners have to learn

It's just when I publish a dictionary it will have forms like korabl' and not korab

We'll still have words like objatije and so forth
Maybe even ostaven

What is inherently bad about choosing the more popular forms like zeml'a instead of zemja?
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
Well, when I say pj becomes pl' I don't mean it's a rule that Slovianski learners have to learn

It's just when I publish a dictionary it will have forms like korabl' and not korab

We'll still have words like objatije and so forth
Maybe even ostaven

What is inherently bad about choosing the more popular forms like zeml'a instead of zemja?


Is zemlja *really* more popular than zemja? Or is it the kind of 50/50 or 51/49 vote? Common Slavic had zemja etc. Every Slav can understand it. Zemlja is harder to pronounce for a lot of people, non-Slavs included.

You're right that people wouldn't have to learn the rule in cases like zemlja and korabl'. However, introducing the rule would also imply things like: ja ljublju without having an infinitive ljublit', isn't it? Besides, what would be the adjective derived from zemlja? Zeml'ski?

My point: either you introduce a rule in toto, or you don't introduce it at all. My feeling is that the benefits of introducing this one are outnumbered by the problems it causes. And anyway, the less rules in Slovianski, the better.

For the record, I can live with korabl' as an exception.

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I'm still using the Serbian/Macedonian spelling


Me too, we obviously can't agree on anything better.


There's nothing wrong with using it. But we cannot say it is the only allowed way to write Slovianski in Cyrillics.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
On the contrary, я/ја and ю/ју are just as universal as й/j.


The point is, я is not an universal equivalent of ја - ягня can't be converted to јагнја (nor to ьагньа).


Indeed, a complete 1:1 transliteration is impossible with я. However, I don't see that as a big problem, because translators can easily take care of that.

Quote:
 
And don't please make Slovianski so difficult. Yes, it may seem difficult to have rules like "'o always changes to e" and "pj always becomes pl'". But such rules are still very easy compared to "'o doesn't become e, except for exceptions like moje, more, etc." and "pj always becomes pl', except for words like pjat', <insert other 56 words>". So I prefer to have 'o>e always and pj>pl' never - ordinary users of Slovianski should not be required to study proto-Slavic in order to apply phonological processes correctly.


My problem with the o/e rule is that it gives all kinds of undesired result. Instrumental singular on -jem? Ok, I can live with it, although I don't think we need it. Genitive plural on -jev? Undesirable. Dative plural on -jem? Never never never. In other words, we'd end up with exceptions anyway.

I still prefer morje to *moro or *morjo, because that will be the form in the dictionary - it's not something anybody would have to learn, and it's not a rule a person would have to apply.

As for moje/tvoje/naše: previously we had mojo/tvojo/našo. but I think in this case an exception is justified. Why not, actually? These are possessive pronouns. I don't think there's much against treating them slightly separately.

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
Actually Russian has all of these:

оленем
устоев
устоем

I picked examples where the e is not under stress and doesn't go to jo
I don't understand why they are undesirable
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
Zeml'a is more popular
East Slavic + Štokavian/Slovenian
and in Bulgarian the form земя is actually a simplification of зємлја although we won't count that in our voting

but in terms of population you can see that something like 80% of Slavs have zeml'a
I'm not saying we should go for population every time, but if the voting is pretty split, East vs. West and half of South Slavic, population is the tie breaker

if we ignore this tie breaker we might as well ignore population in all cases since in this case East is definitely more populous than West and Slovenian/Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin are more populous than Macedonian/Bulgarian

in terms of ja l'ubl'u I'm thinking of just saying that Slovianski had regularized declension and use ja l'ubju
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabriel Svoboda

Quote:
 
in terms of ja l'ubl'u I'm thinking of just saying that Slovianski had regularized declension and use ja l'ubju


If we have "ja lubju" and "lubeni", then I am OK with bj>bl' because it will only be a vocabulary issue, not a rule (including exceptions) that the user has to apply. (Or "lubjeni", but then you'd have to tell me how do I know that "lubit'" is i-conjugation. Does the i-conjugation include all -it' verbs?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
"Iopq"
 
Zeml'a is more popular [...]


Ah, allright. I wasn't aware of that. Now that I think of it, even Polish has this rule, but like in this particular case in Bulgarian, it was often reverted later. So while we have ziemia, we also have czapla.

"Gabriel Svoboda"
 
"Iopq"
 
in terms of ja l'ubl'u I'm thinking of just saying that Slovianski had regularized declension and use ja l'ubju


If we have "ja lubju" and "lubeni", then I am OK with bj>bl' because it will only be a vocabulary issue, not a rule (including exceptions) that the user has to apply.


Yes, I tend to agree with that. pj/bj/etc. > plj/blj/etc., as long as we don't end up with "ljublju" or "zdrovlje"...

One thing, though. Say, what effect will this have on derived words? For example, does this mean we end up with adjectives like zeml'ski?

Jan
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply