| 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: |
| j/'; The use of i, j or ' after consonants | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 18 2008, 01:33 PM (4,110 Views) | |
| Gabriel Svoboda | Sep 5 2008, 03:22 PM Post #61 |
|
I have checked Slavic grammars. In instrumental singular, the the -'om>-em change exists not only in east Slavic, but also in Serbo-Croatian (gradom/muz'em) and Slovenian (kmetom/muz'em), which makes three votes out of five (the sixth vote of Bulgarian/Macedonian is senseless here, for obvious reasons). In dative plural, the situation is more complicated. Serbo-Croatian again has -'ovima>-evima, Slovenian has -'om>-em, but east Slavic avoided telling us whether it has the change, because it has only -am. Of course we can speculate that east Slavic most likely would have the change. Maybe, just like we changed -ovat' to -uvat' in order to avoid the decision, couldn't we also have -am in dative plural? |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 5 2008, 03:55 PM Post #62 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Oh, but I have no doubts at all that introducing the o/e change would make the whole thing more naturalistic. All I'm saying is that it makes the whole thing needlessly complicated. At present, Slovianski-N has four declensions: one for masculine nouns, one for neuter nouns, and two for feminine nouns. That's already quite a lot, but it's the minimum we need to make it look even vaguely natural. Introducing the o/e change would have to lead to the creation of two or three more declensions, which - at least from a Polish point of view - won't make the thing even remotely more understandable. I don't think that's worth the effort. Remember, the reason why I postulated Slovianski-N was that I believed (and still believe) it is possible to create a simple language that is fully based on existing Slavic material. A Slavic Interlingua. Look, Interlingua would surely have been a lot more naturalistic if it had a large number of irregular verbs, adjective agreement and the like, but that's not the point of Interlingua. Likewise, we can make Slovianski-N more natural by having 12 declensions and 30 verbal classes, but that too is completely beside the point of the language. Vote counting is a useful design principle when it comes to the creation of words, and during the initial stage of Slovianski's creation, a helpful tool for establishing the right forms. It should not be used for introducing all kinds of phonological phenomena that happen in most Slavic languages.
A dative plural on -am is what I had initially proposed. But from what I understood, Igor's Slovianski has -om in the case of masculine and neuter nouns, and so I adopted that change. I'll be most happy to revert to -am in all cases: it will only make the whole thing easier, as the dative plural will be the same for all nouns, and it can't be confused anymore with the instrumental or locative singular.
Eh??? And what would be the point of that change? As far as I know, -uvat' exists only in Ukrainian. So much for vote counting! In any case, I disagree with that. -uvat'/-uj- would be equally irregular as -ovat'/-uj-, so I really don't see the point of changing anything here. Besides, I think we should stop changing decisions that were already made two years ago, because that way, we'll never get anywhere. Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Sep 5 2008, 04:39 PM Post #63 |
|
Of course, because of ease of typing, we must have several "national orthographies" besides the "most official" one. The question is, what the most offical orthography should look like. Because the ease of typing will be handled by the national alternative spellings, I think the official orthography doesn't have to be easy to type. But I believe it should look natural, and it should be internally consistent (as well as consistent with the Slovianski phonology). - The Serbian-like Slovianski spelling is more-or-less natural. (Yes, "ньа" and "льа" are not completely natural, but we use these des-ligatured forms because Serbian has no good ligatures for [d'], [t'] and [r'], and it would therefore be inconsistent to use "њ", "љ" besides "дь", "ть", "рь".) This makes the Serbian-like Slovianski spelling completely neutral in terms of ease of typing, because Serbs can't type "ь", and all others can't type "ј". - The Serbian-like Slovianski spelling is internally consistent: ја, је, јо, ју, ьа, ьу, which get transliterated to Latin as ja, je, jo, ju, 'a, 'u. - The Ukrainian-like Slovianski spelling is completely natural. - The Ukrainian-like Slovianski spelling is internally consistent: я, є, ю, й, which get transliterated to Latin as ja, je, ju, j. (йо is a bit inconsistent, but it will not occur outside foreign words.) For me, these are the two candidates for the "most official" Slovianski spelling. The national variants should look natural too, but they won't be internally consistent: - Russian natural variant will have to write "э" for [e] at the beginning of the word or after a vowel, and delete the spelling difference between [(')e] after a consonant and [je] at the beginning of the word or after a vowel, because both will be written as "е". - Belarusian natural variant may be internally consistent (soft vowels - я, е, ю; hard vowels - а, э, у), but we agreed that it is ugly. - Bulgarian national variant will have to delete the difference between [je] and [e] completely. - Even Serbs will need their own national variant, because they can't type ь. But frankly I don't know what it should look like (namely how it should write [d'], [t'], [r']). I will think about it later. |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Sep 6 2008, 12:06 AM Post #64 |
|
Administrator
|
-uvat' also exists in Štokavian of course it's only a proposal if we use -ovat' it must be changed to -evat' with the o->e change which this rule means to avoid Serbian national variant: д'авол, пл'уjу easy ![]() I'm still entertaining the idea of a 1917-style Cyrillic alphabet. Я іешче мислю про то, как би не користувать сіа кирилицей дореволюционого стиля. Как би уникально іе
|
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Sep 6 2008, 03:59 PM Post #65 |
|
As for conjugation, we don't really need more than two conjugations, one for vowel roots, another one for consonant roots. All the rest are rules for present tense root creation, phonological processes etc., but no more conjugations. Basically, the present tense root ends in a vowel and it is obtained by removing the -t' from the infinitive. For this purpose, -et' verbs are treated like -it' verbs: vidEt' > ti vidIsz. Then the conjugation endings are -ju (-m), -sz, -0, -me, -te, -jut. If the infinitve ends in -uvat' [-ovat'?], the present tense root ends in -uj-: kupuvat' > kupuj-. If the infinitive ends in -st', the present tense root ends in -d-: krast' > krad-. If the infinitive ends in -sti, the present tense root ends in -s-: nesti > nes-. Monosyllable verbs ending in -it'/-ut'/aj' change it to -ij-/-uj-/-aj- in the present tense: pit' > pij-, czut' > czuj-, mat' > maj-, znat' > znaj-. Verbs not fitting into any of these categories may still be irregular, which is indicated by the Slovnik. For example pisat' > pisz-, zvat' > zov-. (Alternatively, if the user's brain is large enough, he may prefer to learn Slavic etymology and then guess the irregular forms without learning them.) In all these cases, the present tense root ends in a consonant and the endings are as follows: -u (-em), -esz, -e, -eme, -ete, -ut. If the present tense forms in 1st person singular and 3rd person plural contain the following clusters, they are phonologically assimilated in this way: -liju(t) assimilates to -l'u(t) -riju(t) assimilates to -r'u(t) -niju(t) assimilates to -n'u(t) -diju(t) assimilates to -dz'u(t) -tiju(t) assimilates to -czu(t) -siju(t) assimilates to -szu(t) -ziju(t) assimilates to -z'u(t) -cziju(t) assimilates to -czu(t) -sziju(t) assimilates to -szu(t) -z'iju(t) assimilates to -z'u(t) -miju(t) assimilates to -mju(t) -piju(t) assimilates to -pju(t) -biju(t) assimilates to -bju(t) -viju(t) assimilates to -vju(t) -fiju(t) assimilates to -fju(t) (I know, a list of consonants that do not assimilate would be shorter than one of those that do.) |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 6 2008, 07:45 PM Post #66 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
One more reason to let go of this whole o/e thing. As far as I am concerned, it is only an improvement in the case of the possessive pronouns and, possibly, the nominative/accusative neuter of adjectives and participles. For the rest, it does more harm than good. Besides, there are quite a few Slavic languages where the sequence jo is nothing unusual.
Definitely amusing, but not a serious proposal, I hope! Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 6 2008, 08:23 PM Post #67 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Fully agreed! ![]()
Indeed.
How about verbs like rozumet', then? My preferred solution would in this case be: - either to adopt an infinitive vidit' - or to keep the infinitive videt' and give it an (irregular) present-tense stem vidi-.
Absolutely! (Although I personally still prefer a first person plural on -mo, but that's a matter of aesthetics)
Like I said, I completely don't see the point of -uvat'. When it comes to counting votes, it's the biggest loser of all, and -uvat'/-uj- would be equally semi-regular or irregular as -ovat'/-uj-.
To be honest, I don't like infinitives on -sti. In Polish they don't exist. In my opinion, all infinitives should end on -t', and that is what makes them recognisable as infinitives. The only (possible) exception would IMO be "moč'", although I admit I've also been thinking about the forms "možet'" and even "mogt'". I think the solution I proposed two years ago is really not so bad at all: nest' is a perfectly regular verb: remove the ending -t' and you keep the present tense stem nes. Insteat of krast', klast', past' etc. I propose: kradnut', kladnut', padnut'. In my opinion, these verbs feel perfectly at home in that category. In Polish, kradnąć, kładnąć, padnąć look odd and a bit like bad Polish, but are perfectly understandable.
Quite so!
In most cases, the changes will become fairly predictable for a regular user. A Slav would probably make the right choice intuitively, a non-Slav with more than half a brain would quickly notice the patterns.
Indeed.
Hehe, indeed. As far as I can see, the only ones that are missing here are k, g, h, and c. Well, the first three won't occur anyway. In the case of c I think we can safely assume -cju(t), as a matter of regularily. I still don't see the point of writing an apostrophe after l and r and a j after all the rest. IMO that's making things more complicated than necessary. In any case, come and have a look at a program a wrote during the past few days: a conjugation program: http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/conjugator.html (There is also a tool for declining nouns, but that's beside the point in this discussion). Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Sep 6 2008, 08:43 PM Post #68 |
|
Administrator
|
videt' has a REGULAR present tense root vidi- same as sedet', gudet', gl'adet', etc. OR should I say: sěděti, gǫděti, ględěti Also consider moč to have a močt' infinitive pronounced however you want |
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 7 2008, 12:11 PM Post #69 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Okay, but rozumet' has an equally regular present tense root rozume-. How would you explain that without assuming that one of the two is irregular, and without having to resort to conjugations? Slavic verbs have lots of mixed conjugations: a/e, a/i, e/i, not even to mention a few oddball cases. I don't think it would be a good idea to create conjugations based on all these. IMO my original construction of having an infinitive stem and a present-tense stem for each verb is really the easiest solution: - many verbs have a present-tense stem that is derived completely regularly, i.e. by removing the final -t': a/a, e/e, i/i, consonant/consonant - some verbs have a present-tense stem that is derived regularly, but not just by removing the final -t': ova/uj (in this case, hovat'/hova- would be irregular); nu/n; a/aj, i/ij, u/uj in the case of monosyllabic verbs - some verbs have the present-tense stem of a different, ahem, conjugation: a/e, a/i, e/i. These have to be learned individually, which won't always be difficult because there is still a clear pattern - some verbs have a really irregular present-tense stem: bat'/boj-, zvat'/zov-, brat'/ber-, etc. . Not a bad idea either. It remains a very irregular verb, though. Mogt' would at least have the advantage of a regularly derived past tense, while možet' would have a regularly derived present tense (cf. idet'). Moč, or močt' would have the advantage of being closer to Slavic reality. Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Sep 7 2008, 04:36 PM Post #70 |
|
Administrator
|
Well, since you're not simplifying those verbs you're just dodging the question of conjugations and just file them under irregular It just sounds like you don't want to have to write another Slovianski page what's the point if we're using the same forms? btw, isn't bat' is probably not most common, bojat' is (Ru, Ukr, Srb, Sln) |
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 7 2008, 05:30 PM Post #71 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
I'm all for regularising! As far as I'm concerned, we can have zovat' instead of zvat', berat' instead of brat', etc. But it's not always possible. Pisat' can't really have another infinitive than pisat', and it can't really have another present-tense stem than piš- (unless you want to allow ja pisam, ti pisaš, etc.). Same goes for klamat', spat', as well as a number of other verbs.
That's right, I don't. And not because I don't enjoy writing these pages (because frankly, I do very much), but because the grammar of a language like this SHOULD be short. Look at Interlingua: a pretty naturalistic-looking language, but its entire grammar is a matter of just a few pages. I think our grammar is already pretty longish as it stands; we definitely shouldn't make it even longer. If you ask me, we should concentrate on vocabulary building instead of expanding the grammar with more rules and more tables.
I was just giving an example. I'm very fine with bojat' se. Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Norvegski Rolf | Sep 10 2008, 09:48 AM Post #72 |
|
Hi, guys! Here is my suggestion for another possible regular verb: spat' is spavati in BCS. |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Sep 10 2008, 12:53 PM Post #73 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Hi, Rolf! The idea is good, but it won't work. Spawać means "to weld" in Polish (don't know about other languages), and that is how it will unambiguously be understood. The frequentative of spać is sypiać (not to be confused with sypać/sypić, which means "to scatter"). Jan |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Norvegski Rolf | Sep 10 2008, 02:29 PM Post #74 |
|
Hi, Jan! See your point. I guess the same goes for zsiveti instead of zsit' then. How about smijati se/smejeti se? Rolf |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Sep 10 2008, 03:33 PM Post #75 |
|
Administrator
|
zsiveti actually sounds like a good idea, then the regular form would be zsivu/zsivem instead of the unpalatable zsiju (I chew?) |
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic » |







2:15 PM Jul 11