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
o/e rule
Topic Started: Sep 7 2008, 01:27 PM (2,323 Views)
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
A lot of discussion seems to evolve around the pros and contras of having the o/e rule. It's a bit surprising that after more than two years we are still talking about the very foundations of the languages, but there you go. I'd like to move on and therefore I think we should settle this issue once and for all.

The way I see it, these are our options:

A) Applying it to the whole language. In other words, the sequences jo/šo/žo/čo are forbidden throughout the languages, except for a few loanwords like rajon and words like čo.
This means: some nouns have inst.sg. on -em, gen.pl on -ev; soft adjectives, present active participles and possessive pronouns have -e (nom/acc.sg.N), -ego (gen.sg.M/N), -emu (dat.sg.M/N), -ej (gen/dat/loc.sg.F).
It also implies: vojevat' instead of vojovat'. It also implies, that we can't have svežost', for instance.

B) Applying it to inflection of nouns and adjectives. That would basically mean the same, but leave us with vojovat', svežost', oranžovi, etc.

C) Apply it to possessive pronouns only. That would mean, in the neuter declension: moje, mojego, mojemu and naše, našego, našemu, but adjectives and present active participles are left alone: svežo, svežogo; budučo, budučogo, etc.

D) Apply it only in the nom./acc.sg.N of adjectives, possessive pronouns and p.a.p. That way, we'd have moje, naše, sveže, buduče, but mojogo, našogo, budučogo...

E) Not apply it at all. This is how we established it in the beginning, and this is definitely the simplest and most regular solution. However, we'd end up with mojo, and neuter nouns like morje, polje, delanje would be a tad irregular.

In my opinion, we shouldn't easily change things that have been established before. But I agree that moje looks a hell of a lot better than mojo. However, I don't think a change that would improve a few words should immediately pull the whole rest of the language along with it. For me, options A and B are unacceptable, because it would make the language way too complicated for an IAL: it would mean eight declensions instead of four, it would mean two adjectival declensions, and there you go.

My personal favourite would be D. It is indeed a rule people have to learn, but the effect is a great deal of naturalism. Besides, it would avoid irregularity and even help explain morje and polje. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with mojogo and the like, even čogo instead of čego.

I could live with C, too. Or even with a construction, where the rule is applied to all adjectives, participles and pronouns that behave like adjectives.

E, I think, is something nobody would really want at this point, right?

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
No replies... Yet, I think this is a pretty important thing we should settle. Let me therefore restate my proposal:

"In the nominative/accusative singular of neuter noun, adjectives, pronouns and participles, after j, cz, sz, zs, o becomes e. Otherwise, there is no o/e rule in Slovianski."

This is more or less how I would like to write it down in the grammar. Any objections?

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
Russian has vojevat', svežest', oranževyj
Notice that Polish has words like żona, czosnek, but that's a secondary e -> o change after palatals that happened in some languages in different places
for example, after any soft consonants Ukrainian has o instead of e
жона, його, до нього, etc. no matter what the origin of the e is (with some exceptions)

if you use -ovat' ending, what do we do with verbs like:
klwać (Ru. klevat', Ukr. kl'uvati)
żwac (Ru. ževat', Ukr. žuvati)
plwać (Ru. plevat', Ukr. pljuvati)

are we going to turn them into:
kосzоwаć (Ru. kočevat', Ukr. kočuvati)
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:
 
Russian has vojevat', svežest', oranževyj


Svezsest'? Honestly, I didn't know Russian was THAT consequent! In these cases, Polish has: wojować, świeżość, pomarańczowy.

Quote:
 
Notice that Polish has words like żona, czosnek, but that's a secondary e -> o change after palatals that happened in some languages in different places
for example, after any soft consonants Ukrainian has o instead of e
жона, його, до нього, etc. no matter what the origin of the e is (with some exceptions)


Sure, but these cases are not like żona or miód. This is simply a case of root + suffix: voj + -ovat'; svezs- + ost'; oranzs- + -ovi.

Quote:
 
if you use -ovat' ending, what do we do with verbs like:
klwać (Ru. klevat', Ukr. kl'uvati)
żwac (Ru. ževat', Ukr. žuvati)
plwać (Ru. plevat', Ukr. pljuvati)


Actually, the Polish forms are: kłuć, żuć, pluć.
Interestingly, since these are monosyllabic words, the infinitives kluvat' and klut' would give the same present tense stem anyway. I'll have to see how other languages deal with these babies.

Quote:
 
are we going to turn them into:
kосzоwаć (Ru. kočevat', Ukr. kočuvati)


I'd say so, yes.

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
 
Norvegski Rolf

Quote:
 
options A and B are unacceptable, because it would make the language way too complicated for an IAL

Pardon me for backtracking. I cannot see how alternative B could be complex. IMO you only have to differentiate between inflectional suffixes and lexical suffixes and rule that in inflectional suffixes "e" should replace "o" after "j/sz/zs/cz.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
First of all, I'm aware of the forms kłuć, żuć, pluć, but the other forms are also in the dictionary

if we don't apply o->e in the declension we should just change every instance of o into e

poljskego instead of poljskogo, etc.
for this reason I also like the option B because you're never going to allow option A
and words like morjom (inst.) are unbearable, so I'd rather have oblakem

P.S. Upon further review vekom for both instr. sing. and dat. pl. was a little confusing so I changed it back to -am as per your table for dat. pl. unless we decide to change instr. sing. to -em always in which case it can go back to -om
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:
 
First of all, I'm aware of the forms kłuć, żuć, pluć, but the other forms are also in the dictionary


In which dictionary? I just checked in the big Oxford PL-EN and they're not there. If these words are Polish at all, they must be obsolete.

Quote:
 
if we don't apply o->e in the declension we should just change every instance of o into e

poljskego instead of poljskogo, etc.


Eh? Why??? You're not proposing to introduce fourth palatalisation into Slovianski, are you?

Quote:
 
for this reason I also like the option B because you're never going to allow option A and words like morjom (inst.) are unbearable, so I'd rather have oblakem


Can't see why morjom would be unbearable. But oblakem surely is!
Like I said, for me option B is unacceptable, because it would double our number of declension. Please, don't forget that Slovianski is meant to be SIMPLIFIED: it's based on material that the Slavic languages have in common, and not all Slavic languages have -ev. To me, it doesn't matter that Russian have -ev in certain cases, because they also have -ov - they even have -jov sometimes! Polish never had -ew; we say "mężów", "królów", etc. Why should Slovianski be more irregular than some of the Slavic languages are? To me, this really looks like reinventing Russian.

Quote:
 
P.S. Upon further review vekom for both instr. sing. and dat. pl. was a little confusing so I changed it back to -am as per your table for dat. pl. unless we decide to change instr. sing. to -em always in which case it can go back to -om


You mean to say: "unless we decide to change instr. sing. to -om", I suppose?
Anyway, makes sense. -am is easier because it applies to all declensions and it behaves exactly the same as -ami.

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
It doesn't double the number of declensions, it introduces a rule *o → *e / J_

so instead of writing om you write (e|o)m with a little footnote that explains e is used after palatals

You say that Russian has -jov, this is not true. It has ёв which is NOT -jov. Note that most Russians don't even spell that letter and leave it as е. If we're going to go by pronunciation... that's like saying we should have glava because Russian pronunciation is galava so that's a vote for a. Oh! There's also Bulgarian loans...

you're saying I'm reinventing Russian, but remember that Polish is in the minority here, Slovenian and Serbian do follow this rule as so did Bulgarian a long time ago:
добръ - добромь
ништь - ништємь

The argument is of course about applying the -ov ending to places where it should not logically go, where -ьи (i or ej) ending actually exists in most languages

Of course Polish never had -ew, it has always had -i in those positions until recently
EDIT: the dictionary does say those forms are archaic
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
as far as oblakem it looks like it's completely fine in Czech
also Polish has ciastkiem and dzieckiem, I don't understand what's so bad about oblakem

and what's so terrible about poljskego? It's polskiego in Polish :/
of course, -ov will be changed to -i in every instance

and you're totally off-mark; I'm not reinventing Russian, I just have a huge hard-on for OCS
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:
 
It doesn't double the number of declensions, it introduces a rule *o → *e / J_


Are you aware how hard that it is to understand for a person without a linguistic background? At this point many potential users will say: "Eh, what? No, thanks". Our grammar should contain as little IF ... ELSE ... constructions as possible.

Quote:
 
You say that Russian has -jov, this is not true. It has ёв which is NOT -jov. Note that most Russians don't even spell that letter and leave it as е. If we're going to go by pronunciation... that's like saying we should have glava because Russian pronunciation is galava so that's a vote for a.


Of course not. Not all Russians say [ galava ], numerous dialects are without akanje. Besides, correct my if I'm wrong, but no one would ever write it like that. And then, there are also cases like [ karova ] to consider.

Not that it matters much. The question is: wouldn't a Russian understand "kovaljov" when it's written like that?

In addition to that, the etymological argument that Russian -jo- comes from -je- is moot, because this very same -je- ultimately comes from Common Slavic -jo-.

Quote:
 
you're saying I'm reinventing Russian, but remember that Polish is in the minority here


Again, it doesn't matter. Slovianski is based on material common to the Slavic languages, but it's nowhere written that it should contain ALL phonological oddities that most languages have. It's also nowhere written that it may not contain elements that look strange to a Russian, a Pole or any other Slav. The point is, is it understandable? Well, -ev would undoubtedly be understandable for a Pole, although it would look weird. Just like -jov would be understandable for a Russian, although it would look equally weird. So why not go for the easiest solution in that case?

Quote:
 
The argument is of course about applying the -ov ending to places where it should not logically go, where -ьи (i or ej) ending actually exists in most languages


Yes, but the premise is: one ending for all masculine nouns. And then, -ov is the obvious choice. Not -ev or -ej or -i.

Quote:
 
as far as oblakem it looks like it's completely fine in Czech
also Polish has ciastkiem and dzieckiem, I don't understand what's so bad about oblakem


In West Slavic (or at least in Polish), the ending is (non-palatalising) -em, not -om. But Polish has had fourth palatalisation, i.e. ke > kie, ky > ki, ge > gie, gy > gi.

Quote:
 
and what's so terrible about poljskego? It's polskiego in Polish :/


Same story. I can't see why the o/e rule, if applied at all, would also occur after k and g.

Quote:
 
of course, -ov will be changed to -i in every instance


I'll pretend I haven't heard that! :P

Quote:
 
and you're totally off-mark; I'm not reinventing Russian, I just have a huge hard-on for OCS


Hehe, shall we say "reinventing OCS", then? ;)

But seriously, there's a lot we can learn from OCS. And also from Common Slavic in all of its stages. Both are extremely interesting and also useful for our purposes. But Slovianski-N should by no means become some sort of modern form of either one of them, nor is it intended to become a hypothetical natlang that emerged in the middle of everything. If anything, Slovianski-N is supposed to be a highly simplified form of such a language (and Slovianski-P, in turn, a simplified form of Slovianski-N).
I have the impression that we are working on two completely different languages. A project like the one you propose (let's call it Slovianski-H /for hypothetical natlang/ or Slovianski-A /for artlang, or perhaps for advanced users/ would surely be interesting, and I'd love to work on such a project. In it, we could have conjugations, several declensions per gender, o/e rule all over the place, and whatever. But the whole idea behind Slovianski-N (and that's something we really should agree on, otherwise we won't get anywhere) is to avoid that kind of things.
I'm not the kind of person who would say that Slovianski is more difficult than a natlang as soon as we introduce a single exception, or that anything that involves gender is "mentalju masturbacija". But an auxlang, also a naturalistic one, should before all be easy for any potential user.

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
While it's true that a Russian would understand the writing kovaljov a Russian would also understand kavaljov as well, doesn't mean we should write that way. Also, the literary norm should get some points for recognizability.

the e/o rule doesn't apply after k or g, I'm talking about changing the tables from:

blah/blah
blah/blah
om/ami

to
blah/blah
blah/blah
em/ami

then we take the less popular West Slavic route, (we won't palatalize k or g like in Polish, we'll keep them hard like in Czech) and avoid using any kind of o/e rule

I still don't see why it has to be one ending fits all, I'm allowing both e and u as endings for neuter locative and I don't see any reason to disallow one of them

Same thing here, I don't see any reason to disallow -i ending in gen. pl. for some nouns
Why is it verboten?
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:
 
then we take the less popular West Slavic route, (we won't palatalize k or g like in Polish, we'll keep them hard like in Czech) and avoid using any kind of o/e rule


Ah, now I see what you are hinting at! Well, apart from the fact that e can be palatalising by definition (which shouldn't be a problem in this case), that sounds like an interesting solution.

But in that case, we really should keep -ov in the m.gen.pl. and -am in the dat.pl.

So:
M.sg. dobri, (N/G), dobrego, dobremu, s dobrim, v dobrem
F.sg. dobra, dobru, dobrej, dobrej, s dobreju, v dobrej
N.sg. dobre...

M.sg. pes, psa, psa, psu, s psem, v pse
M.pl. psi, psov, psov, psam, psami, psah
N.sg. okno, okno, okna, oknu, s oknem, v okne
N.pl. okna, okna, okn (oken), oknam, oknami, oknah

Well, I haven't thought of such a solution yet, but it has a few advantages. Indeed, we avoid the o/e rule. And the adverb of dobri would still be "dobro", so the neuter singular and the adverb would become distinguishable from each other, which IMO is A Good Thing.

Quote:
 
I still don't see why it has to be one ending fits all, I'm allowing both e and u as endings for neuter locative and I don't see any reason to disallow one of them

Same thing here, I don't see any reason to disallow -i ending in gen. pl. for some nouns
Why is it verboten?


I think we should distinguish between what people are allowed to do and what we write in our grammar. As far as I'm concerned, people can write Slovianski as they see fit. The grammar is just there to give them a few tips and hints. Nothing is verboten, it's just that some things are not advised.

The genitive plural of masculine nouns should really be -ov, and nothing else. But I've nothing against making a footnote that after a soft consonant people CAN write -ev. Or even -i, for that matter.

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
I think konji, krolji, etc. should be advised as an official alternative for i-stem nouns

here's a post on Lingvoforum about that:

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Я вроде бы вымышляю что была когда-то в пра-Словиански была форма *гусь и род. падеж множ. числа был *гусьев.

Это значит, что у вас УЖЕ случился переход всех мужских имён и-склонения в јо-склонение. А ведь никто не просил.


the first quote is me, the second quote is the response by Vertaler who was discussing his pan-Slavic language earlier but ultimately closed the project

his project is actually simpler than Slovianski-N but he has more conjugations... go figure
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:
 
I think konji, krolji, etc. should be advised as an official alternative for i-stem nouns


First of all, if would be koni, kroli, since ji merges into j. Secondly, even if we'd advise it in certain circumstances, it won't work for all masculine nouns with soft stems. Does anybody say muži, for instance?

here's a post on Lingvoforum about that:

Quote:
 
the first quote is me, the second quote is the response by Vertaler who was discussing his pan-Slavic language earlier but ultimately closed the project

his project is actually simpler than Slovianski-N but he has more conjugations... go figure


Občoslovjanski or somesuch, right? From what I recall of it, it was one of the more sensible projects around. Wouldn't it be an idea to ask him to join us?

BTW, since I've heard no objections against adjective endings -i/-a/-e, -ego/-ej etc., can I assume that we're going to settle for that? In that case, the conclusion is: no o/e rule, but all adjectives and adjective-like stuff will have -e- even after a consonant. If no one objects, I'll update the grammar pages accordingly.

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
Russian has mužej so I don't see a problem there

I'll ask him, but looking through his conlang:

Quote:
 
Императив:

Pevaj, nesi, belej, ljubi. Spevaj, prinesi, pobelej, poljubi.


Quote:
 
Причастия.

Pevajuč, nesuč, belejuč, ljubeč.
Peval, nesel, belel, ljubil.
Pevam, nesem, ljubim.
Pevan, nesen, ljuben.


Interesting

EDIT: his PM box is full
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
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply