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
Syllabic L and R; "Tolsti volk" or "tulsti vulk"?
Topic Started: Feb 25 2010, 12:40 AM (3,841 Views)
steeven
Member Avatar


Well, Jan, if you choose to follow your engineering option, then it might be wise to modify your "Design Criteria" to read something like:

ORIGINAL TEXT:

"The primary purpose of Slovianski is maximum intelligibility for all Slavs. Slovianski achieves this goal by incorporating the commonalities of the living Slavic languages. ... When commonalities are absent or less obvious, we build a compromise...."

REVISED TEXT:

"The primary purpose of Slovianski is maximum intelligibility for all Slavs. Slovianski achieves this goal by incorporating the commonalities of the living Slavic languages. ... When commonalities are absent or less obvious, instead of building a compromised word form, we will create a linguistically engineered form that must apply for all similar word forms, regardless of whether those forms are maximumly intelligible for all Slavic speakers...."

As Igor and I noted above:

Quote:
 
"...Well, "making Russians say "solnce" and "vulk" may make them speak worse than they already can."
But then making Poles or Slovenians or Ukrainians to say "sulnce" and "vulk" may be even worse to them!!"

You wrote:

"...even if you know ALL Slavic language, you can never guess which forms is the right one. Ergo: every single word has to be learned. By using one form, you make things predictable."

This assumes that the majority of Slavic speakers will inherently recognise to which "form group" a desired word belongs; when, in reality, those who would recognise this are probably limited to a handful of folks on this forum. For the common man, it is going to be a learning experience for each word.

But where you have, for example, a super majority of the Slavic languages using "-O-" or "-OL-" and then opt for using "U" instead, because a particularly innocent word belongs to a specific "word-form" group, is making that word guilty by association and certainly throwing your Voting Machine under the bus! - NP: "SULNCE" instead of "SOLNCE" or - the true compromise word: "SLNCE"

:blink:
Please consider 3 levels of "tests" for word formulation:

1. Logical, Analytical or Commonly Slavic
2. That it "makes sense" - to the people (not just the creators) - "will the people both accept & use it?"

3. Avoid "conflicts"
www.MEDUSLOVJANSKI.com - Grammar
www.INTERSLAVIC.info - Lexicon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Steeven, you are wrong. This is not a "theoretical group", this is actual group of words that require the same compromise between -ol- and -u-. So instead of solving one problem again and again for each word we apply one rule to all of them, what's wrong?
"I nent pochyby, e kdokoli chce a um, můe sobě stworiti jazyk krsn, bohat, libozwučn a wemoně dokonal: ale jazyk takow nebudě wce nrodnim, alebr osobnm jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
Frantiek Palack. Posudek o českm jazyku spisovnm, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 

Well, Jan, if you choose to follow your engineering option, then it might be wise to  modify your "Design Criteria" to read something like:

Honestly, Steeven, I am completely lost as to what you understand by "engineering". The impression I am getting is that whenever you like the outcome of a process, you call it "human", and when you don't like it, you call it "engineering". You first proposed -UL- and now -L-, and all of a sudden -UL- is "engineering" and -L- is "a perfectly natural compromise". Please explain that to me, because I'm afraid I can't follow your train of thought here.

Quote:
 
When commonalities are absent or less obvious, instead of building a compromised word form, we will create a linguistically engineered form that must apply for all similar word forms, regardless of whether those forms are maximumly intelligible for all Slavic speakers...."[/i]

This is unwarranted and way below the belt. Like I have said before, I can live with any solution! Personally, I don't have a strong preference for or against -UL-, -OL-, -L- at all. But please, if you want to make a point, back it up with meritorical arguments, and not with all kinds of nonsense about engineers.

If you'd have read my previous message more carefully, you might have found out that I am very willing to consider -L- as an option. Really, I do. But Igor is right that that IF we do that, it means a change in Slovianski phonology, and a change like that is bound to have some repercussions on other elements of the language as well. For example, it would be foolish to have syllabic L and not to have syllabic R in that case, and what follows from that is that we'll have to do something about those words as well. I am absolutely willing to consider that option as well, and I'd even be willing to support it - but you can't introduce this kind of changes without pondering the phonological consequences. You don't have to be an engineer to know that phonology is the backbone of any language!

Quote:
 
This assumes that the majority of Slavic speakers will inherently recognise to which "form group" a desired word belongs; when, in reality, those who would recognise this are probably limited to a handful of folks on this forum.  For the common man, it is going to be a learning experience for each word.

That is, IF you assume that the common man is going to learn any other language at all. I'd be the last to have illusion about the number of people who are ever going to learn Slovianski. Even it would become a subject at certain universities, or Slovianski would gain a popularity similar to that of Interlingua, for example, the number of users would never be bigger than a couple of thousands. And even then, nobody among them would be a complete tabula rasa when it comes to foreign languages anyway. Besides, it is not true what you say. Many people in Eastern Europe have at least some basic idea of another Slavic language, usually Russian. And even if not, almost all occurrencs lf -LA- in South Slavic or -ORO- in Russian have the same background in Common Slavic. No matter what language one knows, once he knows that KRAVA or KOROVA becomes "krova", it won't be hard for him to guess words like "zloto", "glos", "broda" etc.

Quote:
 
But where you have, for example, a super majority of the Slavic languages using "-O-" or "-OL-" and then opt for using "U" instead, because a particularly innocent word belongs to a specific "word-form" group, is making that word guilty by association and certainly throwing your Voting Machine under the bus!

Nobody's doing that. There's no super majority here; if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. When it comes to phonology, voting is not the only thing of importance. Sometimes a compromise might be warranted that it most understandable to all options, that is not necessarily backed up by a majority of "votes". The voting machine is mostly for establishing the choice for word roots, it's not a tool for establishing the ideal form for every individual word.

Quote:
 
NP:  "SULNCE" instead of "SOLNCE" or - the true compromise word: "SLNCE"

Says who?
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 kind of can't live with -ul- for the reasons I stated, but I can live with SLNCE on a phonetical level, but orthographically it doesn't look good

in Macedonian hrebet is spelled 'рбет for example
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
 
steeven
Member Avatar

Jan,
OK...I agree I was "below the belt" in my suggested revision to your Design Criteria.
Desol!
(I will hereafter endeavour to restrain my lawyerly propensity in its cage).

What is at issue here are two schools of thought:
(please correct my terminologies; I am not a linguist (per se))

1. That the phonology of all phonologically related words should be consistent
versus
2. That the selection of a word should NOT be based upon phonological symmetry; but should be determined to ensure the maximum intelligibility and word acceptance for the most number of Slavic speakers.

Thus, based upon #2, I view "SLNCE" as the best option, because it favors no specific vowel and allows every Slavic speaker to insert his own "vowel of choice" from his personal mental library. An thereby, Igor's concern for Russians and mine for Poles and Slovenians and Ukrainians becomes moot.
(altho I agree with Igor that orthographically "it" does not look good, but, then I am not a Slovak or Czech speaker, for whom such spelling is a warm hearthside fire).

(My personal philosophy is that: ....in cases where there is no commonality among the Slavic languages, then a new word may be created derived from either Slavic etymological precedents or constructed using modern conventions)

To me, forcing an across the board phonological symetry is anathema. It certainly is to people I work with! (my email box has been screaming lately since we have "compromised" Slovioski to the "phonologically political correctness" of Slovianski ...but not on every point, mind you; some of the changes are well received)

Unfortunately, the blanket phonological changes you propose are not contained within ONE LANGUAGE. If it were, then these discussions would not exist.

Because the proposed changes affect all of the natural Slavic languages, someone will be left out of the "commonality pool."
And certainly, the word "SUN" is a good example.

I would urge that you abandon the phonological symetry rule - except as a "comparative ruler" to what the maximum number of Slavs will both #1 accept and #2 find intelligible (in that order).
Of course, I recognise I am but one lone non-mathematical voice in the wind in this forum.
But I did want to offer my two cents' worth of thoughts.
Thank you.

B)
Please consider 3 levels of "tests" for word formulation:

1. Logical, Analytical or Commonly Slavic
2. That it "makes sense" - to the people (not just the creators) - "will the people both accept & use it?"

3. Avoid "conflicts"
www.MEDUSLOVJANSKI.com - Grammar
www.INTERSLAVIC.info - Lexicon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
I don't understand the logic
Serbian: same -u- everywhere
Russian: same -ol- everywhere
Polish: any weird vowel depending on each word

why are we building a language that is not the "lower common denominator" but actually more complex than any living language?
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
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

People I feel that some people here used to be a little "agressive". Bad thing! Thats not professional at all.


OK, to the -UL, -OL, -L

I am telling you, PLN, VLK, SLNCE is not recognizable for BCS spaekers at all.
Its realy not a compromise.

I think that for people more part in recognition plays the vowel than the L.

I just listed all the options to my mother who spaeks only BCS and German and asked her what would she understand the best way exept SUNCE, PUN, VUK.

SUNCE, PUN, VUK
SOLNCE POLN VOLK
SULNCE PULN VULK
SLUNCE PLUN VLUK
SOUNCE POUN VOUK
SLNCE PLN VLK

Her answer was that she likes and recognizes SOLNCE, POLN, VOLK.
Hmmm I asked why not -UL.
The answer was that it is so ugly and she didnt like it.
In BCS we have hard l something like russian L at the and and when we say it automaticly goes to something between L and U or some very short U.
So we would read it SOuNCE, POuN, VOuK anyway.

The interesting thing said also my fiancee which is Russian and its the only one slavic language which she spaek (beside little Serbian).
Naimly, she said that to her -UL forms are also not good and ugly.
And for her SOUNCE, POUN, VOUK sounds good.

To me personaly SLUNCE, VLUK, PLUN sounds very good.

So I have the feeling that -L is not so important.
For Eastslavs important is -O to be at the first place.
For BCS spaekers important is -U to be tat second place.

So I would say that -OU- is the best choice for S. and E. Slavs.
But Cz. and Svk. have only L. So we cannot take only -OU-.
Since Macedonins and Slovenians have also OL it is very familiar to BCS spaekers too.


Please, Let us leave -OL- so we can move to another thema.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
I agree with that, there was no need to fix something that wasn't broken
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
Well then, it seems we're getting nowhere like this. Let's have a poll...

  • -OL- - used to be the solution we had until recently. Advantages: consistent with -OR- for syllabic R; majority of votes; consistent with Slovianski's use of O as a fill vowel. Disadvantage: less familiar to -U- speakers and the -LU- speakers (but as noted, since both Slovene and Macedonian have -OL-, a Serbian and Croatian will be familiar with this solution anywah); found "too Russian" by some.
  • -UL- - the current solution. Advantages: only solution which contains an element of every natural solution; unambiguous. Disadvantages: rare in the natural languages; found ugly by many.
  • -L- - found in Czech and Slovak. Advantages: etymologically closest to the source; good solution, except for the -U- speakers. Disadvantages: less attractive orthographically; would include syllabic -R- as well, resulting in a major change of the language.
  • -OU- - found in Ukrainian and Belarussian. Advantage: compromise between the -OL- and the -U- speakers. Disadvantages: introducing a diphthong where Slovianski hasn't any; far away from -L-, -IL- etc.
  • Individual treatment of words. Advantage: the final outcome might be more pleasing to the eye in some cases. Disadvantage: makes the language less predictable and word creation harder.
Like I've said, I don't particularly favour any option. I'd like to point out two things, however:

  • POUNI and VOUK wouldn't be understandable for a Pole
  • if DLUGI isn't understandable to a DOLGI speaker, then mutatis mutandis DOLGI won't be understandable to a DLUGI speaker either
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
what do you mean, ou occurs naturally nowhere? it's the Ukr/Bel solution, which is why I suggested it

it's spelled -ов- in Ukrainian (where в is a semi-vowel in some positions) and spelled -оў- and pronounced exactly the same in both languages (вовк and воўк are the same word, just differently spelled in different orthographies)

Anyway, I don't believe we have had any problem with -ol- in Slovianski, it's the majority decision and a consistent reflex in east and south branches
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
 
steeven
Member Avatar

bavolna
dolg
dolgi
dolgost'
dolžiti
dolžni
dolžnost'
dolžnost'
izpulniati
izpulniati
izpulniati
izpulniti
izpulniti
izpulniti
kadulb
kolbasa
mulčanie
mulčati
mulnia
mulviti
napulniti
natulknuti se
podolg
premulviati
premulviti
produlžati
produlžiti
pulkovnik
pulni
pulniti
pulno
solnce
solnečni
solza
tulmačiti
tulpa
tulsti
upulnomočeni
upulnomočiti
upulnomočovati
vdolž
vulk
vulkolak
volna
zapulniati
zapulniti
žolč
žolti

:D
Please consider 3 levels of "tests" for word formulation:

1. Logical, Analytical or Commonly Slavic
2. That it "makes sense" - to the people (not just the creators) - "will the people both accept & use it?"

3. Avoid "conflicts"
www.MEDUSLOVJANSKI.com - Grammar
www.INTERSLAVIC.info - Lexicon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
solza is not even a ьl/ъl word... why are you grouping it with them? not all languages merged ьl/lь and ъl/lъ, especially not East and West Slavic languages which is WHY you have slunce/slza being different in Czech

last time I proposed them to merge Jan disagreed



I can argue about EVERY single word on that list
let me pick some

mulviti should be moviti (cf. Pl. mowa, mówić, Ukr. мова, мовити)
volna should be vlna because of the Cz. vlna and Pl. weɫna
ditto for plni
tulmacziti should be tlumacziti because of Pl. tɫumaczyć and Cz. tlumočiti
etc.

do you REALLY want to argue about every single word?
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
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

True. This list seems to be chosen by random or by personal preferrence of Steeven, so it is arguable for each word, and the truth is that this argue is endless.
"I nent pochyby, e kdokoli chce a um, můe sobě stworiti jazyk krsn, bohat, libozwučn a wemoně dokonal: ale jazyk takow nebudě wce nrodnim, alebr osobnm jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
Frantiek Palack. Posudek o českm jazyku spisovnm, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
what do you mean, ou occurs naturally nowhere? it's the Ukr/Bel solution, which is why I suggested it

it's spelled -ов- in Ukrainian (where в is a semi-vowel in some positions) and spelled -оў- and pronounced exactly the same in both languages (вовк and воўк are the same word, just differently spelled in different orthographies)

Drat, you're right of course! So what are the other reflexes of syllabic L in Ukraininan and Belarussian, then?

Quote:
 
Anyway, I don't believe we have had any problem with -ol- in Slovianski, it's the majority decision and a consistent reflex in east and south branches

True that. The only ones who have a real problem with -OL- are the Poles, even though -OL- occurs naturally in Polish (after š, ž, č), but only in cases when Polish has -LU- (after t, d, s, z). Well, and the Serbocroat speakers, who have -U-.

From a Polish point of view, this might work as well:
-UL- after T, D, S, Z (tulsti, dulgi, sulnce)
-OL- in all other cases (polni, volk, kolbasa, žolti)

For the record, Polish pułk was probably borrowed from another language (Czech perhaps), because the natural Polish reflex would have been *pilk.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
steeven
Member Avatar

Jarvi
Mar 15 2010, 08:35 AM
True. This list seems to be chosen by random or by personal preferrence of Steeven, so it is arguable for each word, and the truth is that this argue is endless.

:ph43r:
JARVI, IGOR: Not by random; not my personal preference. This is JAN's list:

gossips
Feb 25 2010, 12:36 PM
OK then.
One application from me:
may you post all the words that will be changed by that new rule in one message here?

IJzeren Jan
Feb 25 2010, 12:37 PM
Sure:

bavulna
dulg
dulgi
dulgost'
dulžiti
dulžni
dulžnost'
dulžnost'
izpulniati
izpulniati
izpulniati
izpulniti
izpulniti
izpulniti
kadulb
kulbasa
mulčanie
mulčati
mulviti
napulniti
natulknuti se
podulg
premulviati
premulviti
produlžati
produlžiti
pulkovnik
pulni
pulniti
pulno
sulnce
sulnečni
sulza
tulmačiti
tulpa
tulsti
upulnomočeni
upulnomočiti
upulnomočovati
vdulž
vulk
vulkolak
vulna
zapulniati
zapulniti
žulč
žulti

As you can see, it's mostly compounds of polni and dolg/dolgi.



Please consider 3 levels of "tests" for word formulation:

1. Logical, Analytical or Commonly Slavic
2. That it "makes sense" - to the people (not just the creators) - "will the people both accept & use it?"

3. Avoid "conflicts"
www.MEDUSLOVJANSKI.com - Grammar
www.INTERSLAVIC.info - Lexicon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply