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

Sejčas pogledajete naše forum kako gosť. To znači, že imajete ograničeny dostup do někojih česti forum i ne možete koristati vse funkcije. Ako li pristupite v našu grupu, budete imati svobodny dostup do sekcij preznačenyh jedino za členov, na pr. založeňje 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 našu grupu! Приступите в нашу групу! Join our community!
Ako li už jeste člen, prijavite se, že byste mogli koristati vse možnosti:
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 (3,840 Views)
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
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.

No, it was me who came up with the list, and I'm aware that it includes a few cases of -lъ- and -lь- as well. I'm completely unsure as to where TOLPA/TULPA comes from, for instance.

Yet, the outcome is Steeven's. But a proposal like this is hard to maintain, I'm afraid. Leaving out all derived words, I count 8x -OL- and 11x -UL-. That would be possible if we could at least define in what kind of cases one form would occur and in what cases the other. You may find it hard to believe, but ALL Slavic language have regularity here, even though it's sometimes hard to follow. Look for example at Polish, which has the following basic recipe:

-ŁU- after a hard dental consonant (długi, tłusty)
-OŁ-, -ÓŁ- after a palatal consonant (żółty, czołn)
-EŁ- after a velar consonant (kiełbasa, chełm)
-EŁ- after a labial consonant, before a dental consonant (pełny, wełna)
-IL- after a labial consonant, otherwise (wilk, milczenie)

It's a bit more complicated than that, because Polish also distinguishes between hard and soft syllabic L. But anyway, that's not of our concern right now.

But this is what Steeven proposes:
After a labial consonant: bavolna, mulčati, mulnia, mulviti, pulkovnik, pulni, vulk, volna (2x OL, 6x UL)
After a dental consonant: dolg, dolgi, kadulb, natulknuti se, tulmačiti, tulpa, tulsti, solnce, solza (4x OL, 5x UL)
In the remaining cases: kolbasa, žolti (2x OL).

And this is kind of hard to follow. Why have dolg and tulsti, since all languages treat them in exactly the same way? To have these two words next to each other would essentially be the Slovio approach (zlato, glos etc.). It could make sense to have -UL- in all cases where Polish has -ŁU-, and -OL- in all other cases. Then we'd get:

-OL-: bavolna, molčati, molnia, molviti, polkovnik, polni, volk, volna, kolbasa, žolti
-UL-: dulg, dulgi, kadulb, natulknuti se, tulmačiti, tulpa, tulsti

I'm not sure about solnce and solza.

(юя)
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

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

Well...I only note that you (Jan) asked for suggestions.
Those were my suggestions based upon how I believe my CZ/SK and HR/SR kolegi would "vote" - if changes were to be addressed on an individual word basis.

My PERSONAL preference is "-OL-" across the board (probably because I am strongly influenced by Russian).
My comments on this subject, however, ends with this post. :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.MEDŽUSLOVJANSKI.com - Grammar
www.INTERSLAVIC.info - Lexicon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Silmethule
Member Avatar

"Ijzeren Jan"
 
"iopq"
 
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?

No. He isnt right, of course!

Ukrainian вовк is [ʋɔʋk] and Belorusian воўк is [vɔwk]. While we could really adapt Belorusian voŭk as Sl. vouk, we couldn't do it with Ukr. вовк, which would give us Sl. vovk. These Belorusian and Ukrainian words are spelled and pronounced differently. Belorusian uses two different letters for first two consonants and has here two different phonemes, Ukr. has one letter, one phoneme and one sound for 'v' in this word.

And, the other thing is, both: Ukr. -ов- and Bel. -оў- comes from -ол-.

But probably yes, -ou- and -ov- would be perfectly understandable for Belorusians and Ukrainians. Same as -ol-.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
actually [w] is a labiovelar approximant, and there is no such sound in Belarusian (if you're strictly using IPA)
Ńž is a positional variant of v in Belarussian and it is pronounced [uĚŻ]

/v/ in Ukrainian is is bilabial rounded sound before back vowels and labio-dental before front vowels. It is also vocalized to [uĚŻ] before consonant at start of word, after vowel before consonant, and after vowel at end of word.

your transciption is incorrect for Ukrainian, it is [β̞ɔ̝u̯k] or [ʋɔ̝u̯k] depending on dialect
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
 
Silmethule
Member Avatar

Damn, then every descriptions of Ukrainian phonology I've seen (two or three, I don't remember in what books) are wrong. Well, they were books about Slavic languages generally, so there could be, and it seems, there were, mistakes. Thanks for clarifying.

Anyway, I still see no difference between [vɔwk] and [vɔu̯k], except typographic. But I don't have enormous knowledge about semivowels, semivowel-approximants, etc., etc. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
the difference is that [w] means the Polish Ĺ‚ sound
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
 
Silmethule
Member Avatar

And [uĚŻ] means... well, Polish Ĺ‚ sound.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
no, it means the "u" vowel that does not count towards the total count of the syllables, as in a non-syllabic "u" also known as a "semi-vowel"
Ĺ‚ is a consonant, a so-called "approximant"

in a lot of languages approximants are at the beginning of a syllable and semi-vowels are at the end of a syllable
Russian: я - [ja] but чай - [ʧai̯]
English: wow - [waĘŠĚŻ]
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
All in all, differences like that are much too subtle to concern outselves with when it comes to Slovianski.

I notice that most of the folks here seem to prefer -OL- after all, and that there isn't much support for -UL-. I'll change it back to -OL-, then!
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

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

And what about Southern Slavic (Croatian) speakers? I think the point that Steeven's colleagues rised can be significant, the only thing is that his colleagues are not here and they can't support it. Only Moreno participates in Slovianski chat, may be we can "catch" him there and ask?
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
IJzeren Jan
Mar 17 2010, 02:25 AM
All in all, differences like that are much too subtle to concern outselves with when it comes to Slovianski.

I'm afraid Ukrainian phonetics has nothing to do with Slovianski ;)
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
 
Silmethule
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
no, it means the "u" vowel that does not count towards the total count of the syllables, as in a non-syllabic "u" also known as a "semi-vowel"
Ĺ‚ is a consonant, a so-called "approximant"

in a lot of languages approximants are at the beginning of a syllable and semi-vowels are at the end of a syllable
Russian: я - [ja] but чай - [ʧai̯]
English: wow - [waĘŠĚŻ]


And some people write Polish "miał" as ['mʲjau̯] and Polish "ładna" as ['wadna] while other write the first one as ['mʲjaw]. And still both of "ł's" are pronounced identically. I still don't see ANY difference in pronounciation, only typographic and, let's call it that way, "phonological", [u̯] is used for the same as [w] sound, but only in position of second part of diphtong. So still [vɔwk] and [vɔu̯k] mean the same thing.

Am I wrong?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Jarvi
Mar 17 2010, 02:16 PM
And what about Southern Slavic (Croatian) speakers? I think the point that Steeven's colleagues rised can be significant, the only thing is that his colleagues are not here and they can't support it. Only Moreno participates in Slovianski chat, may be we can "catch" him there and ask?

I agree with that, and that's why I supported -UL- from the beginning, but I can also see that this solution is sort of awkward. I'm not convinced of every argument given in favour of -OL- (if DLUG isn't understandable for a Russian, then why would DOLG be understandable for a Pole?), but it's true that -OL- fits better in Slovianski's inner logic. In fact it was Dražen who convinced me that -OL- isn't much of a problem for Serbo-Croat speakers after all, since most of them are familiar with either Slovene or Macedonian already.

I would of course very much appreciate more input from South Slavs, but we also have to face the fact that this forum is the place where Slovianski is being made; input from outside the forum is of course more than welcome, but before we can use it, it must at least be presented in a way we can work with it. I've taken the whole MULNIA discussion quite seriously and even based a proposal on it, but now I have the impression that MULNIA was rather some sort of isolated case. Thing is, it is hard to base conclusion on individual cases. There should be interaction. For example, if someone says he prefers MULNIA instead of MOLNIA, I'd like to know why, and also to know if the person who made the suggestion is aware of the consequences, f.ex. that we'd also end up with PULNI, VULK etc. And if this person wants MULNIA, but not PULNI, I'd also like to know why. Without that sort of interaction, it is simply too difficult to get anywhere.

Obviously, we can't decide about every single word individually - not only because it's too much work, but also because it goes against the nature of Slovianski (which, BTW, is what distinguishes it from all similar projects I'm aware of). It is on the other hand possible to have -UL- in certain cases and -OL- in other cases, but only if the conditions can be predefined. I haven't seen much support for that idea at all, so that's why I've reverted to -OL-; also, because we can't keep discussing the same thing forever.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

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

IJzeren Jan
Mar 17 2010, 07:42 PM
Jarvi
Mar 17 2010, 02:16 PM
And what about Southern Slavic (Croatian) speakers? I think the point that Steeven's colleagues rised can be significant, the only thing is that his colleagues are not here and they can't support it. Only Moreno participates in Slovianski chat, may be we can "catch" him there and ask?

I agree with that, and that's why I supported -UL- from the beginning, but I can also see that this solution is sort of awkward. I'm not convinced of every argument given in favour of -OL- (if DLUG isn't understandable for a Russian, then why would DOLG be understandable for a Pole?), but it's true that -OL- fits better in Slovianski's inner logic. In fact it was Dra�en who convinced me that -OL- isn't much of a problem for Serbo-Croat speakers after all, since most of them are familiar with either Slovene or Macedonian already.

I would of course very much appreciate more input from South Slavs, but we also have to face the fact that this forum is the place where Slovianski is being made; input from outside the forum is of course more than welcome, but before we can use it, it must at least be presented in a way we can work with it. I've taken the whole MULNIA discussion quite seriously and even based a proposal on it, but now I have the impression that MULNIA was rather some sort of isolated case. Thing is, it is hard to base conclusion on individual cases. There should be interaction. For example, if someone says he prefers MULNIA instead of MOLNIA, I'd like to know why, and also to know if the person who made the suggestion is aware of the consequences, f.ex. that we'd also end up with PULNI, VULK etc. And if this person wants MULNIA, but not PULNI, I'd also like to know why. Without that sort of interaction, it is simply too difficult to get anywhere.

Obviously, we can't decide about every single word individually - not only because it's too much work, but also because it goes against the nature of Slovianski (which, BTW, is what distinguishes it from all similar projects I'm aware of). It is on the other hand possible to have -UL- in certain cases and -OL- in other cases, but only if the conditions can be predefined. I haven't seen much support for that idea at all, so that's why I've reverted to -OL-; also, because we can't keep discussing the same thing forever.

I agree with Jan.

1)
We discuss about this too long.
2)
Everybody says he would do it this ot that way but nobody says his arguments why it should be better.
3)
-OL- is the most common solution in all slavic languages.
We just cannot use this reflex arbitrary. It must stay the same in all positions.
In other case it would be too difficult to predict where it would be this and where that case.
But we are all clever and inteligent people so if I as a BCS spaeker can accept ol better then ul so it should be case with Poles too.
Every other solution would exept OL would make slovianski looks like slovio or esperanto. Slovianski has its own harmony and this is why I like it and why I am giving so much time and attention to it.

And somebody said only Moreno is in chat from S.S. brach. Not true, I am also everyday in skype and participate in chat. My name is the same as here "wannabeme20".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

wannabeme
Mar 18 2010, 08:54 AM
And somebody said only Moreno is in chat from S.S. brach. Not true, I am also everyday in skype and participate in chat. My name is the same as here "wannabeme20".

Oh no, sorry, I meant that Moreno is the only one in the chat from Steeven Radzikovski colleagues - who initially rised the question about -ul-. However, I don't know who suggested -ul- first, it was not Moreno.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply