| 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: |
| Naučni Slovianski [čćч] | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 2 2010, 12:53 PM (4,755 Views) | |
| Moraczewski | Jul 14 2010, 05:24 AM Post #31 |
|
Draen has the point. I agree. |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Jul 14 2010, 08:31 AM Post #32 |
|
Well, I wouldn't discard new interesting scientific projects just for the sake of "unity". Remember that any user of Naučni Slovianski or Slovianski Plus will be able to use (i.e. switch to) ordinary Slovianski very easily and he will have nothing against the existence of ordinary Slovianski. All Naučni Slovianski and Slovianski Plus texts will be easily understood by ordinary Slovianski users. They can't really be considered to be separate languages competing with Slovianski. Ergo, Naučni Slovianski and ordinary Slovianski are worth their existence without any doubt. Naučni Slovianski will catch on certainly - maybe not as a real langauge, but certainly as a common source code of all Slavic languages. I am not sure about Slovianski Plus - maybe people will say to themselves "if I am going to learn all the etymological stuff anyway, Naučni Slovianski is more worth the effort". Or, they may say to themselves "Naučni Slovianski would be too hard, but I could manage Slovianski Plus". I don't know, let's see, we don't need to discard it offhand. P.S. I would write y too. |
![]() |
|
| Moraczewski | Jul 14 2010, 09:15 AM Post #33 |
|
But if a newcomer from Southern Slavs, for example, comes to the forum of free Slovianski talks and sees many people writing y, e~ , e^, e`, e', a* and stuff - he may have impression that this is "standart Slovianski" and this will scare him off! |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| wannabeme | Jul 14 2010, 10:10 AM Post #34 |
|
Dear Gabriel, first of all I find your name to be very beutifull ![]() What is the purpose of Slovjanski Plus? It is some kind of the language somewhere between Slovjanski and Nauczni Slovjanski. The existence of SlovP is not necessary at all. I didnt speak about unity but about the purpose and the possible future of the Slovjanski which is the best project of its kind ever made. Slovjanski for ordinary people, Nauczni for the linguists, Plus for whom? Why? |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Jul 14 2010, 11:25 AM Post #35 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Dražen absolutely has a point. I'm aware that all this might create confusion, and that's obviously not what we are after. I'm also aware that orthographies like Naučni Slovianski and Slovianski Plus violate the principle that Slovianski can be written on any Slavic keyboard; in fact, they can't be written on any, and a Cyrillic equivalent is quite impossible. The difference with the old situation with Slovianski-N, Slovianski-P etc. is obviously that we were trying out different approaches to grammar. That is not the case here: words are exactly the same, and so it grammar. Slovianski has already four different official orthographies, and nobody would ever say that Slovianski written in Serbian Cyrillic is not the same language as Slovianski written in Latinica with SZ/CZ/Ż. The same thing goes also for Slovianski Plus: the difference is only that the latter conveys certain info that the other orthographies don't. While it would have been weird to write a text partly in Slovianski-N and partly in Slovianski-P, I can't think of a reason why a text couldn't be written in Slovianski and contain elements of Slovianski Plus as well. You can't call this "dialects", "language versions" or even "languages", because the language is the same for 100%. Look at this: - Борис Николаевич Ельцин - Boris Nikolajevič El'cin - Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin - Borys Nikołajewicz Jelcyn - Boris Nikolajewitsch Jelzin - Boris Nikolaïevitch Ieltsine - Borisz Nyikolajevics Jelcin - etc.etc.etc. Obviously, it's the same fellow all the time. And it's the same language, too. The only difference is how, and for whom, it's represented. But of course, that doesn't mean Naučni Slovianski and Slovianski Plus couldn't create confusion for outsiders. It's certainly not my intention that people run away screamingly when they see a text in NS/SP, or that it would lead to the creation of "camps". But I'm not really afraid of that myself. It depends mostly on how we bring it, really.
You remember the pet'/pjat' discussion, right? Someone, probably me, came up with the idea that we might as well write "pęt'", so that the issue is neutralised in terms of understandability. Likewise, I thought of finding a solution for the grod/grad problem along similar lines. And of finding a solution for the jat', because in most languages jat' is treated differently from e. I think Slovianski Plus is displayed pretty well in this text. Slovianski can be used in different ways and for different purposes. The point is that the Slovianski used in a chat session shouldn't necessary look the same as the Slovianski used in a longer text directed at a multi-Slavic audience. In case #1 convenience is very important, in #2 understandability should be maximised. Of course, Slovianski Plus is not a convenient thing to use at all, but that's not the point of it. Pęť is easier to understand for Poles and Russians than pet, but not harder to understand for South Slavs. In my vision, Slovianski Plus can be an optional way for writing texts like the one Andrej wrote; it does NOT mean that the same text written in ordinary Slovianski would be worse or something. But, it was never my idea to have both a Naučni Slovianski and a Slovianski Plus. Originally I just wanted to work out an orthography for a Slovianski that would really be at the middle everything, but as I got going, I decided to add a few things that would make it easier to transform it into natlang versions as well. The source code idea. The thing is only that this source code contains elements that are not necessary at all to make thing more understandable, and therefore in a text like Andrej's would best be omitted. But I agree that one version is redundant, and it would be best to merge them somehow. So, if you all agree that y is better than ı, and for Russians dobrý is better than dobry, then that's already a major step towards bringing them together. I'll therefore repeat my question: - gråd or grôd? - infinitives on -tĭ or on -ti? - ľubi or ljubi? At last, here's a little sample in Slovianski Plus: LITANIJA PROTIV STRAHU Ne voľno bojati sę. Strah je ubiteľ duši. Strah je mala smėrť, ktora prinosi velike izničenje. Ja stavjam sę protiv svojemu strahu. Pozvolim mu projdti po mně i prêjdti prêz mene. A kŏgda on promine, ja obrotim svoje vnųtrėne oko na svojų drôgų. Vsěgde, gde prošėl strah, tam ne bųde ničo. Toľko ja ostajem. |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Jul 14 2010, 11:27 AM Post #36 |
|
Administrator
|
grd in my browser just has a Slovak long l |
|
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 | Jul 14 2010, 11:30 AM Post #37 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Drat, that makes sense. I've unicodified my post now. |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Moraczewski | Jul 14 2010, 11:37 AM Post #38 |
|
I have no problem with infinitives on "ti" Others problems are more challenging... |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Jul 14 2010, 11:43 AM Post #39 |
|
Administrator
|
well, it seems pointless to have Slovianski plus and not to write "ničto" since I feel szto is probably a better form and others feel they like czo better gråd looks cooler though, especially in Petrogråd we should have infinitives in -tĭ just as long as we're indicating everything ľubi is better imo since natlangs do have lj sequences |
|
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 | Jul 14 2010, 12:45 PM Post #40 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Sure, I can agree with all of that. There is, however, one thing to take into account: the idea was the NS/SP is basically Slovianski with some additional diacritics. The more differences, the more it will look alien. FWIW, I agree that gråd looks better than grôd. But for TerT sequences, I thought we might use ê (mlêko) because of its similarity to ě, and ô would be in line with that (and closer to Slovianski o). Ničto/ništo/ničo is a bit of a special case. I decided to use čto because creating a special character just for one word and its derivates would seems like a waste. I don't think we should have it in Slovianski, though. |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Moraczewski | Jul 14 2010, 01:57 PM Post #41 |
|
And what about using è & ò for strong jers? pès sòn mèrtvy tòlsty grave accent for short vowels was used in 1854 book "Ilirska slovnica" by Vekoslav Babukic. |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Jul 15 2010, 07:15 AM Post #42 |
|
Thanks for explaining the purpose of Slovianski Plus; now it really looks worthwhile. I agree with ľubitĭ or l'ubitĭ, a high non-mandatory version should indicate everything. Ps and sn are also a very good idea, finally even a non-Slav can tell that they are declined psa and sna. Petersgrd would look cool in an alternative universe where it would be a Nordic city, but I'd prefer a character clearly indicating that o is the majority solution, therefore (if you like, the circumflex can be interpreted as a small A). |
![]() |
|
| Moraczewski | Jul 15 2010, 07:27 AM Post #43 |
|
But o is not majority solution, it is about 50/50. And is used in Slovak for [uo] that can create confusion. Petersgrd yes, looks very Scandinavic, but this is because Petersgrd follows germanic word formation. Petrov Grd looks already more Slavic. |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Jul 15 2010, 08:19 AM Post #44 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Yep, I think that's a good idea! I'll make the changes.
It's a compromise solution, not a majority solution. The latter is especially doubtful if you consider that Russian has lots or TraT/TlaT sequences as well due to Church Slavonic, and that Belarusian -ara-/-ala- is not necessarily a vote for TroT/TloT either.
That's a good point. It will be å then! Next question: what to do with TreT/Tlet then? I picked ê because of its similarity to ô, but that won't work anymore. We might go for: - mlêko anyway (reverse ě) - mlėko (more similar to å) - something else?
Ha! St. Petersburg would look cool in an alternative universe where it would be a German city!
|
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno to bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Jul 15 2010, 10:01 AM Post #45 |
|
Administrator
|
Belarusian doesn't have -ara- or -ala- it just has a screwy orthography note that Russians pronounce moloko as malako anyway, but it is only in Belarusian that it is written so but yeah, grod is the concensus solution, while grad would be the majority solution note that in norwegian å is read as o anyway |
|
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 » |







2:14 PM Jul 11