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
Just one alphabet forever; It is allowed to mix alphabets, no-one cares if the result is unnatural
Topic Started: Sep 5 2010, 12:53 PM (4,763 Views)
Gabriel Svoboda

Quote:
 
lubleni is not an option because "l" is hard and because it becomes very unobvious exception


Oh, of course the first l should be soft, by no means I propose to have lubiti instead of ľubiti, it was just a very stupid mistake of mine. Nevertheless, the second l in ľubleni is not hard, who told you the opposite? You think anything in Slovianski is hard unless specifically marked as soft, or what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Nevertheless, the second l in ľubleni is not hard, who told you the opposite?


It was you who suggested reading all Ce as hard because otherwise (you said) Russians and Slovaks will read "videne" ("seen"-plural) as "viden'e" which can be confused with videnje.
"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
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
I might argue that lubiti is attested as well, namely in Polish. Don't be mistaken: Polish L is qua pronunciation closer to Slovianski L than to Ľ, and while mapping Polish Ł to Slovianski L is etymologically correct, things are quite different in terms of pronunciation.

But frankly, I can't see the point of this discussion. If you ask me, all this only proves once again that Slovianski needs a flexible orthography. Let's just agree that ř can both be written as ř (ŕ) or r, ergo: govořeni and govoreni are both correct. Anybody who prefers writing govoreni can do so, and if someone else prefers govořeni, govoŕeni, govorjeni or govorieni he can do so, too. Therefore, what's the problem?

I am beginning to understand why I started Naučni Slovianski in the first place. Just like e can represent both ě and e, and i can represent both i and y, why is it so hard to accept that r can represent both ř and r? Let's just assume that anybody is free to write as "Naučni" as he prefers, and that all the extras NS has to offer can be used optionally in Slovianski. That way, we can also put an end to this eternal discussion about soft consonants, palatalising vs. non-palatalising e, apostrophes, etc.

(I should add that even this is nothing new, since it was established long ago that apostrophes are optional)

EDIT: Aha, and of course, this means that indeed lubiti and nuhati are legal as well. So what? Probably most people will write ljubiti/njuhati anyway in these cases, and it's not like somebody who write lubiti/nuhati suddenly won't be understood at all. Besides, sequences like nja, lju etc. won't be that frequent at all.

[čćч]
Edited by IJzeren Jan, Oct 6 2010, 05:19 PM.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
no, like I said, nuh is about three times harder to understand without context than njuh
the goal of Slovianski is to be understandable, and not about trying to decipher SMS-like messages with no punctuation or diacritics
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

I agree with iopg that the distinction between soft and hard consonants is important in many cases.
Jut imagine words boli and boli and even boli.
Hmmm BCS have bolji /boλiː/ - better, boli /boliː/ - it hurts, boli /bȏli/ - pains

And I am totaly against so much freedom in orthography. We need one standard orthography for the Slovianski dictionary and et all Slovianski. And who are using Slovianski are going to customize the orthography for their use.
The same happens in all languages. Russians customized their cyrilic alphabet into latin for the purpose of using in the net. Or BCS costumized their č,ž,š to c,z,s and ć and đ to tj and dj using the analogy with lj and nj.

So, the softening of consonants is a slavic characteristic and we NEED a marker of softening in Slovianski too. It doesnt matter what it is, but we need it. We only need to decide what its gonna look like. Is it separate character or not. But since this is a an auxiliar language we better dont have some mix of those and these. We must have analogy with no exeptions if not really really really needed, because than people like to ask, why this so and the other so.
So instead of taking sz from polish and č from Czech and lj from BCS we should better give an principle: "Soft consonants are represented with this character!" and that's it. And we could achieve really nice results in cyrilic if some people wouldnt say... nah, thats not natural, my language doesnt use it like that.
I can tell you only one thing. Cyrilic softening character is ь and every even retarded person who knows to read is gonna calculate 2+2 and understand it.
And what is the most popular latin softening character... everybody nows of hačeks. Even Poles. And hereat it deasnt matter if it is like "crown" or a streak or a dash or just a scratch over the consonant. The apostroph is known only to Slovaks and maybe Czechs so I d like to discard it.

All we should learn is how to write haček or a dash with those consonants. There must be some way with ASCII and I dont know what else.

We must keep Slovianski PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested or god knows what else you will make up and imagine only to stop Slovianski's progression. Am I right? Yes, I am!

And if you all want an auxiliar language that would be 100% understandable to every Slav and 100% looks pretty and nice and beutifull I am sorry for having to ruine your dream. Its not gonna happen ever (exept all Slavs are gonna learn old slavic and start to write with characters of sprites from the Lord of the Rings)
Edited by wannabeme, Oct 7 2010, 06:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
steeven
Member Avatar

wannabeme
Oct 7 2010, 06:17 AM
We must keep Slovianski PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested or god knows what else you will make up and imagine only to stop Slovianski's progression. Am I right? Yes, I am!

And if you all want an auxiliar language that would be 100% understandable to every Slav and 100% looks pretty and nice and beutifull I am sorry for having to ruine your dream. Its not gonna happen ever (exept all Slavs are gonna learn old slavic and start to write with characters of sprites from the Lord of the Rings)
Uf!
"PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested...."
Boy! that seems to run in direct contrast to what most here have wanted for Slovianski.
And "ANALOGICAL" - based on analogy?
(I think that is how we have the word "PRESKVA" for Peach, no? :D ;) )

(*and I like and agree with the word PRESKVA as the optimum analogically constructed word choice/creation!)


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
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

steeven
Oct 8 2010, 02:36 AM
wannabeme
Oct 7 2010, 06:17 AM
We must keep Slovianski PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested or god knows what else you will make up and imagine only to stop Slovianski's progression. Am I right? Yes, I am!

And if you all want an auxiliar language that would be 100% understandable to every Slav and 100% looks pretty and nice and beutifull I am sorry for having to ruine your dream. Its not gonna happen ever (exept all Slavs are gonna learn old slavic and start to write with characters of sprites from the Lord of the Rings)
Uf!
"PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested...."
Boy! that seems to run in direct contrast to what most here have wanted for Slovianski.
And "ANALOGICAL" - based on analogy?
(I think that is how we have the word "PRESKVA" for Peach, no? :D ;) )

(*and I like and agree with the word PRESKVA as the optimum analogically constructed word choice/creation!)


Steeven, now seriously! What preskva has to do with analogy?
Analogy means that if we apply something to one thing, then we should apply it for the anything of thats kind.
We shouldnt have sometimes volk and slunce. If thats the case people will never be able to predict when we use ol and when lu or what so ever.
But instead of that we should have only one principle which says: Its always -ol- no matter where and when.
If you want something natural? Slunce is natural, sunce is natural, slnce is natural, sonce is natural but do no slavic language says solnce right, but we still have it because we use analogy.
Analogy simply means: "every time one languages has this, sloviasnki has that" and natural are all slavic languages but we cannot mix it all up and say we pick one from word from polish, one from russian, one from bcs so we people say we are fair.

Analogy = stay loyal to the principles

Predictive is a result of using analogy. For example if I know that BCS one -u- goes to -ol- in SLoviasnki in the word sunce than I would assume, predict that it will be the case in vuk too.
In psychology and logic and maths we call it projection. (And I dont want to explain it to you from that scientific side cause youre gonna think I am some kinda swank. :p)

And what that has to do with the actual thema of one and only one alphabet?

Well after that logic of analogy and projection we could create only one orthography with both alphabets we have.
First like I said above, every slavic user of cyrilic alphabet knows that ь is a marker of softness of consonants. Not every slavic language that uses cyrilic apply it everywhere when softening consonants. But if he would see that it is used even on the places where it is not used in his mother tongue, he would be able to project what he has already known and he would more easely adopt this amplification of the usage of what he has already known that to learn some other completely knew thing.
People learn better if they have aready had some conection to it, respectively, if they have the basis.

For example one Russian speaker will be able to recognize that коньа is pronounced and means коня because he knows what is the function of ь. While a BCS speaker would also easier predict the meaning of дь, ть because he will see the analogy in нь=њ and ль=љ.
But a Serbian wont never ever recognize я or ю because he hes no basis knowing about them. He has never met it. He has nothing to project.

And I will mention it for the second time. A good and well known latin character of softening is being haček or a dash over the consonant (unline turkish which has a dash anderneath). So if I know what is č and ž, I will 100% recognize what it means ň.

This is analogy and not the preskva thing.
Edited by wannabeme, Oct 8 2010, 03:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
steeven
Member Avatar

wannabeme
Oct 8 2010, 03:14 AM
Analogy = stay loyal to the principles
"analogy"
There are several different definitions for "analogy"
I did not know which one you were using.
That is why I asked. ;) :P
__________________________________
So, perhaps here, your definition might be expressed as:

"... imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words"

B)

Edited by steeven, Oct 8 2010, 04:16 AM.
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
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
I agree with iopg that the distinction between soft and hard consonants is important in many cases.
Jut imagine words boli and boli and even boli.
Hmmm BCS have bolji /boλiː/ - better, boli /boliː/ - it hurts, boli /bȏli/ - pains

Sure, I agree as well. But many other distinctions are important as well, like i/y and e/ě/ę. The choice to distinguish between l/ľ and r/ř but not between those is completely arbitrary.

Quote:
 
And I am totaly against so much freedom in orthography. We need one standard orthography for the Slovianski dictionary and et all Slovianski. And who are using Slovianski are going to customize the orthography for their use.

But that's precisely what I've been saying all the time as well. So I don't understand what precisely you mean by "freedom" in this case. What I meant by freedom is: the possibility to determine how much of the information contained by diacritics you actually want to convey. Of course when doing that people should be consistent in their choice, because having č and sz simultaneously, or sometimes using ř, sometimes rj and sometimes r would only create confusion.

Quote:
 
So, the softening of consonants is a slavic characteristic and we NEED a marker of softening in Slovianski too.

Oh, I'm surely not saying we don't NEED it, in fact, we need a lot of things that are Slavic characteristics. The question is: do we DEMAND that people actually write them, or do we leave them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?

I am not convinced at all that Slovianski NEEDS to mark softening in order to be understandable. Are pisatel, kon, borba, den etc. really that hard to understand? Even in the case of extremer cases like lubiti and dla, be aware that that is exactly how Polish writes them! In e-mail traffic, many Poles never write ś, ć, ż, ł etc. (i.e. they merge the hard and soft vowels) anyway. I'm not saying we should recommend that for Slovianski, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't exclude it. IMO understandability would only suffer in the case of minimal pairs (like dńa ~ dna), but there aren't that many of those at all. Otherwise, there's no problem as long as people realise that a consonant can represent both its hard and its soft counterpart. That's precisely what we are already doing with i and e as well.

Quote:
 
All we should learn is how to write haček or a dash with those consonants.

No, it would be presumptuous on our part to demand that kind of things from people. And counterproductive, because most people would run away screamingly.

Quote:
 
There must be some way with ASCII and I dont know what else.

No, and that's precisely the problem. We've tried several solutions in the past, and there are always people who complain. Apostrophes? People hated them! Too many j's? Same thing. Liubiti instead of ljubiti? Same thing. If you ask me, l^ubiti looks even worse than all those options together.

We've been talking about this for 4 1/2 years now. I am tired of it, and I guess I'm not the only one. There is only one conclusion: whatever solution we come up with, people will always complain and write it their own way anyway. So the only way to put an end to this effectively is simply acknowledging that fact and dealing with it. My proposal is really nothing new, it's just a confirmation of the status quo.

Quote:
 
We must keep Slovianski PREDICTIVE and ANALOGICAL rather than simple or natural or attested or god knows what else you will make up and imagine only to stop Slovianski's progression. Am I right? Yes, I am!

Sure you are. And indeed:
prositi > prošeni
govoriti > govořeni
hvaliti > hvaľeni
zabroniti > zabroňeni
... makes for a nice piece of analogy. It won't work for t and d though, but that's something we can't avoid.

[čćч]
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
we should DEMAND that diacritics are written
at least over c, z, s
omitting these makes things impossible to understand and leads to confusion:
šiška vs. siska

so using ascii I would recommend writing j for softening and cz, sz, zs for post-alveolars
Edited by iopq, Oct 8 2010, 10:57 AM.
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

Quote:
 
But many other distinctions are important as well, like i/y and e/ě/ę. The choice to distinguish between l/ľ and r/ř but not between those is completely arbitrary.

Jan that is not the same thing and you know it. Slovjanski already has i and y and all three e-s. You said that people can take whatever they want from N.S.. So if they can write it, there is no need not to use them. But the way it is, not every Slavic speaker will be able to distinguish e/ě/ę and will be able to distinguish i and y (although the last is not so hard because its rare, declension fem. gen. sg. & nom.pl. and some words like syn, byti) but at least soft L and N are something that has to be distinguished from hard L and N because they are so often (in orthography of course).

Quote:
 
So I don't understand what precisely you mean by "freedom" in this case

Freedom of how to express ones Slovjanski. I like to distinguish between standard Slovjanski, which would be used in the our websites and dictionares and the other one would be some individually customized Slovjanski by their users.
The source of Slovjanski (our websites and dictionaties) should offer maximum level of comprehansion and offer the rules of transliteration of someones native slavic language to Slovianski by using our principles.
Individuals would have freedom to customize Slovjasnki for thier own purpose but in that case they will take the responsability on them if they are not well understood.
Respectively, we offer the most understandable choise to represent the standard.
If kon and pole and more are the most understandable choise for all Slavs then be my guest, declare it as standart but in my oppinion koň, pol'e, moře gives the maximum of comprehesion in the case of every language. Serbians have konj, they will recognize easely that ň=nj and a Macedonian or Bulgarian who have kon will easely ignore the dash over n as he is reading.

Quote:
 
The question is: do we DEMAND that people actually write them, or do we leave them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?

Like I mentioned, we need to offer to all the maximum of understability. If we dont offer them any kind of rules, they will scruw it up and they wont be understood well. I say, it is not so important how to mark it, how it is importent to offer it. Some customers will customize Slovjasnki anyway, but we also need to offer something so they can make a choise if they want to use or not. But we only warn if they dont use it, the level of comprehansion will sink. F.ex. Kon-kona can be very easely be misunderstood as the end like konec. IMO soft L, N and R should maintain because they occure often unlike soft T,D or S,Z.

Quote:
 
No, it would be presumptuous on our part to demand that kind of things from people. And counterproductive, because most people would run away screamingly.

Negative! We do not demand. We offer. We say - Using of "this and that" will increase the comprehansion. Not using of "this and that" will decrease the comprehansion. You have the choise.
I am distancing myself from such a proposal to have many options instead of the standard. I am proposing to have offered only one option, to use soft L in one way alone, how the standard perscribes. Using of any other kind of soft L (L,LX, LZ, LY or similar) will decrease the comprehension. But I would propose an option which is ease writable, whether you like it or not.
In our case, we have choise to use -j- as a softening marker which exists in every latin slavic alphabet. But we can use a separat sign like hachek or dash or any kind of sign that can be associated with it as well.
Using x or y are not recomanded since they are strange to many slavic alphabets. But me personaly prefer the haček.
Freedom of customazation but a limited freedom in order to maintain the maximum of comprehension.

Quote:
 
We've been talking about this for 4 1/2 years now. I am tired of it, and I guess I'm not the only one.

I believe you Jan. I feel the same.
Quote:
 
There is only one conclusion: whatever solution we come up with, people will always complain and write it their own way anyway.

Dont give them a chance to complaine. We must set the goals and offer the best solution that correspond to our goals. The changing of the solution will be taken to considering only if the complainer offer reasonable and strong arguments. We must decide if a "cosmetic" is an priority over "maximum comprehension".
Kupovanje may not be the most beautiful thing (for someone) but is the best choise for maximum comprehension between speakers of different slavic languages and even if a non-native slavic speaker, like a German for instant, try to pronounse n and j separately it kupovanje still offers a better degree of comprehansion than kupovane. There is one important think we must consider. Not every recipient will have any knowledge of Slovjanski! So if a German stranger say kopovanje (l and j as separate) it is still better than only kupovane (hard n + e).

Quote:
 
So the only way to put an end to this effectively is simply acknowledging that fact and dealing with it. My proposal is really nothing new, it's just a confirmation of the status quo.

I think that status quo is not clear enough and the question will be comming more and more. I would rather proceed systematicly and once for all decide what is primarly choise of standard Slovjanski.
1) Should we distinguish between soft and hard consonants?
------a) If yes, which of them: - the most used or all?
------b) How should we mark soft consonants or the softness of consonants?
---------------Optiones: Chyrilic (ь) & Latin (' or -j or ˇ)
Rules:
-Argumets pro and contra!
-Set priorities!
-Dont adress any new topic untill we have decided once for all what to use!


Quote:
 
Sure you are. And indeed:
prositi > prošeni
govoriti > govořeni
hvaliti > hvaľeni
zabroniti > zabroňeni
... makes for a nice piece of analogy. It won't work for t and d though, but that's something we can't avoid.


Because it is not softening but palatalization in this case. Respectively, it doesnt come from softening after e or i but from melting of consonants with j. And we have decided that palatalized t and d are č and dž.
We also must deside what it palatalization and what softening.
Principialy me and you are saying the same thing. Only that I want to make same decisions and selection about what we should declare as standard because right now nobody really uses it the same way. The fact is that we must have one standardized Slovjasnki for our sources (dicts and websites) so that we dont end up with endless number of variation of orthographies in our sources, then exactly that will give a presumption to our customers how unproffessional we were.
The curent stage is comparable to some situation as when we would be in the same clique and in the court we all sweare to say the truth and then tell different stories, you know. Thats how I feel we are gonna end up with if we maintain the status quo.
Edited by wannabeme, Oct 9 2010, 02:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Yesterday I spent two hours writing a reply, and before I could send it, our stupid energetyk cut off the current to the entire neighbourhoud. Everything gone. Grrrrrr! Anyway, let's try again...

Dražen
 
Jan that is not the same thing and you know it. Slovjanski already has i and y and all three e-s. You said that people can take whatever they want from N.S..

Not entirely, Dražen. Y and the three (actually more than three) E's are additions to Naučni Slovianski, but they don't officially exist in ordinary Slovianski. At present N.S. doesn't really have any status within Slovianski, and as far as it has one, it's still a proposal, and unfinished one to that.

Quote:
 
Freedom of how to express ones Slovjanski. I like to distinguish between standard Slovjanski, which would be used in the our websites and dictionares and the other one would be some individually customized Slovjanski by their users.
The source of Slovjanski (our websites and dictionaties) should offer maximum level of comprehansion and offer the rules of transliteration of someones native slavic language to Slovianski by using our principles.
Individuals would have freedom to customize Slovjasnki for thier own purpose but in that case they will take the responsability on them if they are not well understood.
Respectively, we offer the most understandable choise to represent the standard.

Hehe, it looks like we are both using a lot of words to express the same thought! :) This is pretty much the same idea I had with my proposal. My considerations were the following:

  • If you really want to use the most understandable choice to represent the standard, then we'd end up with an orthography close to Naučni Slovianski or Slovianski+. That has two disadvantages: a text with that many diacritics doesn't exactly please the eye and might easily scare away people, and besides, nobody can write it without the help of special tools. That is not to say that such an orthography is impossible, but we should at least provide alternatives that won't be considered "wrong" or "invalid" or even "worse".
  • We've been fighting quite a few wars now over Ž/Ż/ZS/ZX/Z*, and our ultimate conclusion was that we all agree that Ž should be the preferred solution, but also that there's nothing wrong with it if Poles write Ż, that all possible asciifications have their pros and cons, and that we'll just make a recommendation, which does not mean other solutions are wrong by definition.
  • Likewise, we have ľubiti, liubiti, ljubiti, lyubiti, l^ubiti, l'ubiti, lubiti... We can keep talking about the pros and cons of each option, but instead of killing each other over these issues, we might as well agree that they all ways of representing the very same thing, namely Ľ, which I'd therefore call the "prototype". Solution 1 follows the one phoneme = one character principle, the last solution merges two phonemes into one character (like y/i and the e's), all the rest are ways of asciifying the prototype.
  • Instead of talking about which solution is better, we might as well say: "This is the prototype, write it if you can, and if you can't/won't, then use something that won't easily be misunderstood. Here's a suggestion... You don't have to follow it, but whatever you do is at your own risk".


Quote:
 
But we only warn if they dont use it, the level of comprehansion will sink. [...]
We do not demand. We offer. We say - Using of "this and that" will increase the comprehansion. Not using of "this and that" will decrease the comprehansion. You have the choise.

Exactly! And that fits pretty much with the idea of Slovianski being "a set of recommendations" instead of a hermetic language. We shouldn't be telling people what they must do or what they are forbidden to do, but what happens if they do one thing or another.

Quote:
 
I think that status quo is not clear enough and the question will be comming more and more. I would rather proceed systematicly and once for all decide what is primarly choise of standard Slovjanski.
1) Should we distinguish between soft and hard consonants?
------a) If yes, which of them: - the most used or all?
------b) How should we mark soft consonants or the softness of consonants?
---------------Optiones: Chyrilic (ь) & Latin (' or -j or ˇ)
Rules:
-Argumets pro and contra!
-Set priorities!
-Dont adress any new topic untill we have decided once for all what to use!


Yes, you're absolutely right about this. And to tell you the truth, until we sort this out there isn't even much point in updating the dictionary, adding any texts or uploading a new version of the grammar.

Here are a few more thoughts.

To begin with, I don't think we should try to morph Slovianski into a something that looks and behaves like a natural language. I've never understood why so many creators of auxiliary languages keep doing that, instead of seizing the opportunity given to them by the fact that they have 100% freedom in their decisions. Natural languages are bound by a lot of limitations, dictated by the fact that they have native speakers. The latter decide what pronunciation is right, what words have what meanings, they dictate the grammar including many exceptions, they have expressions and idioms, and the purpose of the orthography is to give a decent representation of all that. Slovianski doesn't have that problem, but it has another one: because it is based on multiple (fairly different) language, it has to manoeuver its way through all of them, ending up with something that is maximally understandable for the speakers of languages that are mutually not entirely understandable at all. As a result, Slovianski has its limitations as well, but these are of a different nature. The is also another, even more fundamental difference between natural and constructed languages: the former just "are", while the latter were created with a particular purpose in mind. It is that very purpose that should ultimately decide what the language is going to look like. And that depends on the people who according to our plan (are going to) use it:

  • non-Slavs (like travellers, wikipedians and the like) who are looking for an easy means of communication with representatives of one of more Slavic nations, for whom it is not worth the effort to learn an entire natural language
  • Slavs who want to be able to communicate with other Slavs without using English and without learning a natlang, but who are willing to learn a simplified Slavic language
  • Slavs who wouldn't even want to really learn a simplified language, but who like to know a few tools that enable them to manipulate their own language in such way that it becomes better understandable for other Slavs
  • people who use it only in private contacts (chats, e-mails etc.)
  • people who use it in multi-Slavic environments (like Slavic Unity, or Steeven's kolegi)
  • website of companies and other information sources addressing the entire Slavic world
  • beginning slavists
  • Slovianski users in contacts with other Slovianski users.

Well, it's quite obvious that these groups are very different from each other, and the differences are not only between the users, but also between the target audiences. So we have users who know one Slavic language, users who know several Slavic languages, and users who don't know any Slavic language at all; users who are willing to learn Slovianski, users who are prepared to write a text here and there with the help of the grammar and the dictionary, and users who just want to get a few hints as to how they should improvise. The same kind of differentiation goes also for the target audience: the entire Slavic world, representatives of one Slavic nation, other Slovianski users, etc. At last, there's quite a difference in medium: spoken Slovianski is different from written Slovianski, Slovianski on a website is supposed to be complete and understandable, while "chat Slovianski" should be convenient to write.

It is also quite obvious that the ideal Slovianski offered to each group is different as well. Just look: there's not much point in writing roz- while addressing South Slavs only, just like there's not much point in NOT using y in Polish-Russian communication. For many people outside the Slavic world, the difference between a hard and a soft consonant too subtle and difficult to handle. A person who just wants a simple tool for basic communication (f.ex. a tourist) shouldn't be bothered with r/ř issues or with the subtle differences between e, ě and ę. If he can bring out a decent "pisatela", that's already quite an achievement, especially since he will be understood anyway. However, for a Slavistics student, those difference are of critical importance.

Do we need more than one language for all those different situations? No, because Slovianski is perfectly able to offer every potential customer what he wants or needs. But to achieve that, Slovianski must be flexible. We need at least two levels:
- one "advanced" level, focused on maximal understandability for the target audience
- one "simple" level, focused on maximal convenience for the (non necessarily Slavic) user

At present, ordinary Slovianski is somewhere in between. We have constantly been trying to create some kind of compromise between those two levels. Right now I can see that that has been a mistake, because we were too much trying to emulate natlangs. A missed opportunity; I should add that AFAIK no other constructed language has ever explored this kind of flexibility, so we are pretty much being pioneers here). And yet, it can be achieve quite easily. Naučny Sloviansky is one possible solution: every diacritic represents its own phoneme, and the more of these diacritics you remove, the more phonemes are merged into one. If you remove all of them, you get a Slovianski that does not even distinguish between hard and soft consonants anymore, that is very easy to write and that is still quite understandable.

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have a good, close look at Naučny Sloviansky and see what should be changed, added or removed. Some diacritics are definitely of greater importance than others.

[čćч]
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

Jan, I appreciate your active participating in my, very often, confusing and exhaustive dissussions. You are bringing big efforts for Slovjanski.
I am glad, you have understood my thoughts. My improfessional English vocabulary and my often inharmonious thoughts and ideas are not so easy to be recognized every time.

I completely agree with everything you explained right now. You really have good arguments.

This one from you is great :
Quote:
 
Slavs who wouldn't even want to really learn a simplified language, but who like to know a few tools that enable them to manipulate their own language in such way that it becomes better understandable for other Slavs

Thats how I achieved really good results in conmunication with other Slavs.
I never learned Russian or Polish or Churchslavonic separately. I only learnt how to flex and bend my own language in order to achieve similarities with a needed language.
And I learned first of all, that my language as well as any other slavic languge possess that flexibilty, its like a gum.
In other words, I only studies tendences diverse slavic languages have. A slavic mind can always build countless words and forms if you offer him a stem. The difference is only that differrent slavic languages have different tendences of using engings, pre- and suffixes or soundchanges. But every kind of only a remembrance can be great signpost for designing new words :)
So we need to try to offer adequate signpostes that satisfy only common tendences of Slavs and not the tendences of the Majority. Do you agree here with me! Anyway the time and practice will show.
Besides a new idea is born and I quite like it :) The one about "customers remove diacritics, depending on the purpose and branch of using Slovjanski"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
steeven
Member Avatar

IJzeren Jan
Oct 9 2010, 03:06 PM
...Here are a few more thoughts.

To begin with, I don't think we should try to morph Slovianski into a something that looks and behaves like a natural language....
The is also another, even more fundamental difference between natural and constructed languages: the former just "are", while the latter were created with a particular purpose in mind. It is that very purpose that should ultimately decide what the language is going to look like. And that depends on the people who according to our plan (are going to) use it....
A person who just wants a simple tool for basic communication (f.ex. a tourist) shouldn't be bothered with r/ř issues or with the subtle differences between e, ě and ę. If he can bring out a decent "pisatela", that's already quite an achievement, especially since he will be understood anyway. ...
... Slovianski must be flexible. We need at least two levels:
- one "advanced" level, focused on maximal understandability for the target audience
- one "simple" level, focused on maximal convenience for the (non necessarily Slavic) user

At present, ordinary Slovianski is somewhere in between. We have constantly been trying to create some kind of compromise between those two levels. Right now I can see that that has been a mistake, because we were too much trying to emulate natlangs. A missed opportunity....
This precise sentiment has been stirring within me now for weeks.
Communication between my kolegi has reflected all of the examples both Jan and Dražen have noted (because "my kolegi" include both Slavic-speaker and non-Slavic speaker natives).
So, originally, "we" used a very simplified form; which then morphed to become more "detailed" to reflect the nuances available in our Natural Languages.
Indeed, it has been parallel to how Slovianski has - for the last several months - become more and more detailed - or, perhaps, "more examined."
This week, however, I stopped and took the time to look at some of the more recent communications among my kolegi. And they are divided into two categories:
- one "advanced" level, focused on maximal understandability for the target audience
- one "simple" level, focused on maximal convenience for the (non necessarily Slavic) user

...and where there is a "target audience," the text is morphed so that, for example, a CZ/SK/PL writer communicating with an SR/HR writer, will oftentimes use "da" instead of "že" and vice-versa...a kind of "cross-border communication politeness."
But not one Slavic-speaking native has any problem to "slip into" a simplified level of writing, when communicating with a non-Slavic native.
My conclusion: both forms are important.
Polni(j) (Medžu)Slovjanski
Prosti(j) (Medžu)Slovjanski

Edited by steeven, Oct 9 2010, 05:38 PM.
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
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Steeven, as I understood, you and Jan mean different things.
Jan means that advanced is when you write ľubjený and govořený - so the reader can absolutely be sure that this is adjectival form and that ľ is soft. Other example, when you write pęť, the reader will never confuse it with Russian петь (to sing), and when you write pěti, most likely, a South Slav will not confuse it with peti (the fifth). Something like that.
And simple level is without using non-convenient symbols, even without ř and ľ - to be used in fast communications like chats or so.

You mean: Polnij MS with full grammar forms, Prostij without cases and genders, right? This is not what Jan says. BTW if you write without genders and cases, this is still accepted by Slovianski, I think. But here we talk about the orthography, not the grammar.
"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
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply