| 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: |
| Flavourisation; Northern vs. Southern Slovianski | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 6 2010, 12:16 PM (5,247 Views) | |
| pne | Dec 13 2010, 03:22 PM Post #136 |
|
No, I'm not of Slavic origin at all - my father is English and my mother was German, and I grew up speaking those two languages. I can't do an alveolar trill at all; I blame the fact that my frenulum is too short (so the front of my tongue is attached to the bottom of my mouth). I can do a uvular trill, though, so that's what I substitute when I try to do a trilled /r/. It's not part of my native phonology, though. In German, I use a a uvular fricative for /r/, which I think is probably the most widespread pronunciation; there are areas that have a uvular trill instead, though.
In one place, I saw this suggestion: "try to make the gargling sound (as if you are gargling water) - but without the water". Perhaps it helps?
I've never heard of a velar trill, either. There are uvular stops, though like Arabic "q" (IPA [q]) - so the uvular trill is really further back than [k] or [g]. But it's possible to make the trill a bit further forward or a bit further backwards. (Similarly, my German /r/ I think isn't a fully uvular fricative, but feels to me like somewhere between velar and uvular.) |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Dec 16 2010, 05:08 PM Post #137 |
|
Sorry for my late response. You know, the busy pre-Christmas time ...
Ah, I actually presuppose it. Understandability is already being concentrated on in Naučni Slovianski (and in its national transcriptions, as well as spin-offs such as Slovianski Plus), so it would be symmetric to have simplicity in Standard Slovianski. I completely agree with you that Slovianski is a toolbox. But this toolbox should be rich and flexible enough. If both Naučni Slovianski and Standard Slovianski have the i/y distinction (and at least 5 soft consonants), then the option of not using y (ď, ř) is not present in the toolbox at all. And that's my understanding of the concept of Standard Slovianski. After Slovianski split into Naučni Slovianski and Standard Slovianski, users are free to combine elements of the former more difficult code and the latter simpler code. Elements even simplier than those present in Standard Slovianski can be used on the user's own risk, but for the sake of understandability they are not recommended. My point is, the absence of i/y distinction is not that drastically simplistic to be placed in this not recommended zone. Instead IMHO, the absence of i/y distinction should be placed in the standard recommended toolbox, just like its presence. That's my inclusive approach - the option of not using the i/y distinction should be included.
Well, how many Ukrainians/Belarussians are that good in Russian to know where Russian has both -oro- and -ra- and where it has only -oro-? For an average Ukrainian/Belarusian to be able to speak Russian, he just needs to know that wherever Ukrainian/Belarusian has -oro-, in Russian -oro- is usually usable too (not caring about whether Russian has also a -ra- doublet in this case or not). He only needs to know a few learned words where Russian has no -oro- at all. Most common words don't belong to this ra-only/oro-forbidden category.
About the latter, it is a standard and it has always been. The opposite is subjective, not vice versa. About the former - will you modify your NMS-->Russian transcription programme to transcribe grôd as grad? If TraT is as standard and default in Russian as ToroT, then it shouldn't be any problem, should it?
A very good example. But what can be done about it? In the United Kingdom the solution would be simple (if the Britons wanted it) - just have a smaller number of larger electoral districts sending more than one representative, and the problem would be fixed. But in Slovianski that's impossible. "Electoral district" in Slovianski is called a "feature". The number of features and their size in Slovianski is just fixed, you can't change it. Likewise, every feature can send only one representative to the "Slovianski Parliament". But you've actually found a solution for a part of the problem: every feature can send three representatives, one to the "Standardly Flavoured Slovianski Parliament", another one to the "Northern Slovianski Parliament" and another one to the "Southern Slovianski Parliament". That's a very good idea, as long as we agree the "Standardly Flavoured Slovianski Parliament" is the supreme body among these three. Any attempt to southernise the supreme parliament would be a problem, though, since it would no more be democratic. |
![]() |
|
| Moraczewski | Dec 16 2010, 08:46 PM Post #138 |
|
Gabriel, you really think from point of view of experienced linguist and slavist. And actually people learn language with no regard to such things as doublets and stuff. I know people from Western Ukraine, they speak normal Russian and have no problems finding where to write -oro- and where -ra-. So I really doubt that things like "hlad" may happen not understandable for Ukrainians and Belarusians. Btw I support the idea of NOT having Y in standard Slovianski. Standard Slovianski must be something that most people are able to type! And about half of slavic keyboards don't have Y / Ы. And South Slavs don't know where to write it. |
|
"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] | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Dec 17 2010, 05:03 AM Post #139 |
|
Administrator
|
even Dražen doesn't know where to write it, lol well the direction "Standard Slovianski" has been taking I think is not become more "Southern" but actually becoming easier not distinguishing between e and ę is very helpful for South Slavs, while it turned out to be only a minor problem for Eastern Slavs in most words |
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Dec 17 2010, 06:05 PM Post #140 |
|
Okay. Attempting at not being too Russian, we have de facto given Russian 2 votes. So, I've made a little reserach in a Russian dictionary, based on words we already have in the Slovianski dictionary: only TlaT, TraT (5 instances): blôgí dlôň plômeň hrôbrý sųmrôk only ToloT, ToroT (23 instances): glôd hlôp klôda klôs klôtitì mlôtòk plôtno slôma slôvèj vlôkno brôda brôna brôzda drôga krôbka krôľ krôsta krôva mrôzitì obrôna vrôbèc vrôna vrôtitì both (16 instances): glôs glôva hlôd mlôdý slôdkí zlôto drôgí grôd krôtkí obrôtitì ohrônitì ostrôžný prôh strôna vrôta zdrôvý not found in Russian dictionary: dlôbatì gavrôn hrôpavý mrôvka paprôť prôznověrný This list probably is not flawless, corrections are welcome, but the basic idea stands. 23 >= 16 + 5, so even the knowledge of Russian won't help east Slavs to understand more than a half of the TraT words, since they know only their ToroT variant. So TroT retains its value of a compromise understandable to the ToroT and TraT guys much more easily than TraT would be understood by ToroT speakers, or vice versa.
Very true! |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Dec 17 2010, 09:36 PM Post #141 |
|
Administrator
|
долбать is present in Russian, but it's actually *дьлбати so NOT applicable хропать is present, again, it's not the correct pattern муравей is present, but a little messed up in Russian папоротник is also present now criticism of your -oro- -olo- list: воротить is also related to вращать so it's a doublet короста is not standard Russian, afaik, чесотка is the normal word for it and длань is not very much used, ладонь is much more common (*долонь) Edited by iopq, Dec 17 2010, 09:36 PM.
|
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| iopq | Dec 18 2010, 08:48 AM Post #142 |
|
Administrator
|
also the -oro- and -olo- words have to outnumber the -ra- -la- words by TWICE for you to make your point why? because the -ro- solution changes -oro- by one, while the -ra- solution changes it by two |
|
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" | |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Dec 19 2010, 08:53 AM Post #143 |
|
Thanks for the corrections. The list now looks like this: only TlaT, TraT (4 instances): blôgí, plômeň, hrôbrý, sųmrôk only ToloT, ToroT (23 instances): glôd, hlôp, klôda, klôs, klôtitì, mlôtòk, plôtno, slôma, slôvèj, vlôkno, brôda, brôna, brôzda, drôga, krôbka, krôľ, krôsta, krôva, mrôzitì, obrôna, paprôť, vrôbèc, vrôna both (17 instances): glôs, glôva, hlôd, mlôdý, slôdkí, zlôto, drôgí, grôd, krôtkí, obrôtitì, ohrônitì, ostrôžný, prôh, strôna, vrôta, vrôtitì, zdrôvý not found in Russian dictionary (2 instances): gavrôn, prôznověrný both -la- and irregular reflex (1 instance): dlôň (-alo-) irregular reflexes (3 instances): dlôbatì (-l-), hrôpavý (-ro-), mrôvka (-ura-) If we have TlaT/TraT, a Russian speaker will have to make no change 4 times (la>la, ra>ra), two changes 23 times (olo>la, oro>ra), no change 17 times (la>la, ra>ra), no change in the case of dlôň (la>la), 1 change in the case of dlôbatì (l>la), 1 change in the case of hrôpavý (ro>ra) and 1 change in the case of mrôvka (ura>ra). It equals 49 changes. If we have TloT/TroT, a Russian speaker will have to make 1 change 4 times (la>lo, ra>ro), 1 change 23 times (olo>lo, oro>ro), 1 change 17 times (la/olo>lo, ra/oro>ro), 1 change in the case of dlôň (alo>lo or la>lo), 1 change in the case of dlôbatì (l>lo), no change in the case of hrôpavý (ro>ro) and 2 changes in the case of mrôvka (ura>ro). It equals 48 changes. If we have ToloT/ToroT, a Russian speaker will have to make 2 changes 4 times (la>olo, ra>olo), no change 23 times (olo>olo, oro>oro), no change 17 times (olo>olo, oro>oro), 1 change in the case of dlôň (alo>olo), 2 changes in the case of dlôbatì (l>olo), 1 change in the case of hrôpavý (ro>oro), 2 changes in the case of mrôvka (-ura-/-oro-). It equals 14 changes. Any more doubts about ToloT/ToroT being the default Russian solution? |
![]() |
|
| IJzeren Jan | Dec 19 2010, 10:32 AM Post #144 |
|
Jan van Steenbergen
|
Thank you for you analysis, Gabriel! This is more or less what I had expected, too. When weighing the votes in favour of TroT vs TraT, more or less intuitively I assume 0,75 of the Russian vote for TroT and 0,25 for TraT.
Hmm, I'm missing the word СЛАДКИЙ here.
Not found? Probably that's because the Slovianski dictionary does have the compound, but not the original word pråzný "idle". Russian has ПРАЗДНЫЙ here. Probably instead of "pråznověrný" we should have "pråzdnověrný".
Oh, I think nobody has ever argued about ToloT/ToroT nót being the default Russian solution. But what also follows from the above is that giving at least 1/4 of the Russian vote to TraT/TlaT is not more than fair (and we're not even talking about råz- here). And even if you count Belarussian as a vote for TroT/TloT, that still gives a total of 2,75 for TroT/TloT vs. 3,25 for TraT/TlaT. |
|
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim. Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански [čćч] | |
![]() |
|
| Eugeniusx | Dec 19 2010, 11:46 AM Post #145 |
|
Jan: ... And even if you count Belarussian as a vote for ... === Jesjim zaintersju jesli v tut forum ludi znajut, zxe Beloruski je vo Bealrus mensxostju jazik; porovnivalju so Irlandzki vo Irlandia. |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Dec 19 2010, 12:01 PM Post #146 |
|
That's because Russian has also солод (malt, Slovianski slôd). Yes, сладкий probably is a more common word than солод, but in the list of doublets likewise there are probably words with the -olo-/-oro- variant "heavier" than the -la-/-ra- one.
Ah, right then. Hence the "only TlaT, TraT" category now has 5 instances. This gives 49 changes for TraT/TlaT, 49 changes for TloT/TroT and 16 changes for ToroT/ToloT. Let me make one more counting. Let's assume we have 49 relevant words in the sample and (for simplicity) every language except for Russian is loyal to its default reflex. Then: If we have TlaT/TraT, - a Russian has to make 49 changes (as counted above), - a Ukrainian/Belarusian has to make 98 changes, - a Pole has to make 49 changes, - a Czech/Slovak has to make 0 changes, - a "Serbo-Croat"/Slovenian has to make 0 changes, - a Bulgarian/Macedonian has to make 0 changes. In total 196 changes. If we have TloT/TroT, - a Russian has to make 49 changes (as counted above), - a Ukrainian/Belarusian has to make 49 changes, - a Pole has to make 0 changes, - a Czech/Slovak has to make 49 changes, - a "Serbo-Croat"/Slovenian has to make 49 changes, - a Bulgarian/Macedonian has to make 49 changes. In total 245 changes. If we have ToloT/ToroT, - a Russian has to make 16 changes (as counted above), - a Ukrainian/Belarusian has to make 0 changes, - a Pole has to make 49 changes, - a Czech/Slovak has to make 98 changes, - a "Serbo-Croat"/Slovenian has to make 98 changes, - a Bulgarian/Macedonian has to make 98 changes. In total 395 changes. If we count standard deviation, it is clear TloT/TroT still is the best compromise solution, since it makes the burden most equally shared: standard deviation for ToloT/ToroT is 44,7, standard deviation for TlaT/TraT is 40,01, standard deviation for TloT/TroT is just 20 (i. e. equally difficult for everyone except for Poles). But I know, that's a weak argument. Spoiler: click to toggle It's a major change, involving a lot of nostalgy, since TroT/TloT has been the feature of Slovianski for nearly five years - since its very beginning. It also made Slovianski unique among all other Slavic conlangs (Slovo, Glagolica, Novoslovienskij all use TlaT/TraT). I always thought that these conglangs just overestimate the value of OCS and the presence of OCS borrowings in Russian, or that their creators think Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish are only four out of twenty Slavic languages, equal to f.ex. Montenegrin, Kashubian, Macedonian or Sorbian. But it has been shown it was them who was right, and me who was wrong. Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi. Kroľ je mrtvi, da žive kraľ. |
![]() |
|
| steeven | Dec 19 2010, 04:03 PM Post #147 |
|
So, the bottom line here is the following changes will take place? krol' > kral' roz- > raz- itd .
|
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Eugeniusx | Dec 19 2010, 05:45 PM Post #148 |
|
Ay Slovio! Ja ne vidijm razlicxenie mezxu roz i raz itd. ... |
![]() |
|
| Gabriel Svoboda | Dec 19 2010, 07:26 PM Post #149 |
|
Yes. Unless no-one else objects ... We may as well re-consider this choice and go back again to kroľ itd. a few weeks later, when we have more experience with it. That's why I'd not recommend Slovioski to be in hurry with following the Slovianski choice - such changes are a half-an-hour's work for Jan, but a nightmare if done manually. |
![]() |
|
| steeven | Dec 20 2010, 01:11 AM Post #150 |
|
Yes, indeed. I wish I knew how to use ACCESS as Jan does.
|
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic » |







2:15 PM Jul 11