Newsgroups: alt.language.artificial,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers.rutgers.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!brg
From: brg@netcom.com (Bruce R. Gilson)
Subject: Re: Judging Esperanto
Message-ID: <brgE7DnKJ.MHs@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
References: <brgE78KpL.DnF@netcom.com> <01bc3400$1f853840$bdc7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de> <brgE79qE7.BAC@netcom.com> <01bc34dc$fe3273a0$a5c7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:07:31 GMT
Lines: 123
Sender: brg@netcom7.netcom.com

In article <01bc34dc$fe3273a0$a5c7148d@hartwig.rz.hu-berlin.de>,
sebastiano hartviga <h0444wow@rz.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Bruce R. Gilson <brg@netcom.com>:
>
>> I don't know how you can say Novial "copies the irregularities of the romance
>> languages." It is practically as regular as Esperanto. You may have seen Novial
>> described as a naturalistic language, like Occidental or Interlingua. But in
>> fact Novial is a compromise language, neither totally naturalistic nor totally
>> schematic, falling halfway between Esperanto and Interlingua.
>
>which version of novial are you talking about? the one from 1928? the 
>recodification from 1930? the second recodification from 1934? the 
>current recodification of 1997?

Any of them. What I said applies equally to all.

Unlike Zamenhof, Jespersen felt that his decisions were not an untouchable
Fundamento. So Novial was contnually subject to refinement. 1928 Novial, how-
ever, was already a far better language than Esperanto.  I just feel it can
be made better yet.

>you are right, that novial is more "regular" than interlingua. =
>nevertheless it is not so regular as esperanto. to start with: why do =
>you need three different letters (k, q, x) to express the k-sound? =
>maybee because this is the way the major romance languages and english =
>express it? the letter "h" in novial is normally pronounced "h". the =
>letter "s" normally "s". but when they appear in the sequence "sh" than =
>neither the "s" nor the "h" are pronounced, but it is pronounced the =
>sound of english "sh" ore german "sch" or italian "sci". similar is true =
>for "ch". how are they pronounced in compound words?

Far better to use "sh" than an s with a circumflex that my computer cannot
even print. For that reason, some Esperantists use s^, others ^s, others sx,
and none of these agrees with Zamenhof's solution, which was to use, guess
what! sh! 

>what are the benefits of these exceptions? how are they superior to the =
>esperanto system of phonemic spelling?

Digraphs are superior to diacritics, because all computers, typewriters, etc.
can produce them. If you simply consider "ch" and "qu" as single symbols, they
at least are more familiar than "sx" and "jx" which Esperantists are forced
to use because the circumflexed letters Zamenhof invented are not available
on most people's machines.

>> The rules for word formation in Ido are very similar to Esperanto; those of
>> Novial, while different, are still not that far removed. If you do not know
>
>please, because i don't know the word formation rules of novial, could =
>you explain them? the rules for ido are essentially different from the =
>esperanto ones.
The rules for Ido are hardly different from those of Esperanto. There is a
parallelism of -ul with the E-o -in, causing a less sexist arrangement. And
a few suffixes exist that E-o did not have, but it is an expansion of the E-o
system.

Novial has a list of affixes, just as does E-o, but they are different. Look
at my Novial pages; I will not repeat here what I've already put up there.

>> any Romance or Germanic language, the vocabulary of all three will be =>about
>> equally hard or easy. But the grammar of Esperanto, with its =>accusative
>> ending, its agreement rules, etc., is far harder than Esperanto's.
>>=20
>> To Esperanto
>> granda homo, grandan homon, grandaj homoj, grandajn homojn
>>=20
>> corresponds Ido
>> granda homo, granda homo, granda homi, granda homi
>> (no need to mark accusative, except in inverted order!)
>>=20
>> and Novial
>> grandi home, grandi home, grandi homes, grandi homes
>> (again - no need to mark accusative, except in inverted order!))
>>=20
>> Now, to a Chinese, who has to learn all these words from scratch, but =>who
>> has no adjective/noun agreement nor accusative endings, which is =>easier?
>
>hm. in esperanto you have to learn one rule to mark subject and direct =
>object which is alway applied. in ido and in novial you have to learn =
>two rules and additionally the rules, when to use which.

No. In Novial, you can essentially ignore the -m ending. In 99.99% of all
Novial text, you follow one rule. The subject immediately precedes the verb.
So you learn ONE rule.

Esperantists need to learn that the accusative ending does not always mark the
direct object. It can also mean a preposition has been omitted (Rule 13) In
Novial, you don't need an accusative ending, almose _ever_.

>
>in all three languages, it has to be marked, which adjectives belong to =
>which substantives. whether you mark this by word order or by "suffixes" =
>is per se pretty much unimportant. but in ido and in novial you have to =
>learn and to use _both_ ways. why is learning and use of two rules =
>easier than that of one rule?
>
No, in Novial the adjective is always adjacent to the noun. There is nothing
gained by marking an adjective for case or number, as there is never going
to be confusion as to which noun an adjective goes with if you just keep the
adjective near the noun.

>chinese has no compulsory plural marker. why don't you support non =
>compulsory plural in novial? maybee because novial is not so much =
>orientated on chinese, but more on english and the modern romance =
>languages? or will there be in the next release of novial a new =
>recodification on this topic? (sorry, but i didn't manage to reach the =
>n97 pages today to controll this.)

Actually, even in 1928 Novial, plurals are not compulsory. But here you are
asking for a feature in Novial (which actually _was_already_ put into the
original version!) that does not exist in Esperanto!

>btw, how do you translate "the child who sees me" into novial? and how =
>"the child i see"?
Li puere ke vida(r) me. Li puere ke me vida(r). (The r's in 1997 Novial only)

The word order rule says that the subject immediately precedes the verb. Simple?

                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: brg@netcom.com
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)
