On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:07:58 -0700, "simple_language@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<simple_language@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>>>1. Are the words easy to pronounce? Are there any consonant clusters?
>
>If the auxlang is used as an auxiliary language, we can estimate the
>ease of pronunciation from natural languages.
No, actually you can't. The point is that speakers of language X will
always find language X easy, even if everyone else in the world thinks
it's hard. One of the criticisms levelled against English as an
auxlang is that it's hard to learn. Yet tens of millions of people
learn it with ease and hundreds of millions speak it with native level
fluency. The grass is always greener on the other side.
>>>5. Are there any mnemonic links between morphemes that make it easier
>>>to memorize the morphemes? Are there any other ideas that minimize the
>>>burden of memorizing the vocabulary?
>
>> Too specific. The phenomenon is only applicable to a language that has
>> menmonic links between morphemes that make it easier to memorise the
>> morphemes. I'm presuming that Ygyde has them. Therefore, in your
>> estimation, it is a superior auxlang.
>
>Morphemes are the building blocks of compound words.
Morphemes are the building blocks of words in general. Roots and
affixes.
>To the best of my
>knowledge all auxlangs have compound words, so all auxlangs have
>morphemes.
A language built of pure simples (semantic primitives) would be a
fascinating experiment, but a useless auxlang.
>aUI language has only 31 morphemes. Ygyde has 180 morphemes
>and about 400 of other predefined words. Lojban has 1350 morphemes.
>Most mature auxlangs have thousands of morphemes. Short morphemes make
>short compound words, but they are hard to memorize because they are
>similar.
A problem with Ygyde, to be sure. It looks like an old fa****oned
philosophical language. No doubt a lot of work went into it, but
everything looks and sounds the same. It's all ufo ufa ifi obe abe
ibi. Such a design, elegant as the tables and grammar are, prevent
ease of learning.
>This means that memorizing the morphemes is a huge burden
>regardless of their number.
The burden is much reduced when the auxlang contains familiar elements
(this is why "agnostico" is easier to remember for an English speaker
than "ocelipy", and by the way, "noun religious no meaning person" is
not really what agnostic means). I understand that you're building up
meaty words with small pieces, but that's not really a sensible
approach for an auxlang. The hallmark of a good auxlang is, above all
else, ease of communication. If I have to memorise 500some forms and
half a million ways to combine them to make sense, the tast is not
worth doing. With a typical auxlang, I can learn a few hundred words
and put them together in a way I already know how to do. It makes
communication much easier. And alsmost instantly, I can interact with
a community of other speakers. Ygyde will never afford me even that
simple leap forward.
>The mnemonic links between the morphemes
>ease this burden.
So it seems to you.
>Ygyde has lots of mnemonic links. Sona has fewer
>links (and lots of obvious errors). Ygyde colors follow a few simple
>rules that make it easy to guess the color you do not know.
All the colour names look alike. I still have to memorise dozens and
scores of words on a chart of colours that look alike. I don't see any
difference between hudy and uta and hugy and uka and uci and huji
and usi and... you get the point. They're all purple.
>>>8. Is it terse?
>
>> This contradicts point 6. Which is it? Terse or longwinded?
>
>Terseness means terseness of words.
Yes. So which is it? Terse or longwinded?
>Point 8 does not contradict point
>6, but it may contradict point 1. If the words easy to pronounce, they
>are probably made of small number of phonemes (sounds, letters). Small
>number of phonemes may result in long words.
Ease of pronunciation is in the mouth of the beholder. You think
consonant clusters are hard. I think they're easy. For you, "stop" is
harder than "allocution" because the former has a cluster.
>> I think it's a pointless exercise to create a wholly new and alien
>> language and expect people to start using it -- that _detracts_ from
>> communication rather than sup****ts it; especially given that there
>> already exists a supreme and worldwide auxlang. A lingua franca that
>> could be used by speakers of similar languages is a much smarter idea,
>> but also is not terribly useful for a speaker of a very different
>> language.
>
>I generally agree. This is the reason why euroclones are the most
>popular artificial auxlangs (conIALs), and the reason why nearly all
>users of euroclones live in Europe.
That's as it should be. Esperanto, for all its history and touted ease
of learning, is really no better than English for a Cantonese speaker
-- it has little in it that is familiar and both are equally alien.
This is why I think auxlangs are best put to use are regional lingua
francas. Creating a third language that neither the French speaker nor
the Mongolian speaker know certainly levels the playing field, because
now they're both equally ignorant and eqaully out of their element.
However, if the French speaker is forced to learn Mongolian, at least
he can rely on a community of Mongolian speakers who are intimately
familiar with the language to figure out what he's trying to say.
In other words, when a foreign tourist comes here with little English,
I can still help him with what he needs because I can fill in gaps and
extrapolate. If we both have to rely on a third language that we know
imperfectly, I might send him completely wrong. If we have to rely on
a third language that is unwieldy and overly cumbersome and completely
alien, then we will probably give up.
>The natural languages used all
>over the world have only a few percent of common words. I have found
>it out with a simple test; I picked up randomly 10 English words from
>the Unabridged Webster's dictionary, and I looked for translation of
>these words into 5 languages. English = E, Russian = R, Hungarian = H,
>Arabic = A, Hindi = I (like India), Mandarin = M
>
>E = cell, R = kletka,
>E = burnable,
>E = chowder,
>E = convincing,
>E = expenditure,
>E = grimy,
>E = isolator, R = izoljator,
>E = measure,
>E = our,
>E = priest,
You didn't look too hard. Convincing has a translation in French
convaincant and Spanish & Italian convincente. Measure has French
mesure and Italian misura. Priest has pretre and presbitero.
Chowder and grimy are not common words, even in English. You could try
synonyms. Given that English's lexicon is anywhere between 20 and 40%
Romance (mostly from French), I don't think your simple selection to
be accurate. I could easily choose a ten word sample that has 90%
cognates in three Romance languages.
In the end, even a few cognates is better than no cognates and a
totally alien vocabulary.
>Even within the european languages the common words are not very
>common. "Taksi" is _monit_ in Hebrew, "bus" is _linjaauto_ in Finnish,
>"phone" is _fernsprecher_ in German, "mathematics" is _riyaDiyah_ in
>Arabic. This means that a completely abstract auxlang, like Ygyde may
>succeed if it is well designed and well marketed.
I disagree. You're proposing a completely alien language when there is
already a familiar and well known auxlang in the market. In the end
Ygyde's own abstraction and monotonous quality (all the words look and
sound alike) will bring it down.
These, of course, are my own opinions. I am not an auxlanger. If you'd
like to try and market your product on the ideal potential user:
someone who would appreciate being able to easily communicate with
others who don't share the same language, and also someone who doesn't
already have a cock in the auxlang ring and therefore is outside of
the auxlang politicking -- convince me!
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
