How did Gode betray the original commision of IALA ? / Cómo ha Gode trair la missión original de IALA ?
What would your "practical" approach look like ? / Cómo se viderea tuo infocamento práctico ?
So, in other words, the betrayal lies in that they didn't construct new language with new grammar and vocabulary, but they just explored the former proposals, say, Latina sine flexione, Novial etc. Is that correct ?bartlett scribeva:From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.
What do you mean by "theoretical purism" ?Esperanto, of course, is the best example. (...) it has remained faithful to Zamenhof's original design. There have been additions to the vocabulary to cover new experiences, but they have always been within the context of the fundamentals. Some people may use slightly different styles, but they are just that, styles, and not changes to the bases of the language. No changes to elementary grammatical words. (...) stability is crucial. (...) I am so opposed to theoretical purism
bangiolo20 scribeva:bartlett scribeva:From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.
So, in other words, the betrayal lies in that they didn't construct new language with new grammar and vocabulary, but they just explored the former proposals, say, Latina sine flexione, Novial etc. Is that correct ?
bangiolo20 scribeva:What do you mean by "theoretical purism" ?bartlett scribeva:Esperanto, of course, is the best example. (...) it has remained faithful to Zamenhof's original design. There have been additions to the vocabulary to cover new experiences, but they have always been within the context of the fundamentals. Some people may use slightly different styles, but they are just that, styles, and not changes to the bases of the language. No changes to elementary grammatical words. (...) stability is crucial. (...) I am so opposed to theoretical purism
At any time who accused them to be betrayers (1)?bartlett scribeva:From everything I have read, the original commission of the International Auxiliary Language Association as established by the Vanderbilts was to study and choose among existing conIALs, NOT to construct a new one. To that extent Gode and colleagues' having done so was, in a sense, a betrayal of the original intent of the IALA.
Esperanto PMEG illustrates interpretation range of Zamenhof's Fundamento "corset".bartlett scribeva:No proposals to the basic structures have ever succeeded (a proposed new columns to the correlatives table has not really caught on). No changes to elementary grammatical words. Throughout the generations Esperantists for the most part have realized that stability is crucial.
But grade/level of "grapheme-phoneme-correspondence"(1) seems to be different between English and Interlingua.bangiolo20 scribeva:Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.
bangiolo20 scribeva:Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.
Maybe Denisowski's vocabulary list could be interesting for you.bangiolo20 scribeva:Sometimes I've got an impression that interlingua is just a literally translated English with somewhat simplified Latin words.
Retro a(l) Discussion in other languages
Usatores qui lege iste foro: Nulle usatores registrate e 2 visitantes