An Esperanto-based language

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 583
Joined: 28 Nov 2013 14:47

An Esperanto-based language

Post by Squall » 28 Apr 2014 22:20

This is my own Esperanto reform.

Alphabet
Unchanged letters:
a e o
b d f g k l m n p r s t v z

Changes:
/i, u/ are unstressed near another vowel and they are allophones of /j, w/.
/i, u/ must be written as <ii, uu> to be stressed near another vowel.

ŝ -> c (/ʃ/)
j -> i
ĵ -> j (/ʒ/)
ŭ -> u
ĥ -> k (if there is no collision) or h
h has two allophones: /h x/
r is /ɾ/

I think it is a stupid idea to have a special letter to combined sounds, such as tʃ. Other possible combinations (pr, pl, br, bl...) do not have special letter. It is easier to write the two phonemes that generate the combined sound.
c -> ts
ĉ -> tc
ĝ -> dj

Some words were changed
<kv, gv> -> <ku, gu> (akua, lingua)
<m> before consonant or in the end -> <n> (kanpo) (The pronunciation does not change.)
<s> in the beginning followed with consonant -> <is> (strato -> istrato)
A word cannot be started with two plosive consonants.
A word cannot be started with a plosive consonant followed with <m, n>. (knabo -> nabo)
Voiced plosive consonant in the end of a syllable -> Its unvoiced counterpart
Simplification of long consonant clusters. (dekstra -> destra)

Some affixes were changed
mal- (opposite) -> pal(i)

When two opposites are symmetric and we cannot say what extreme is "positive", we have a pair of words instead of using the prefix. Ex: 'destra' 'sinstra' (right, left), 'maskla' 'femina' (male female)

If the last letter of a prefix is the same as the first letter of a root, add "i" between the prefix and the root.

Correlatives
"-en" is a new suffix to use in correlatives to refer to animate things (humans, animals).
"–u" is the generic correlative that is followed with a noun.
"ali-" (other) was changed to "al-".

These are the changes in "Fundamentals of Esperanto". Some things that are unchanged from Esperanto were rewritten to be more clear.

1. Articles:
-The definite article is 'Le'.

2. Nouns:
-There is no accusative case anymore. The preferred word order is SVO. OSV is grammatically correct as an alternative.
-The plural is marked with "-s".
-The nouns are always gender-neutral. The gender is inserted with suffix: -itco (male), -ino (female). The exception is 'parento', 'patro' and 'matro' (parent, father and mother).
-If the root represents an adjective, the use of "-o" will make it mean "thing that is this-adjective". 'Le blanko' means 'the white one' or 'the white thing'. If you want to say "white-ness", use '-etso' ('blanketso').

3. Adjectives:
-There is no agreement in adjectives anymore.
-The adjective is always inserted after the noun.
-If the root represents an adjective, the use of "-i" will make it mean "to be this-adjective". In other cases, use "-igi" (to cause) or "-idji" (become).
-The ending "-a" also means generic genitive.

4. Numbers:
The suffix of cardinal numbers is "-oi".
zeroi, unoi, dutoi, trisoi, kuatoi, kuinoi, sesoi, sepoi, okoi, navoi
dekoi, centoi, miloi

5. Personal pronouns:
No case inflection.

mi (1SG)
di (always singular 'you')
li (always male), ci (always female), gi (any/unknown gender or genderless)

ni (exclusive 'we')
pi (inclusive 'we')
vi (always plural 'you')
ri (they)

si ('self', reflexive of any person)
oni ('one')

Possessive pronouns: -a.

6. Verbs
Few changes.

'esti' (to be) was changed to 'esi'.

This verb system has many redundancies:
-Mi mandjis iu biskuito.
-Mi mandjintas iu biskuito.
-Mi esas mandjinta iu biskuito.
-Mi esas iu mandjinto de iu biskuito.
Everything means the same thing ("I ate a cookie.")

The future uses 'us, unt*' instead of 'os, ont*'. (Because I changed the plural.)
The conditional is '-es'.

There is no preposition between the verb in the finite passive form and the complement (the doer).

The imperative without subject means 2SG. You must add 'vi' or 'pi' if there are more people.

The habitual aspect uses the verb 'kutimi', instead of using passive forms.

7. Adverbs
No changes. (-e)

Other rules
8. There is no case system. All prepositions take the nominative. See rule 14 to take the accusative.
9. See the alphabet
10. The penultimate syllable is always stressed.

11. Compound words require the use of hyphen. The main word is put in the beginning. Ex: cipo-vapora instead of vaporŝipo (steamboat)
12. Double negative nullify the negation and the sentence becomes affirmative.
13. Places and directions require prepositions: location (en), origin (del), destination (al)

14. The preposition 'je' was changed. Now it is only used to distinguish statements like "He treated me like a prince", some comparisons and some expressions like 'anstatau'.
-Li traktis mi kiel printso (He acted like a prince)
-Li traktis mi kiel ie printso (I was treated like a prince)

15. A foreign word is only converted into language if no equivalent one already exists.
*Foreign names are converted to the phonology. If the name ends with consonant, the suffix "-o" is added.
*Names of cities and countries are based on the name that the local people call themselves.
*Names of foreign animals, plants, food and objects are based on the original etymology.

16. The 'e' of the definite article and the final 'o' of substantives cannot be dropped anymore. (At least in the written form.)
Last edited by Squall on 05 Jun 2015 16:42, edited 8 times in total.
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6415
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by eldin raigmore » 29 Apr 2014 08:13

Squall wrote:Most conlangers have their own Esperanto-based conlang.
:?: We do? :?:
I even doubt most conlangers attempt an IAL of any sort.

(Otherwise, I like what you've said in your post.)

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4608
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Creyeditor » 29 Apr 2014 09:25

eldin raigmore wrote:
Squall wrote:Most conlangers have their own Esperanto-based conlang.
:?: We do? :?:
I even doubt most conlangers attempt an IAL of any sort.

(Otherwise, I like what you've said in your post.)
I tried an IAL when I was younger. I just reduced phoneme inventories and morphology [:D]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2413
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 20:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Egerius » 29 Apr 2014 10:52

Squall wrote:Most conlangers have their own Esperanto-based conlang.
È... co? Si pesas que akèsso est una mudaçóne delo Espereranto, pesavas male. [}:(]
Umm... hwæt? If you think that this is a mutation of Esperanto, you thought wrong.

[+1] to Edlin's post.

I don't have an IAL and won't have any as I think of IALs as more or less useless and limited to the audience (eurocentrism). Don't get me wrong - Esperanto looks nice, but auxlangs are a bit 1984-ish.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Serena » 29 Apr 2014 13:32

I don't quite agree with your slaughter of the grammar system.
  • The plural in -s creates many ambiguities, Eg. ali-o-s (Others) vs ali-os (Will be different). Changing the future time suffix corrupts the perfection of this system with no reason. It's quite better to just leave the plural unchanged.
  • Removing accusatives locks the word order to SVO, which is slightly eurocentric and kinda boring.
  • I hate hyphens.
  • The habitual aspect already exists in Esperanto with the passive constructions. No need for the "usi" verb.
  • There's a quite logical reason why the adjectives agree with the nouns. I'd leave it unchanged.
[tick] I like the hypothetical mood in -e-.

User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Click » 29 Apr 2014 13:40

Removing the accusative doesn’t have to lock the word order to SVO.

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Serena » 29 Apr 2014 13:59

Click wrote:Removing the accusative doesn’t have to lock the word order to SVO.
It doesn't need specifically to be SVO, but it requires to add a fixed word order, which Squall suggests to be SVO.

User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Click » 29 Apr 2014 14:06

It doesn’t. For most intents and purposes, there would be no ambiguity between the subject and the object in a SOV sentence if a language requires a conjunction in ‘A and B V’ constructions, where A and B are arguments and V is the predicate.

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Serena » 29 Apr 2014 14:34

Actually in Esperanto, there would be several problems with those verbs that can be used as both transitives and intransitives, like "shati", which is both "to like" (when it has a direct object) and "to please, to appeal" (when it doesn't).
- Virino belo(n) shatas [The woman likes the beautiful one]
- Virino belo shatas [The woman is appealing when beautiful]
In my honest opinion cases are useful. If you, click, have another opinion, feel free to state it without claiming that mine is useless.

User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 307
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by prettydragoon » 29 Apr 2014 19:10

eldin raigmore wrote:
Squall wrote:Most conlangers have their own Esperanto-based conlang.
:?: We do? :?:
*blush* I do.

Actually, mine is a total jokelang, but still.
Image
♀♥♀
I too have a minicity.

User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Click » 29 Apr 2014 19:17

Serena wrote:In my honest opinion cases are useful. If you, click, have another opinion, feel free to state it without claiming that mine is useless.
I respect your opinion, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 583
Joined: 28 Nov 2013 14:47

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Squall » 29 Apr 2014 19:24

This is not only a reform of Esperanto. I added more useless changes for fun. [:)]

If it were only a reform, the changes would be small: the alphabet, the adjective agreement, the accusative, the second-person singular and the gender asymmetry.

Actually I have no good reason to change the plural, the article, and the prefix 'mal-'. These are NOT my criticism against Esperanto. I only wanted to have some fun, because...
Spoiler:
The changes would make the language more friendly for speakers of Iberian Romance languages in the first day. [:D]
'-s' is more friendly, 'la' sounds too feminine, 'mal-' reminds the words 'badly' and 'wrongly' instead of 'opposite'.

Of course, these things are not problems for most languages of the world. Other languages may have small problems in other parts of the grammar.
Most languages are SVO or SOV. In other words, the subject as the first component is very common. SVO is boring because it is common and introduces nothing new or different, but it is very easy. A fixed word order is also easy to learn.
I think it is more natural to start a sentence with the focus due to the order of the thoughts.
The subject is usually the focus, but the object can be the focus and the passive voice allows you to invert the order into OVS.

Why cannot Esperanto fix 'shati' with the accusative or the passive form?
-La personino shatas la belo. (The woman likes the beautiful one.)

-La personinon shatas. (The woman is pleasing.)
-La personino shatatas. (The woman is liked.)

In my conlang, I use the passive form.
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6415
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by eldin raigmore » 30 Apr 2014 00:08

Squall wrote:Most languages are SVO or SOV.
The Word-Order features in WALS.info are features 81A through 97A and features 143A through 144Y.
According to feature 81A, out of 1377 languages,

Code: Select all

 
 41.0% are SOV
 35.4% are SVO
  6.9% are VSO
  1.8% are VOS
  0.8% are OVS
  0.3% are OSV
 13.7% have no single dominant order.
So 83.3% have S before O (versus 2.9% that have O before S),
76.7% have S before V (versus 9.5% that have V before S),
and 44.1% have V before O (versus 42.1% that have O before V).

Also,

Code: Select all

what comes first:
76.5% are subject-initial
 8.7% are verb-iniial
 1.1% are object-initial

Code: Select all

what comes in the middle:
42.8% are object-medial
36.2% are verb-medial
 7.2% are subject-medial

Code: Select all

what comes last:
42.3% are object-final
41.3% are verb-final
 2.6% are subject-final

Code: Select all

where does the subject go:
76.5% are subject-initial
 7.2% are subject-medial
 2.6% are subject-final

Code: Select all

where does the object go:
42.8% are object-medial
42.3% are object-final
 1.1% are object-initial

Code: Select all

where does the verb go:
41.3% are verb-final
36.2% are verb-medial
 8.7% are verb-iniial
Feature 81B, "languages with two dominant orders of Subject, Verb, and Object", has, out of 67 languages:

Code: Select all

43% are SOV or SVO
21% are VSO or VOS
19% are SVO or VSO
12% are SVO or VOS
 4% are SOV or OVS
That probably still leaves nearly 10% of the world's languages with word-order that's even more flexible.

Squall wrote:I think it is more natural to start a sentence with the focus due to the order of the thoughts.
The subject is usually the focus, but the object can be the focus and the passive voice allows you to invert the order into OVS.
Russian, among other languages, is supposed to come in the order Given first, New last.
In Topic-Comment clauses in topic-prominent languages, the Topic is always before the Comment.
"Topicalization" usually moves the topic to the front of the clause.

"Natural order of thoughts" is probably Topic first, Focus last; or Ground first, Kontrast last; or Given first, New last; etc.

There's a paper in a peer-refereed linguistics journal suggesting something like,
the "natural" word-order might be something like T-VSO-F or Topic-Verb-Subject-Object-Focus.

What this might mean could be;:

If the Topic is the Subject, then if the Focus is the Verb, the order is SOV; but if the Topic is the Subject and Focus is not the Verb (e.g. it's the Object, or there is no Focus) then the order is SVO.

If the Topic is the Object and the Focus is the Verb then the order is OSV; but if the Topic is the Object and the Focus is not the Verb (e.g. it's the Subject, or there is no Focus) then the order is OVS.

If there is no Topic, then if the Focus is the Verb the order is SOV; if there is no Topic and the Focus is the Subject then the order is VOS; if there is no Topic and either there is no Focus or the Focus is the Object then the order is VSO.


Such a language could have any of the six word-orders being grammatical, depending on the pragmatics.

If the Topic is the Subject the S comes first; if the Topic is the Object the O comes first; if there is no Topic then the Verb comes first unless the Focus is the Verb.
If the Focus is the Subject the S comes last; if the Focus is the Verb the V comes last; if the Focus is the Object or there is no Focus, the O comes last.
So any of V or S or O can be first, and any of the three can be last. So all six word-orders are possible, depending on the pragmatics.

[hr][/hr]
[hr][/hr]


About whether not having cases would require the distinction between Agent and Patient, or between Subject and Object, to be made via word-order;
No, it wouldn't.
The morphological marking of these relationships can occur in none, or any one, or any two, or even all three, of three locations.

* It can be marked on the "head", in this case, the verb.
The verb can be marked with semantic and/or grammatical information (e.g. definiteness, gender, number, person, referentiality/specificity) about its Subject, and also differently marked with semantic and/or grammatical information about its Object.
That's not case-marking. It's a polypersonal agreement marking. Maybe it's sort of like a kind of voice-marking.

* It can be marked on the "dependents", in this case the Subject and Object (or Agent and Patient) nouns.
That is case-marking.

* It can be marked on a "floating marker", which is marked to show what kind of relationship it's about -- e.g. the Subject relationship or the Object relationship -- and with semantic and/or grammatical information about the Head of the relationship, and with semantic and/or grammatical information about the Dependent of the relationship.
Since that marks neither the noun nor the verb, it's neither case-marking nor agreement-marking nor voice-marking.


Only if none of the above are used is the entire burden of showing which is Subject and which is Object shifted from morphology to syntax. In that case word-order is indeed just about all that's left, or a big part of what's left, to carry that load.

OTOH if any two of the above are used -- especially if both head-marking and dependent-marking are used -- word-order could be completely free (except for pragmatics).
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 06 May 2014 09:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6415
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by eldin raigmore » 06 May 2014 09:05

Click wrote:It doesn’t. For most intents and purposes, there would be no ambiguity between the subject and the object in a SOV sentence if a language requires a conjunction in ‘A and B V’ constructions, where A and B are arguments and V is the predicate.
Do you mean that
"Jon hamburger ate"
and
"hamburger Jon ate"
and
"ate Jon hamburger"
and
"ate hamburger Jon"
are all unlikely to be construed as a Big Mac devouring our Jonathan?

'Cause that's certainly right. It's just about universally known, and most people are quite certain about it, that guys are likelier to eat burgers than burgers are to eat guys.

In this particular simple transitive clauses it is unnecessary to mark which of the two participants was the Agent and which was the Patient.
It has been argued by professional linguisticians that in most simple transitive clauses it's already apparent which argument is the Agent and which the Patient even without any marking on the verb or any of the nouns and even if the word-order is re-arranged.

On the other hand, in any language there are clauses the speakers want to say in which it is necessary to somehow communicate which noun is the agent and which is the patient.
In some languages, in effect, all of the four "ate hamburger Jon" etc. clauses I wrote earlier would be grammatical, and all would grammatically be interpretable as either participant consuming the other.

Suppose we want to say something about an incident of domestic violence between Jack and Jill.

In some languages, in effect, "Jack Jill hit" and "Jill Jack hit" are both grammatical and both might mean either that Jack hit Jill or that Jill hit Jack. (SOV and OSV are equally grammatical, and there are no case-markers, and the verb doesn't agree with the gender of either participant.)
And in some languages, in effect, "hit Jack Jill" and "hit Jill Jack" are both grammatical and both might mean either that Jack hit Jill or that Jill hit Jack. (VSO and VOS are equally grammatical, and there are no case-markers, and the verb doesn't agree with the gender of either participant.)
In these languages some additional clause is needed to disambiguate who got hit and who did the hitting.

Unless, that is, we see right in front of us that Jack has a black eye and a puffy lip, and Jill seems to have sprained some fingers.

I hope what I just wrote will support what Click was trying to say. I think it supports what I think he was trying to say.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4740
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by DesEsseintes » 06 May 2014 09:58

Do you mean that
"Jon hamburger ate"
and
"hamburger Jon ate"
and
"ate Jon hamburger"
and
"ate hamburger Jon"
are all unlikely to be construed as a Big Mac devouring our Jonathan?


I don't think that is what Click means here. He states explicitly that he is speaking of an SOV language, i.e. a language with relatively fixed word order. In such a language.

John Kelly killed.

Would always mean Kelly was the one who died.

However, potential ambiguity in a sentence like

John Rose Kelly killed.

- where we don't know whether John killed Rose and Kelly or John and Rose killed Kelly - would be resolved by making the conjunction and compulsory between arguments with the same role.

Or that is how I construed it.

User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Click » 06 May 2014 10:51

DesEsseintes wrote:
Spoiler:
Do you mean that
"Jon hamburger ate"
and
"hamburger Jon ate"
and
"ate Jon hamburger"
and
"ate hamburger Jon"
are all unlikely to be construed as a Big Mac devouring our Jonathan?
I don't think that is what Click means here. He states explicitly that he is speaking of an SOV language, i.e. a language with relatively fixed word order. In such a language.

John Kelly killed.

Would always mean Kelly was the one who died.

However, potential ambiguity in a sentence like

John Rose Kelly killed.

- where we don't know whether John killed Rose and Kelly or John and Rose killed Kelly - would be resolved by making the conjunction and compulsory between arguments with the same role.

Or that is how I construed it.
You got it right. [:)]

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6415
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by eldin raigmore » 06 May 2014 15:20

Click wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:…. (too much good stuff to quote it all) ….
You got it right. [:)]
Oh! [:O] :!: [:$]
O.K. That's a good point. I didn't go far enough back in the thread to find that.

Was what I said interesting anyway?

Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 583
Joined: 28 Nov 2013 14:47

Re: Another Esperanto-based language

Post by Squall » 06 May 2014 17:49

"The hamburger ate Jon"
If I want to tell horror stories, I will need a way to tell that a cursed hamburger is able to eat people. [:D]

The distinction is needed in other cases with 'eat':
"Many small fish ate the big fish."
"The big fish ate many small fish."
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]

Post Reply