Atlas: new auxlang

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 05 Sep 2017 16:12

New tool for Atlas! A colleague from another forum has made this incredible tool in order to learn Atlas words, with sounds/pronunciation included!

https://www.memrise.com/course/1625505/524-atlas-roots/

Words are separated by language of origin, which is great too. I hope you enjoy!

For more information on Atlas, the new auxlang, as always visit: www.atlas-language.blogspot.com

Thanks!

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 06 Sep 2017 01:14

Are there any (semantic) difference between the following kinds of construction:
-A noun modified by another noun
-A noun modified by an adjective
-A compound of two (or more) roots.

Take, for instance, the example oixa de he-tene, 'teacher of meteorology', that appears in the grammar. Would it make any difference if I used a noun + adjective construction, oixa teni? Or a compound, tenoixa?

Or, to take two words i grabbed from the dictionary, batu 'house' and duzu 'stone'. Would there be any difference between the following constructions:

batu de duzu 'house of stone'
batu duzi 'stone(y) house'
duzbatu 'stonehouse'

Would any of the above constructions be ill-formed? If so, why?

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 06 Sep 2017 22:28

That is an interesting question Xing.

- a noun modifies another noun using "de" when they both keep their full meaning.

al-xise de al-dine - the beginning of the day.

- an adjective is added to a noun when it is describing it:

al-xise bani - the good beginning

- two roots are added in order to create a new meaning, inspired or using both (or more) words:

- al-dinxise: sunrise (for instance)

Now with your examples it is a bit more complicated to tell. Different languages do it in different ways. For instance you could say "stoney house" in English, but you cannot say that in Spanish. You say "casa de piedra" in Spanish, but you use preposition "aus" in German.
I would say, in this case I would use:

batu duzi - stoney house, because it is describing it.
duzbatu - would be OK if there was a kind of houses made of stones. Actually there is, so if you were describing to that kind of houses, it could be OK.
batu de duzu - I would say this would be my least preferred one, but still possible.

As for "teacher of meteorology", use the same concept:

oixa teni - I would say no, because "weather" is not modifying "teacher".
oixa de tene - Yes, both words keep their original meanings.
tenoixa - why not, there is a set kind of teacher that is a "teacher of meteorology" I guess so it would be OK.

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 06 Sep 2017 23:11

Rodiniye wrote:That is an interesting question Xing.

- a noun modifies another noun using "de" when they both keep their full meaning.
But even if both words 'keep their full meaning', they ways in which the one word is modified by the other may be very different. Compare 1) 'teacher of meteorology' with 2) 'beginning of the day'. Now clearly 'meteorology' does not modify 'teacher' in the same way 'beginning' modify 'day'.

In which was can nouns modify other nouns, using the particle 'de'?

Some more questions:

- Can regular prepositions/prepositional phrases work adnominally (to modify nouns), or do they always work adverbially (as complements or adjuncts to verbs)? That is, could you say something like 'the man on the moon'? Or can you only say things like 'the man lives on the moon', using 'regular' prepositions?

- Could you further elaborate the distinction between the permanent and non-permanent verbal aspects? Especially in which ways it's different from a perfective-imperfective distinction, and why you chose it rather than a more 'orthodox' perfective-imperfective distinction?

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 07 Sep 2017 22:32

they ways in which the one word is modified by the other may be very different
You are right. The noun to the left is the modified noun, and to the right the modifier noun.

You will agree with me that "mathematical teacher" is not the same as "teacher of mathematics". In the first one, the adjective is describing the noun. In the second one they are complementing each other and both are keeping their meaning.
Can regular prepositions/prepositional phrases work adnominally (to modify nouns), or do they always work adverbially (as complements or adjuncts to verbs)? That is, could you say something like 'the man on the moon'? Or can you only say things like 'the man lives on the moon', using 'regular' prepositions?
Yes they can, or even act as adverbs: "I was here before" - "Wi zaret ei te vo"
Could you further elaborate the distinction between the permanent and non-permanent verbal aspects? Especially in which ways it's different from a perfective-imperfective distinction
I know it is not very scientific, but take Wikipedia's definition for instance:

"The perfective aspect (abbreviated PFV), sometimes called the aoristic aspect,[1] is a grammatical aspect used to describe an action viewed as a simple whole—a unit without interior composition. The perfective aspect is distinguished from the imperfective aspect, which presents an event as having internal structure (such as ongoing, continuous, or habitual actions). The term perfective should be distinguished from perfect (see below)."

So this is obviously not how Atlas works. Not even pefect-imperfective.

So in Atlas this is different.

Permanent actions are those lasting for a long time (how much? certainly more than a few days, but there is no strict rule). General truths come here too. In English they would be things like:

I am 18
New York is a beautiful city
Pollution levels in China are dangerous
I work in Lufthansa

Non permanent actions: those lasting for seconds, or minutes, or hours. Like:

I am watching TV
I have been to New York (but for a few days, not permanently).
I can see you (now) -
I am nice (now, but maybe not always) - compare to "I am always nice", being permanent.
I went to the doctor yesterday
I am studying Maths - now - (in opposition to I am studying at uni, for instance, as a permanent action).

As you can see, English uses all sorts of tenses (simple tenses, perfect, continuous...). This is the reason why it is impossible pretty much to translate directly from a language.

All you need to ask yourself in Atlas is: is this action permanent? lasting for a long time in time? If yes, "i" interfix, if not, "e". Easy!

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 07 Sep 2017 23:17

Rodiniye wrote:
You are right. The noun to the left is the modified noun, and to the right the modifier noun.
No, no no... It's not that the one nouns is modified, and the other is a modifier. It's that the way in which the modifier modifies the modified is very different in the different examples.

Take the following phrases:

The end of the line
A piece of the cake
A sack of money
A cloth of linen
A man of few words
The taste of victory
The tragedy of her death
The word of God
The law of the land
The capital of North Carolina

In each of the above expressions, a modifier noun (to the right) modifies a head noun (to the left), but the ways in which the modifier nouns modifies the head nouns are very different. The question is which of the above constructions would be allowed in Atlas, and which would wouldn't. (And some languages allow for more ways in which a noun can modify another noun; where English would prefer maybe an adjective or a prepositional phrase.)

You will agree with me that "mathematical teacher" is not the same as "teacher of mathematics". In the first one, the adjective is describing the noun. In the second one they are complementing each other and both are keeping their meaning.
That's because English makes a difference. But just because English makes a clear difference between adjective and prepositional phrases doesn't mean it's a universal linguistic fact. Some languages might prefer to use an adjective where English would use a genitive phrase, or vice versa. And some languages lack a clear-cut distinction between adjectives and genitives (so that 'mathematical teacher' and 'teacher of mathematics' would be rendered in basically the same way).

I know it is not very scientific, but take Wikipedia's definition for instance:

"The perfective aspect (abbreviated PFV), sometimes called the aoristic aspect,[1] is a grammatical aspect used to describe an action viewed as a simple whole—a unit without interior composition. The perfective aspect is distinguished from the imperfective aspect, which presents an event as having internal structure (such as ongoing, continuous, or habitual actions). The term perfective should be distinguished from perfect (see below)."

So this is obviously not how Atlas works. Not even pefect-imperfective.

So in Atlas this is different.

Permanent actions are those lasting for a long time (how much? certainly more than a few days, but there is no strict rule). General truths come here too. In English they would be things like:

I am 18
New York is a beautiful city
Pollution levels in China are dangerous
I work in Lufthansa

Non permanent actions: those lasting for seconds, or minutes, or hours. Like:

I am watching TV
I have been to New York (but for a few days, not permanently).
I can see you (now) -
I am nice (now, but maybe not always) - compare to "I am always nice", being permanent.
I went to the doctor yesterday
I am studying Maths - now - (in opposition to I am studying at uni, for instance, as a permanent action).

As you can see, English uses all sorts of tenses (simple tenses, perfect, continuous...). This is the reason why it is impossible pretty much to translate directly from a language.

All you need to ask yourself in Atlas is: is this action permanent? lasting for a long time in time? If yes, "i" interfix, if not, "e". Easy!
But what is the reason you chose a permanent/non-permanent distinction? Are there any natlang precedents that inspired you?

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 09 Sep 2017 18:57

In each of the above expressions, a modifier noun (to the right) modifies a head noun (to the left), but the ways in which the modifier nouns modifies the head nouns are very different.
Atlas accepts any genitive construction (subject, object, causal...). Being an auxlang, I do not think there is any benefit in having strong and specific rules for each case, as speakers will be free to form constructions with particle "de" or adjectives as they wish.

Constructions with "de" are reccomended, however, except for the following constructions:

- substance: al-cibu zendati - A piece of gold/golden piece
- origin: al-itsa to Nihone - A person from Japan
- possession: al-kitu ne al-bena de wi - My son's/daughter's book

The last one is well described in the grammar. Appositions are constructed with "de".
But what is the reason you chose a permanent/non-permanent distinction? Are there any natlang precedents that inspired you?
I think it is an easy way of dealing with it. The permanent/non-permanent distinction was not taken from any natural language, it was more like an "accident" from reducing aspects from 4 initially to only 2. The permanent/non-permanent distinction makes it easy for the speaker to identify which one to use and gives a lot of information.

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Lao Kou » 10 Sep 2017 10:25

But what is the reason you chose a permanent/non-permanent distinction?
I think it is an easy way of dealing with it. The permanent/non-permanent distinction was not taken from any natural language, it was more like an "accident" from reducing aspects from 4 initially to only 2. The permanent/non-permanent distinction makes it easy for the speaker to identify which one to use and gives a lot of information.
I guess "a lot of information" is in the eye of the beholder. It's a distinction one can make, to be sure, but why make it at all in an IAL that claims to be easy-peasy? As an English speaker, I can attest that the estar/ser or stare/essere divide (and imperfect vs. point-in-time past for that matter) takes a little time to learn and master. Easy for you, perhaps, but not necessarily intuitive for us mere mortals. Indeed, you yourself offer:

He is (being) nice. (now, but maybe not always) -- helping a little old lady across the street
He is nice. -- Shimobaatar

grammatically Who cares?!

And as your own example testifies:
"I am always nice", being permanent.
an adverb covers the additional information deemed necessary.

I am afraid, friend, as dear Xing has been pointing out not so subtly, that you are taking an awful lot (of Europeaness) for granted.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 10 Sep 2017 17:43

We are talking about aspect here. Many other non-European languages have aspect... including Chinese, Arabic or Indonesian:
There are two aspect markers that are especially commonly used with past events: the perfective 了 le and the experiential 过 [過] guo. (Some authors, however, do not regard guo, or the zhe described below, as markers of aspect.[27]) Both le and guo immediately follow the verb. (There is also a sentence-final particle le, which serves a somewhat different purpose – see Particles.)
n literary Arabic (الفصحى, al-Fuṣḥa) the verb has two aspect-tenses: perfective (past), and imperfective (non-past). There is some disagreement among grammarians whether to view the distinction as a distinction in aspect, or tense, or both. The "Past Verb" (فعل ماضي, fi'l maadiy) denotes an event (حدث, hadath) completed in the past, but it says nothing about the relation of this past event to present status. For example, "وصل", wasala, "arrived", indicates that arrival occurred in the past without saying anything about the present status of the arriver - maybe they stuck around, maybe they turned around and left, etc. - nor about the aspect of the past event except insofar as completeness can be considered aspectual. This "Past Verb" is clearly similar if not identical to the Greek Aorist, which is considered a tense but is more of an aspect marker. In the Arabic, aorist aspect is the logical consequence of past tense.
The pre-verbal aspect markers in Indonesian form a complex system, where a modal meaning
often appears entangled with aspect. In this paper1, I intend to deal with four markers, sudah,
telah, pernah and sempat, that are often described as perfective aspect markers. It seems
surprising that the Indonesian language has four different grammatical morphemes available
to express one aspect

Aspect and modality in Indonesian The case of sudah, telah, pernah, and sempat (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... and_sempat [accessed Sep 10, 2017].
So, these languages have aspect. Maybe not using interfixes, but they do have aspect through particles or others. I would not say that aspect markers in Chinese for instance are straight forward.

So, Europeaness? I think not. Furthermore, many features in the language are clearly inspired in languages coming from all around the world. The "de" particle from Chinese, "xe" from Chinese too, article "al-" from Arabic... Even personal pronouns are partially inspired in Chinese. Atlas has no infinitive, no participle, no more verb prefixes, no declensions... Gender is optional... Yes some things might be inspired in European languages. Plurality? Yes obviously there are a few things, same as there are things in common with other languages, things that are coming from Asian languages, or African languages.

And back to aspect, yes, I think the distinction between "permanent" and "non-permanent" is easier than, let's say, "completed or not completed" action, or having an action affecting the present or not, etc. Aspect is very ambiguous in most languages, so it is very simplified in Atlas and still gives useful information. I admit, it could go and just forget about aspect. But as you have seen above, most languages do have aspect by using particles or adverbs, and it does get complicated sometimes. Why leaving that open or using particles (see the Indonesian case) when you can have an easy system. Again, if you think the Atlas system is not easy just look above in this same comment, or have a look through aspects in English, Spanish, etc Where it gets much complicated. It is not an excuse, but going from those systems (even outside Europe) to permanent/non-permanent does not look complicated to me.

I can admit you do not like the idea of Atlas, or Atlas itself. It is fine. But this comment comes after an extremely picky comment about the word "sop" and will probably have more following. I love answering questions as you can see (even for people that might not like Atlas), and I will keep doing so, but this constant attack with some misleading information is not useful for anyone, so similar contributions, especially when they come with a bit of bitterness, will be ignored. If you would like to do another kind of criticism that actually helps somebody (similarly to other contributions in this forum) and be kind and respectful, I will very gladly answer whatever comments you might have.

Have a good day.

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 10 Sep 2017 19:03

Rodiniye wrote:
I think it is an easy way of dealing with it. The permanent/non-permanent distinction was not taken from any natural language, it was more like an "accident" from reducing aspects from 4 initially to only 2. The permanent/non-permanent distinction makes it easy for the speaker to identify which one to use and gives a lot of information.
The interesting question is not whether *you* think it's an "easy way of dealing with it", but whether the billions of potential students of the language think the same. It's difficult to know. But, to the extent an auxlang should be inflection, it would make sense to incorporate such inflectional categories that are reasonably common around the world.

Plenty of languages has an inflectional (or in some other way grammaticalised) distinction between past and non-past. Some grammaticalised distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects are also rather common, as is having some form of perfect construction.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any language that makes a distinction between permanent and non-permanent verbal aspect.

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 10 Sep 2017 21:25

Plenty of languages has an inflectional (or in some other way grammaticalised) distinction between past and non-past. Some grammaticalised distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects are also rather common, as is having some form of perfect construction.
If you look at the definition of imperfective/perfective, it is hugely ambiguous. I mean, see the action as a whole or as an interior composition? Plus many language have different usage for those. Then you mention the perfect aspect, which is interesting too and appears in many languages. I just wanted to keep a system in order to add some accuracy to the language, but I wanted to keep away from traditional systems, because:
1) they tend to be complex.
2) every language has their own rules.

So rather than sticking to a known system I wanted to introduce a new one. Atlas has no impefective, perfective or perfect aspects. The definition is clear: is the action permanent or not? Or said in other words, does it last long in time? (more than a few days?/weeks?). I think the question is quite clear and answer should be easy, if I ask you:

I am eating now, permanent or not?
I am healthy, permanent or not?
I can see you now, permanent or not?
I have been to New York last week, permanent or not?
I used to live in Chicago, permanent or not?

We would likely give the same answers. That is the aim of the Atlas system, have a defined, accurate and easy way. If you translate for instance those to Spanish, which uses a fairly similar system for aspect, you might get different answers.

So that's the permanent/non-permanent aspect. Although I agree it is not how I see it is how people see it, I think it is pretty straight forward, because every case can be solved by answering a single question. If you had to do that in English, it is way more difficult and it takes a long time to master aspect.

Thank you!!

User avatar
lsd
roman
roman
Posts: 921
Joined: 11 Mar 2011 21:11
Contact:

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by lsd » 10 Sep 2017 21:27

Permanent seems a kind of stative aspect, and non-permanent a kind of progressive aspect... dunno if this opposition stative/progressive is so unusual...

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 10 Sep 2017 23:32

lsd wrote:Permanent seems a kind of stative aspect, and non-permanent a kind of progressive aspect... dunno if this opposition stative/progressive is so unusual...
From what I can grasp, its seems as if 'permanent aspect' might – more or less – include stative and habitual events, while 'non-permanent' might include progressive and momentary events. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) The more common aspectual system is to include habitual and progressive in the 'imperfective' aspect, in opposition to the 'perfective' aspect, which constructs events as single points in the chain of events. (The events need of course not literally lack duration in time. It's just that when it comes to their role in the causal chain of events, the perfective aspect treats them like instants.)
Rodiniye wrote:If you look at the definition of imperfective/perfective, it is hugely ambiguous. I mean, see the action as a whole or as an interior composition? Plus many language have different usage for those. Then you mention the perfect aspect, which is interesting too and appears in many languages. I just wanted to keep a system in order to add some accuracy to the language, but I wanted to keep away from traditional systems, because:
1) they tend to be complex.
2) every language has their own rules.


There are (for what I know of) two basic imperfective/perfective systems – the romance-style one and the slavic-style one. Complex – according to which study? Each language having its own rules? That's true for any grammatical category. Even if the general concept of, say, a 'perfect' may be quite straightforward, but the details of its application may vary from language to language. (Swedish, for instance, tend to used it more often than English, though you could argue the basic meaning of the perfect is pretty much the same both languages. The problem is that reality is complex, and the same event may or may not be construed as 'relevant to the present' depending on how you view it.)
So rather than sticking to a known system I wanted to introduce a new one. Atlas has no impefective, perfective or perfect aspects. The definition is clear: is the action permanent or not? Or said in other words, does it last long in time? (more than a few days?/weeks?). I think the question is quite clear and answer should be easy, if I ask you:


Even if the definition is clear, its application may not be, since there will always be various borderline cases. (For how long time must an event last to be counted as 'permanent'.) But anyway, here are my guesses:
I am eating now, permanent or not?
Probably non-permanent, since it describes an ongoing event. But since you already have the temporal adverb 'now', what would be gained from an obligatory non-permanent aspect?

I am healthy, permanent or not?
That's a more tricky one. From what I understand, it could be either (are you feeling healthy at the moment, or is it a more permanent trait of yours?)
I can see you now, permanent or not?
A bit tricky. It depends on how we should interpret the modal expression 'can'. If I have gained a general ability to see you, it'd make sense to regard the event as 'permanent'. But it could just as well be a temporary ability – you might have disappeared from my sight the next minute – and then I think it'd make more sense to view the event as 'non-permanent'.
I have been to New York last week, permanent or not?
The use of the temporal expression 'last week' seems to entail a non-permanent event. But as in the first example, we could probably already figure that out from the presence of that temporal expression. A counter-question: If I would just say 'I have been to New York' in Atlas, what difference would it make if I used the 'permanent' or 'non-permanent' aspect? Would the 'permanent' aspect indicate a longer period of stay? Or would indicate a frequentative or habitual event, that I regularly used to visit New York for some period in my life?
I used to live in Chicago, permanent or not?
I'm 100% not sure. To 'live' in a place seems presuppose that you stayed there for a longer period. Therefore, I guess the verb would take the 'permanent' aspect. But in the other hand, if I did put the Atlas word for 'live' in the 'non-permanent' aspect, what difference would it make? Would it indicate that I only lived in Chicago for a very short time? How short? A few months or less? Or can some verbs only appear in one aspect?

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Lao Kou » 11 Sep 2017 12:59

Rodiniye wrote:I can admit you do not like the idea of Atlas, or Atlas itself. It is fine. But this comment comes after an extremely picky comment about the word "sop" and will probably have more following. I love answering questions as you can see (even for people that might not like Atlas), and I will keep doing so, but this constant attack with some misleading information is not useful for anyone, so similar contributions, especially when they come with a bit of bitterness, will be ignored. If you would like to do another kind of criticism that actually helps somebody (similarly to other contributions in this forum) and be kind and respectful, I will very gladly answer whatever comments you might have.
I apologize if I've given offense or the impression that I do not like Atlas. I have no particular bone to pick with Atlas per se, and if this is a project you want to pursue, I wish you all success and Godspeed. I guess I left the magic slippers of diplomacy in the dragon's lair back at the palace.

That said, I do wonder why Atlas is here as an IAL, and how it's going to get my whites whiter and my colors brighter than any other IAL on the market. Fairness, ease, cultural neutrality -- this has all been covered over the course of the last century and slightly earlier of IAL-ness. How does Atlas move the ball forward?
Rodiniye wrote:We are talking about aspect here. Many other non-European languages have aspect... including Chinese, Arabic or Indonesian:

So, Europeaness? I think not. Furthermore, many features in the language are clearly inspired in languages coming from all around the world. The "de" particle from Chinese, "xe" from Chinese too, article "al-" from Arabic... Even personal pronouns are partially inspired in Chinese. Atlas has no infinitive, no participle, no more verb prefixes, no declensions... Gender is optional... Yes some things might be inspired in European languages. Plurality? Yes obviously there are a few things, same as there are things in common with other languages, things that are coming from Asian languages, or African languages.
(I thought there were participles -- has that changed?)

An Arabic article here, a Chinese particle there (and the w- of Mandarin wo for wi? :wat:) , and nods to aspect do not make the language any less Eurocentric in its approach. It's just a peppering of stuff to give it an "international" flavor. Will Arabic speakers find the Atlas use of "al-" informative? Will Mandarin speakers even get (or care) that "wi" is aimed at them?
And back to aspect, yes, I think the distinction between "permanent" and "non-permanent" is easier than, let's say, "completed or not completed" action, or having an action affecting the present or not, etc. Aspect is very ambiguous in most languages, so it is very simplified in Atlas and still gives useful information. I admit, it could go and just forget about aspect. But as you have seen above, most languages do have aspect by using particles or adverbs, and it does get complicated sometimes. Why leaving that open or using particles (see the Indonesian case) when you can have an easy system. Again, if you think the Atlas system is not easy just look above in this same comment, or have a look through aspects in English, Spanish, etc Where it gets much complicated. It is not an excuse, but going from those systems (even outside Europe) to permanent/non-permanent does not look complicated to me.
But more complicated than leaving aspect out altogether and running with adverbs. It looks a lot like a blend of English simple vs. progressive tenses and Spanish ser vs. estar. Again, it's a perfectly fine distinction to make, but why would an IAL make it and compel people to learn it? I apologize if it came off as bitchy in its first iteration, but really, who cares how long you lived in Chicago if you don't say "for a summer" or "for twenty years"?

As for "sop", what I meant is that while many conlangers avoid homonyms or homophones, the possible meanings of "sop" in Atlas:

sop = stop
sop = bread-dipping in sauce
sop = concession

should be fine as homonyms, if you wish them thus.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 12 Sep 2017 16:33

How does Atlas move the ball forward?
I accept your apologies and happy to answer your "healthy" questions [;)]

It is hard to say whether Atlas is easier than others. It is for me, it is for others. What's new is that Atlas only uses 525 roots, and combines them in order to get all other words. So far, from those 525 roots around 8000 words can be obtained. That, and that there are a few set patterns that let you recognize immediately the part of speech of the word you have in front of you. That's why "I" is "wi" and not "wo", because C+I is reserved to personal pronouns, whereas C+O (amongst others) are prepositions.
Will Mandarin speakers even get (or care) that "wi" is aimed at them?
It is not really important that speakers recognize words of their mother tongue in Atlas. Actually, roots are 3 letters long only, so it is highly unlikely that the majority of words can be easily recognized. However, roots will be easy to remember when studied for people that speak the language of origin.
It looks a lot like a blend of English simple vs. progressive tenses and Spanish ser vs. estar. Again, it's a perfectly fine distinction to make, but why would an IAL make it and compel people to learn it?
I would say permanent/non-permanent in Atlas is completely different to the English verb system. The Spanish "ser" vs "estar" is present in many other languages too. However, the Atlas usage is far from it. In Spanish, "estar" can be used as well when talking about states ("estoy feliz"), complementing the use of "ser" ("soy feliz"). So the Spanish usage is complex because rules are complex. In Atlas all states are described by "esses", and all locations by "zares". English speakers will not have problems because Atlas "zares" is similar to "stay" for instance.
From what I can grasp, its seems as if 'permanent aspect' might – more or less – include stative and habitual events, while 'non-permanent' might include progressive and momentary events.
Correct!!
I am eating now, permanent or not?

Probably non-permanent, since it describes an ongoing event. But since you already have the temporal adverb 'now', what would be gained from an obligatory non-permanent aspect?
Correct! You would not need that in Atlas: wi cites.
I am healthy

That's a more tricky one. From what I understand, it could be either (are you feeling healthy at the moment, or is it a more permanent trait of yours?)
Absolutely correct.
I can see you now.

A bit tricky. It depends on how we should interpret the modal expression 'can'. If I have gained a general ability to see you, it'd make sense to regard the event as 'permanent'. But it could just as well be a temporary ability – you might have disappeared from my sight the next minute – and then I think it'd make more sense to view the event as 'non-permanent'.
Good reasoning. My reccomendation here is that one should concentrate in the action. The action of "seeing" the person is non-permanent (hence the use of "now"). However, without "now" it could mean both: wi das vises di (I can see you now, non-permanent) or wi das visis di (I can see you, I have the ability).
I used to live in Chicago

I'm 100% not sure. To 'live' in a place seems presuppose that you stayed there for a longer period. Therefore, I guess the verb would take the 'permanent' aspect. But in the other hand, if I did put the Atlas word for 'live' in the 'non-permanent' aspect, what difference would it make? Would it indicate that I only lived in Chicago for a very short time? How short? A few months or less? Or can some verbs only appear in one aspect?
Good reasoning there too. That is the good thing about this system, that you can mean whatever you like. "I used to live in Chicago" is permanent, "wi demit ei Chicago". However, as you said, the usage of the non-permanent aspect is possible when you want to make clear that Chicago is not your home "wi demet ei Chicago". Maybe you were there for a bit doing a course, or a few months maybe working, or studying a language during summer...

----

So I would say Xing that your knowledge is extremely good and you have grasped immediately the consequences of the usage of one aspect or another. So there you go, this is why I think the system works and it is so productive, because with very little you can make the language very effective.

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 12 Sep 2017 17:57

Rodiniye wrote:
From what I can grasp, its seems as if 'permanent aspect' might – more or less – include stative and habitual events, while 'non-permanent' might include progressive and momentary events.
Correct!!
Ok, but why would it be more natural (1) to merge ongoing and momentary events, while treating habitual events distinct, than (2) to merge ongoing and habitual events, while keeping momentary events distinct? (Especially given that (1) is rather common system, but (2) – as far as I know – is an uncommon one.)

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2383
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Keenir » 15 Sep 2017 20:39

Rodiniye wrote:Good reasoning. My reccomendation here is that one should concentrate in the action. The action of "seeing" the person is non-permanent (hence the use of "now"). However, without "now" it could mean both: wi das vises di (I can see you now, non-permanent) or wi das visis di (I can see you, I have the ability).
but why would you say that second one? (i said it to myself a few times, and every time i felt like i was mocking a blind person)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 17 Sep 2017 14:41

Oh, a new post.

"As you will be able to see, countries have an -e ending (abstract), in opposition to cities, that have a -u ending (Barsalonu, Novi-Iorku, Moskbu, Tokiu...). This is based on the idea that cities can actually be seen, but countries? can you really see the borders when flying on a plane?"

Here's a counterexample:

Image

The entire country of Nauru, visible from air. You can also see its borders (=the ocean around it).

Of course, this shows that it's a somewhat arbitrary decision to view countries as abstract, but cities as concrete.

Rodiniye
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 75
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 23:44

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Rodiniye » 18 Sep 2017 23:44

Here's a counterexample:
Well having a very small and for most people unknown country as an example does not really invalidate the Atlas. Following your phylosophy you could have added Australia as well for instance, or New Zealand...

But still. I fly every day. I am uncapable of saying where every country begins/ends, except for islands. Even then, imagine an aircraft flying above Nauru. If you had no knowledge about that island, you would not be able to say it is a country.

But if there was a city in Nauru and you saw it, you would know there is a city even if you did not know Nauru.

That's the difference.
but why would you say that second one? (i said it to myself a few times, and every time i felt like i was mocking a blind person)
Well, that might be one of the usages! [:D] But think about other examples: Wi nai das quges (I can't play -now-) or wi nai das qugis (I can't play). In the first one maybe you are injured short-medium term, and in the second one maybe it's long term or it is a disability etc.

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5292
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Atlas: new auxlang

Post by Xing » 19 Sep 2017 01:03

Rodiniye wrote:
Well having a very small and for most people unknown country as an example does not really invalidate the Atlas. Following your phylosophy you could have added Australia as well for instance, or New Zealand...

But still. I fly every day. I am uncapable of saying where every country begins/ends, except for islands. Even then, imagine an aircraft flying above Nauru. If you had no knowledge about that island, you would not be able to say it is a country.

But if there was a city in Nauru and you saw it, you would know there is a city even if you did not know Nauru.

That's the difference.
The point is that both 'country' and 'city' are ambiguous. 'Country' can refer to a visible, concrete geographical territory, or to an abstract political entity. (And you can still see (or hear, or smell, or touch ) something even if you don't know what you're seeing.) 'City' can likewise refer to a either a built-up, urbanised area (visible), or to an invisible political or legal entity ('city proper').

How would refer to the 'City of London' in Atlas?

Post Reply