europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1533
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Salmoneus » 01 Aug 2018 12:27

Zé do Rock wrote:
31 Jul 2018 23:46
And in the thread about english spelling reform i've seen some reform proposals, so it seems that not all members are against reform. Unless they were just doing for fun, but in the end opposed it, i dont know.
Yes, it's certainly true that some people here are at least open to spelling reform. But there's a few reasons why it may not seem that way in your conversations at the moment:

1. Lots of spelling reforms have been suggested on this board by people who go away again soon after. Spelling reformists online, like auxlangers, tend to be obsessive: they're only interested in one topic, and are only interested in one perspective on their topic. So they find a forum like this, they make a couple of posts about how their reforms will improve literacy or begin a few threads about how their auxiliary languages will remove all ambiguity and restore world piece and equality, they argue furiously when people say things like "we've seen this many times and you haven't considered the problems that arise from this idea", and then they go away again. They say things like "what are your ideas?", but they don't actually engage with any ideas other than their own. They don't comment on other conlangs or conworlds - they often say rather disparaging things about conlanging and conworlding as enterprises - they don't engage in the community threads. They're not here to talk or to discuss, they're here to Spread the Good News, and once they discover that people here are heathens they go away again. So the ratio of long-term members is more skewed against reforms (whether grammatical or only orthographic) than the ratio of posts.

2. Like auxlangers, spelling reformers tend to have their own reforms and not to support the reforms of others.

3. Specifically, your spelling reforms aren't very good, so they're unlikly to get much support. More specifically: people interested in spelling reform tend to fall into two camps: those who want to talk about a total, ground-up reform of spelling from first principles (usually only as a thought experiment), and those who want to talk about low-visibility reforms that try to stay as close to contemporary spelling principles as possible while removing irregularities and a few sources of confusion. Your problem is that you fall between the two camps. Your reforms are much uglier and more dramatic and counterintuitive than are actually required to remove ambiguities, so you won't appease the minimalists. But your reforms are still too ambiguous, inconsistent, and tied to the unique logic of traditional English spelling to appease the rationalists.

4. Frankly, your behaviour is extremely offputting. 20% of your sentences are telling us how wonderful you are, how accomplished you are, how everyone recognises your genius and loves you and praises your work apart from us and did we know the president of the universe is giving you a medal on wednesday because of how great you are. 30% of your sentences are telling us we're idiots, wasting time with our stupid hobbies and failing to recognise your genius the way everyone else does. Why are we too stupid to be able to realise that everything you say is right? This includes a lot of outright mockery and some clear trolling. The 50% of your sentences that are actually about your projects are shouty, confrontational, close-minded, unreflective and uninterested in genuine engagement. Now of course, we all have our limitations. Plenty of people here don't like me either, for example. But it probably does contribute a lot to why nobody but the endlessly patient Xonen has been jumping to your defence, and why people have been jumping to disagree with you who otherwise might be silent. People are reluctant to be on the same side as an unpleasant person.
Personally, I think it also doesn't help that your English is clearly non-native and you make spelling mistakes even in your 'traditional' English. Now of course, the internet is a multinational place and that's great - we all make allowances for people whose English is not 100% polished. But it's never a good look when you simultaneously attack something and show you don't understand it. It makes it look like you just can't be arsed to learn it. Generally, the best people to reform something are those who fully understand it.

[of course, non-natives do have a place in these discussions, providing a learner's perspective. But I think the presentation has to be different when you're trying to persuade people to change something that you yourself don't own. There is a way to say "hey, this thing of yours, I've been having some problems with it, have you thought of changing it a little? Here are the difficulties I've been having..." - but that way is not to say "right, this thing of yours, it's not up to my standards, you need to change it so that I like it more, here's how it should be".



Just some thoughts, in case you really do want to be more persuasive.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3134
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by sangi39 » 01 Aug 2018 18:29

Isn't this being discussed in the English Orthograpy Reform thread? I'd suggest moving the discussion about Zé do Rock's use of a reformed English orthography to there, and leave this thread for their Europan.

As some have noted, though, Zé do Rock, the consistent use of three different languages/orthographies within a single post can become tiresome to read through, especially in longer posts, where the break is less easily noticed (this particular post is a noteworthy example, where entire sections of text are simply repeated unnecessarily, i.e. the correspondences between sound and letter). If you do insist on carrying on writing posts in this manner, please be aware of this.

A word to other users, however, at least Zé do Rock has taken the advice of a couple of Mods to actually include a "standard" English version of what they're writing in their posts. It might be a slog to get through sometimes, but as far as I interpret them, the rules aren't actually being broken in this regard (for anyone familiar with the now-banned user Epaqasnwqar, things could be much worse).

Going back to the discussion about English orthography reforms, especially this one, I think the discussion is becoming stagnant. Some points seem to be recurring, which suggests they might have been missed or ignored, and that's stopping anyone moving forward on either side, and in some cases it does seem like people are talking passed each other, whether intentional or not.

Regardless, if the discussion of Zé do Rock's reform doesn't move back over to the English Orthography Reform thread (including any replies any wants to make from posts made in this thread), then I'll consider locking this thread if needed.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 01 Aug 2018 21:05

Salmoneus wrote:
01 Aug 2018 12:27
1. Lots of spelling reforms have been suggested on this board by people who go away again soon after. Spelling reformists online, like auxlangers, tend to be obsessive: they're only interested in one topic, and are only interested in one perspective on their topic. So they find a forum like this, they make a couple of posts about how their reforms will improve literacy or begin a few threads about how their auxiliary languages will remove all ambiguity and restore world piece and equality, they argue furiously when people say things like "we've seen this many times and you haven't considered the problems that arise from this idea", and then they go away again. They say things like "what are your ideas?", but they don't actually engage with any ideas other than their own. They don't comment on other conlangs or conworlds - they often say rather disparaging things about conlanging and conworlding as enterprises - they don't engage in the community threads. They're not here to talk or to discuss, they're here to Spread the Good News, and once they discover that people here are heathens they go away again. So the ratio of long-term members is more skewed against reforms (whether grammatical or only orthographic) than the ratio of posts.
Some mods asked me to provide a "translation" from House Stile (this is not a spelling mistake, it is the name TESS gave it, and it isnt a scheme of my own), but having 3 blocks is a bit too much, so i switched to traditional spelling, what i havent done for the last 15 years or so. Considering this and the fact that i've been cycling more than 100 km a day crossing the german-austrian (or another) border 5 or 6 times a day at temperatures around 34°C, it may happen that i forgot to respell some words into Traditional Spelling. But the only thing that occurs to you is that i'm a bad speller, so i shouldnt be "lecturing" others here about spelling.

In other forums i know (about traveling, literature, cancer and alternative treatments, cannabis, brazilian politics - if you can consider the possibility that obsessive people have more than one subject they're interested in), basically there are two possibilities for members to be excluded: for making publicity for their own products and for being unpolite/aggressive towards other members. Calling other members obsessive, egocentric, antisocial, bigheaded, shouty, close-minded, etc etc etc would be a good reason for exclusion from quite a few forums, but here it seems the reason for exclusion is not writing the traditional way, and you write in a traditional way - lucky for you. I could try to reply in the same manner, but i'm not good at it. Or i could try to defend myself, but you'd consider any attempt to do it as bragging, so there is no point in it.

I spent a lot of my time in the last 20 years discussing and studying english spelling, but it seems i didnt know very basic things - thanks for clarifying me.

Since sangi39 is asking to stick to the subject of this thread, which is europan, i'll try to stick to it.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 01 Aug 2018 21:54

sangi39 wrote:
01 Aug 2018 18:29
Isn't this being discussed in the English Orthograpy Reform thread? I'd suggest moving the discussion about Zé do Rock's use of a reformed English orthography to there, and leave this thread for their Europan.
EUROPAN

Bon, dat was mai planu wen mi openou ta trad: cuestioning pople cual alternativas lis preferau. Ma lorske mi screvou in HS, pople startou cuestiona wai mi scrive ta o dat in a certo modus, e lu stanou a discucion abaut ortografie reform. Or abaut la negativo caracteristicas de mai malade personalitee.


ENGLISH

Well, that was my plan when i opened this thread: to ask people what alternative names they'd favor. But since i was writing in HS, people started asking why i spell this or that in a certain way, and it became a discussion about spelling reform. Or about the negative features of my ill personality.
As some have noted, though, Zé do Rock, the consistent use of three different languages/orthographies within a single post can become tiresome to read through, especially in longer posts, where the break is less easily noticed (this particular post is a noteworthy example, where entire sections of text are simply repeated unnecessarily, i.e. the correspondences between sound and letter). If you do insist on carrying on writing posts in this manner, please be aware of this.
EUROPAN

In el upale bloco mi altern europano co reformat ortografie in 5 linguas. In ta trad, dat is spesificlik abaut europan, mi scriv in europan, meme si mi canau forgete lu somwen. Mi sa no si dat is reali´nenesesital: pro exemplo si yu compara lu con esperanto, esperanto ha do mega ventages, lu super plu metodal, so lu plus izi tu uza et ai minu vocabulari tu lern (granda e malgranda, yu lern un vord e yu can sei do co lu, durli co "mega" e "mini" yu mus lerne do), speciali pro spikis de ne-europano linguas, e dozali, esperanto ha multi miles o meme miliones spikis, durlik europano hav un unico spiki, e no mem a super boni. El unico ventag af europan is ki lu super plus izi tu comprend, auminu pro spikis af europano linguas. So mi vole mostra dat, e nepoco pople va can comprende moustu de lu. In el otre said, mi mei no scriv in a conlang bes a traduicion in inglish, so mi mus da dat oso. Ma nixi mus le lu do vez, yu can lez un or el otru.

Somwen yu can pensa ki mi scriv in varios linguas in some reformee vercion coze la lingua somwen sim super mult as un lingua e somwen super mult as un otru.

Somwen lu can stan a bit confuzal, so nau mi startou separa la do bloco co bolde caracteres. Mi hope dat help.

E si algi spik abaut reformat ortografie hir, mi can responde na trad af el ortografie reform.


ENGLISH

In the upper block i alternate europano with reformed spelling in 5 languages. In this thread, being specifically about europan, i write in europan, although i might have forgotten to do it sometimes. I dont know if this is really unnecessary: for example if you compare it with esperanto, esperanto has 2 big advantages, it is much more methodic, so it is easier to apply and there is less vocabulary to learn (granda and malgranda, it's one word and you can say two with it, while with "mega" and "mini" you have to learn 2), especially for speakers of non european languages, and second, esperanto has many thousands or millions of speakers, while europano has a single speaker, and not even a very good one. The only big advantage of europan is that it is much easier to understand, at least for speakers of european languages. So i want to show that, and quite a few people will be able to understand most of it. On the other hand, i'm not supposed to write in a conlang without a translation in english, so i have to provide that too. But nobody has to read it twice, you can either take one or the other.

Sometimes you might think that i'm writing in several languages in some reformed version because the language sometimes look very much like one language and sometimes very much like another.

Sometimes it might get a bit messy, which is why i started separating them with bold characters. I hope that helps.

And if somebody talks about reformed spelling here, i can answer to it in the spelling reform thread.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 01 Aug 2018 22:00

EUROPAN

TONICUS/NETONICUS

1 - La vocale pre la laste consonant is tonik, ma:
2 - Finale S counta non as consonante pro la tema tonikess, R na combinacion -ER oso no.
3 - Longo vocales e diftongos is tonik. Si ai plu dan un longo vocal o diftongo na vord, or a longo vocal et a diftong, uza regla numer 1.
4 - Na cazo da letre combinacion IC, la tonik is na prenale vocal.
5 - Si oni vole tonikiz un endu vocale dat is no fologee bai a consonant, oni scrive H dopo A, O, U et E dopo E et I: ayatolah, cafee (café), copie, dodoh, shampuh.

ENGLISH

STRESS

1 - The vowel befor the last consonant is stressed, but:
2 - Final S doesnt count as consonant for the stress, and final ER isnt stressed either.
3 - Long vowels and diphthongs are stressed. If there is more than one long vowel or diphthong or a long vowel and a diphthong in the word, apply rule number 1
4 - When a word has the letter combination -IC, the stress is on the preceding vowel.
5 - If you want to stress a last vowel that is not followed by a consonant, spell H after A, O, U and E after E and I: ayatolah, cafee (café), copie, dodoh (bed), shampuh.

Clio
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 192
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Clio » 01 Aug 2018 22:41

Zé do Rock wrote:
01 Aug 2018 22:00
3 - Long vowels and diphthongs are stressed. If there is more than one long vowel or diphthong or a long vowel and a diphthong in the word, apply rule number 1
Your earlier post on Europan orthography didn't make any mention of long vowels. How are they denoted in writing?

Also, just to be clear, a final long vowel or diphthong not followed by a consonant is stressed, unless there is another long vowel or diphthong in the word. For instance, a word with the shape CDCVCD (where C=consonant, D=diphthong, and V=short vowel) would be stressed on the second syllable, but a word with the shape CVCVCD would be stressed on the final syllable, correct?
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2399
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by clawgrip » 02 Aug 2018 05:55

I'm sure it's been discussed endlessly, but a major sticking point that I mentioned but you failed to reply to is that any move toward a phonetic spelling necessarily begins to remove English's relative region-neutrality. Should caught and cot be merged? Should sword and sawed be merged? How do you determine which pronunciation should be the basis of the spelling?

Also, how do you convince people that they stand to gain more than they stand to lose? I don't have particular difficulty with English spelling, and I don't particularly feel like learning a new system. What do I stand to gain? I've never been annoyed that I had to use "right" when the just barely more intuitive "rite" was just sitting there waiting to be written down (you realize that the pronunciation of "ight" is unambiguous, if unintuitive, right?)

Why should I abandon a system I have no major problems with and replace it with a new system that seems unnecessary to me?
Last edited by clawgrip on 02 Aug 2018 07:44, edited 1 time in total.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 02 Aug 2018 07:24

Clio wrote:
01 Aug 2018 22:41
Zé do Rock wrote:
01 Aug 2018 22:00
3 - Long vowels and diphthongs are stressed. If there is more than one long vowel or diphthong or a long vowel and a diphthong in the word, apply rule number 1
Your earlier post on Europan orthography didn't make any mention of long vowels. How are they denoted in writing?

Also, just to be clear, a final long vowel or diphthong not followed by a consonant is stressed, unless there is another long vowel or diphthong in the word. For instance, a word with the shape CDCVCD (where C=consonant, D=diphthong, and V=short vowel) would be stressed on the second syllable, but a word with the shape CVCVCD would be stressed on the final syllable, correct?
EUROPAN

Yu corect, mi shalau ha menciona lu wen mi descrivou la pronunciacion. La defolte pronunciacion af a vocal is cort, ma somwen, pro disambiguizacion, lus long. In ta cazos lus is doblizee in in la vord, exepto long I, ki stan IE. Na vord end, uza AH, EE, IE, OH, UH.

CDCVCD e CVCVCD - corect.


ENGLISH

You're right, i should have mentioned it when i described the pronunciation. The default pronunciation of a vowel is short, but sometimes, for desambiguation, they are long. In these cases they're doubled inside the word, except long I, which becomes IE. At the end of the word, use AH, EE, IE, OH, UH.

CDCVCD and CVCVCD - correct.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 02 Aug 2018 07:30

clawgrip wrote:
02 Aug 2018 05:55
I'm sure it's been discussed endlessly, but a major sticking point that I mentioned but you failed to reply to is that any move toward a phonetic spelling necessarily begins to remove English's relative region-neutrality. Should caught and cot be merged? Should sword and sawed be merged? How do you determine which pronunciation should be the basis of the spelling?

Also, how do you convince people that they stand to gain more than they stand to lose? I don't have particular difficulty with English spelling, and I don't particularly feel like learning a new system. What do I stand to gain? I've never been annoyed that I had to use "right" when the just barely more intuitive "rite" was just sitting there waiting to be written down (you realize that the pronunciation of "ight" is an unambiguous, if unintuitive, right?)

Why should I abandon a system I have no major problems with and replace it with a new system that seems unnecessary to me?
EUROPAN

Mi ja ha da main argumentus abaut dat na trad av el ortografie reform in inglish, mas i va da lu denov, meme co la risco ki some membris vou sei mi bin obsesiv - na trad abaut ortografie reform in inglish.

ENGLISH

I gave already my arguments about that in the english spelling reform thread, but i'll give them again, even at the risck that some members would say i'm being obsessive - in the english spelling reform thread.

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2399
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by clawgrip » 02 Aug 2018 07:45

Ah, if you already wrote it there I can just take a look. Seems like this would fit better in that thread anyway.

Clio
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 192
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Clio » 02 Aug 2018 23:41

Zé do Rock wrote:
02 Aug 2018 07:24
You're right, i should have mentioned it when i described the pronunciation. The default pronunciation of a vowel is short, but sometimes, for desambiguation, they are long. In these cases they're doubled inside the word, except long I, which becomes IE. At the end of the word, use AH, EE, IE, OH, UH.

CDCVCD and CVCVCD - correct.
So are words with final stress (like shampuh) pronounced with a long final vowel, or is it just coincidence that stressed final vowels are spelled the same as final long vowels?

Also, if I see a word like paipeh, in order to deduce pronunciation from orthography, should I follow rule 5 or rule 3 (which tells me in turn to follow rule 1)? If I understand correctly, if eh is a long vowel, then the first syllable should receive the stress since it is the vowel before the final consonant in a word containing more than one diphthong or long vowel, but if eh is merely an indication that the final syllable is stressed, then clearly the final syllable is stressed.

Does Europan have any homographs that aren't also homophones? For instance, could there be two words paipeh /'pai.pe:/ and paipeh /pai.'pe/ (where : indicates length on the preceding vowel and ' indicates stress on the following syllalble)?
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 04 Aug 2018 23:40

Clio wrote:
02 Aug 2018 23:41
So are words with final stress (like shampuh) pronounced with a long final vowel, or is it just coincidence that stressed final vowels are spelled the same as final long vowels?
EUROPAN

Dat vocales is long, e coze lus long, lus tonik.

ENGLISH

Those vowels are long, and because they're long, they're stressed.

Also, if I see a word like paipeh, in order to deduce pronunciation from orthography, should I follow rule 5 or rule 3 (which tells me in turn to follow rule 1)? If I understand correctly, if eh is a long vowel, then the first syllable should receive the stress since it is the vowel before the final consonant in a word containing more than one diphthong or long vowel, but if eh is merely an indication that the final syllable is stressed, then clearly the final syllable is stressed.
EUROPAN

Dat is a gude cuestion, mi mus rescrive dat regla numero pet e solo spik abaut longo vocales, no tonico vocales. Meme si mi can no memor a caz as dat (con a diftong et a longo vocal in el end), lu canau hapen, dopo al. Et in ta cazo la pronunciacion vou bi /'paipe:/ - na cazo de dutu take regla numer 1. Meme si mi can no pens af a cazo vo mi lasau a longo vocal in dat situacion.

Nau regla numero 5 is:

5 - Longo vocales is mostree bai doblize la vocal in in la vord, in el endu scrive H dopo A, O, U et E dopo E et I: ayatolah, cafee (café), copie, dodoh, shampuh.



ENGLISH

Good point, i have to rewrite that rule number 5 and talk only about Long vowels, not stressed vowels. Altho i cant remember a case like that (with a diphthong and a long vowel at the end), it could happen, after all. And in this case the pronunciation would be /'paipe:/ - in case of doubt, take rule number 1. Altho i cant think of a case where i'd leave a long vowel in that situation.

Now rule number 5 is:

5 - Long vowels are shown by doubling the vowel inside the word, at the end spell H after A, O, U and E after E and I: ayatolah, cafee (café), copie, dodoh (bed), shampuh.

Does Europan have any homographs that aren't also homophones? For instance, could there be two words paipeh /'pai.pe:/ and paipeh /pai.'pe/ (where : indicates length on the preceding vowel and ' indicates stress on the following syllalble)?
EUROPAN

Mi can no pensa como dat canau hapen. Ai solo un posible modus tu pronuns a vord.

ENGLISH

I cant think how this could happen. There is only one possible way to pronounce a word.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 05 Aug 2018 14:24

EUROPAN

VOCO HARMONIE (vocale-consonante harmonie)

Nepoco linguas change some vord dependli de wat veni dopo, tu evita vocal e consonante "coliciones": in inglishe generalik ai un unico caz, nu sei "a pear" mas "aN apple", e british inglish elimina R dat is no fologee bai vocal (driver > /draiv@/), ma bringe lu bak wen la vord is fologee bai a vocal (/@ draiv@r aend @ paes@ndZ@/). In franciano la fenomen is nomizee 'liaison' e findet alvo - non in ortografie, mas in pronunciacion. Europan is pleni dat, vo posible a vocale folog a consonant et a consonante folog a vocal. Mouste vord ende con a vocal, ma ta vocal is eliminee si nixe consonante folo (na same fraz).

Franciano sona bel,

but

Francian is a belo lingua.

Pro dat auminus un e halfe lingua (pro exemplo la spiket e la scrivee vercion af a lingua e la spiket (o la scrivee) vercion af un otre lingua nesesita la vercion con o bes la vocal, wat is moustli la caz. Ma some vord riche no dat, lus alwen o cuazi alwen findee co vocal, so la vocal is mantenet in eni caz: 'tem, caf, mon' is nix opcion pro tema, cafe, moni. Ta vordes alwen mantene su vocal - lus vou bi cuazi no reconesable bes su finale vocales. In a diccionari tale vordes havau su finale vocal in fet, tu mostra ki lus alwen stei.

Some vord end in a consonante ki can disapar oso, si lu no fologee bai a vocal, meme si dat is super plu rar: fa-z, do-z, ma-s:

Mi had la moni, mas a robo tacou mi tri dolar.
Mi had la moni, ma la robo tacou mi triz euro.

Pro ta regla, a fraz is ale vord grupa dat is separat af otrus bai eni tipe de puntuacion (. - () : ;). Na cazo de comas, lu depende si ai a pauz in spik o no. Wen oni listen dinges, nu mus no considera lus as separee frazes: Mi laik aple, pera, banana, plum.

Si 2 consonant o plu veni pre la finale vocal, oni can lase la vocal o no: si tai lingua ha no dat son combinacion in el end af a vord, yu can lase la vocal, e si lu ha, yu can elimina lu. So un itali vou alwen sei e scrive 'teatro', a russi canau sei e scrive 'teatr' oso.

So la lingua is plu plazare tu audi e plus izi tu pronuns, ma ta regla is no obligar, oni canau scriv e pronuns ale vord bes su finale vocales et/o consonantes, or oso elimina lus al.


ENGLISH

Quite a few languages have some changed words depending on what comes later, to avoid vowel or consonant "collisions": in english in general there is a single case, we say "a pear" but "aN apple", and british english drops the unchecked R (not followed by a vowel - driver > /draiv@/) but brings it back when the word is followed by a word that starts with a vowel (/@ draiv@r aend @ paes@ndZ@/). In french the phenomenon is called liaison and found everywhere - not in spelling, but in pronunciation. Europan is full of it, where possible a vowel follows a consonant and a consonant follows a vowel. Most words end with a vowel, but this vowel is dropped if no consonant follows (in the same sentence):

Franciano sona bel,
(French sounds beautiful)

but

Francian is a belo lingua.
(French is a beautiful language)

For that to happen, at least one and half languages (for instance the spoken and the written version of a language and the spoken (Or the written) version of another language need the version with or without the vowel, which is mostly the case. But some words dont achieve that much, they're always or almost always found with vowel, so the vowel is retained in any case: 'tem, caf, mon' ar no options for tema (theme, subject of a speech/conversation), cafe, moni, these words always keep their vowel - they'd hardly be recognizable without their final vowels. In a dictionary such words would have their final vowel in bold, to show that they always stay.

Some words end in a consonant that can disappear too, if it is not followed by a vowel, altho this is much rarer: fa-z (do), do-z (two), ma-s (but):

Mi had la moni, mas a robo tacou mi tri dolar. (I had the money, but a robber took me three dollars)
Mi had la moni, ma la robo tacou mi triz euro. (I had the money, but the robber took me three euros)

For this rule, a sentence is every group of words separated from others by any sort of punctuation (. - () : ;). In the case of commas, it depends on whether there is a pause in speech or not. When listing things we dont have to consider them as separated sentences: Mi laik aple, pera, banana, plum.

If 2 consonants or more precede the final vowel, you can leave the vowel or not: if your language doesnt have that sound combination at the end of a word, you can leave the vowel, and if it has, you can drop it. So an italian would always say and spel 'teatro', a russian could say and spell 'teatr' too.

So the language is more pleasant to hear and easier to pronounce, but this rule isnt compulsory, people could write and pronounce all words without their final vowels and/or consonants, or utter them all.

Keenir2
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 06 Aug 2018 22:51

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Keenir2 » 06 Aug 2018 23:14

Zé do Rock wrote:
04 Aug 2018 23:40
Does Europan have any homographs that aren't also homophones? For instance, could there be two words paipeh /'pai.pe:/ and paipeh /pai.'pe/ (where : indicates length on the preceding vowel and ' indicates stress on the following syllalble)?
EUROPAN
Mi can no pensa como dat canau hapen. Ai solo un posible modus tu pronuns a vord.

ENGLISH

I cant think how this could happen. There is only one possible way to pronounce a word.
a language without homophones? interesting. what are the minimum pairs like, to avoid such confusion?

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2399
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by clawgrip » 06 Aug 2018 23:33

Keenir2 wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:14
a language without homophones? interesting. what are the minimum pairs like, to avoid such confusion?
That's not what was said. There are no homographs that aren't also homophones, not no homophones at all.

Keenir2
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 06 Aug 2018 22:51

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Keenir2 » 06 Aug 2018 23:34

clawgrip wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:33
Keenir2 wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:14
a language without homophones? interesting. what are the minimum pairs like, to avoid such confusion?
That's not what was said. There are no homographs that aren't also homophones, not no homophones at all.
ah, okay; my bad.

Sorry, Ze do Rock.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 07 Aug 2018 12:25

Keenir2 wrote:
06 Aug 2018 23:14
a language without homophones? interesting. what are the minimum pairs like, to avoid such confusion?
EUROPAN

In linguas vo letras can ha plu dan un pronunciacion e vo sones ha plu dan un posible scrivu, oni can ha homografos dat is no homofones e homofones dat is no homografos. In a lingua vo cada son ha solo un posible scriv e cada letra solo un posible pronunciacion (auminus in a certo pozicion), como dat canau hapen? Na maximu oni can hav a vord ki ha plu dan un signifik.

ENGLISH

In languages where letters can have more than one way to be pronounced and where sounds have more than one way to be spelled, you can have homographs that are not homophones and homophones that are not homographs. In a language ware every sound only has one way to be spelled and every letter only one way to be pronounced (at least in a certain position), how could that happen? At best you can have a word that has more than one meaning.

User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 348
Joined: 14 May 2017 09:39
Contact:

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Reyzadren » 08 Aug 2018 22:36

^Affixes. Theoretically, one can have such a conlang with AB components, whereby A and B are 2 different sets of phonemes.

AB is 1 root word. This is (AB)
B could be another root word that can take affixes, like A, E, I, O or U, so one can get (A)(B).

(AB) is not the same as (A)(B).
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 110
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 17:22

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by Zé do Rock » 09 Aug 2018 06:09

Reyzadren wrote:
08 Aug 2018 22:36
^Affixes. Theoretically, one can have such a conlang with AB components, whereby A and B are 2 different sets of phonemes.

AB is 1 root word. This is (AB)
B could be another root word that can take affixes, like A, E, I, O or U, so one can get (A)(B).

(AB) is not the same as (A)(B).
EUROPAN

Dat can reali hapen. Ma den la vord ha 2 signifik, or oni canau sei lis is do vord dat is pronunset e scrivee na same modus, encora lu a homofone dat is a homograf.

ENGLISH

That may happen indeed. But then the word has 2 meanings, or you could say they are two words that are pronounced and spelled the same way, still it is a homophone that is a homograph.

User avatar
shanoxilt
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 188
Joined: 30 May 2016 05:51

Re: europidjin? euroblabla? europex?

Post by shanoxilt » 20 Aug 2018 01:52

Possibly rude suggestion:

Why not learn and promote an existing Western European styled language? There are already so many of them!


For the sake of naturalism, Interlingua is perhaps the best. For the sake of simplicity, Lingua Franca Nova is none too shabby. And there is always Esperanto, if you want a large community. (And if you see too many flaws in standard Esperanto, you could always learn Ido or another spin-off language.)
Click here to join the Common Honey server. Or click here for a general glossopoeia server.

Post Reply