On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:52:02 -0400, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008, Klaus Dieckmann wrote:
>
>> Salute,
>>
>> the Lingua Eurana project ist based on the old Latin. It has an easier
>> grammar than classical Latin, but with the background of this language,
it
>> has a tradition which lacks to other auxialary languages.
>
>I looked at the introduction quickly, but even without studying it in
>depth (apart from the misspellings of "always" and "diphthong"), I see
>some problems.
[snip]
>I find it odd that the language has an indefinite article but no
>definite article. Usually (as in classical Greek, Ido, and Esperanto),
>it is the other way around.
I was also perplexed as to why he would introduce ablaut into a
Romance conlang. Latin had a very little (vult / velle perhaps?), but
I think it disappeared eventually.
As for the "lacking tradition" in other projects, it might be pointed
out that Latine Sine Inflexione and Interlingua and undoubtedly other
conlangs are strongly based on Latin.
The morphological choices of Eurana are kind of strange, too. Why
-adu? What does that derive from? It looks like a past participle
(-atus). Why are superlative adjectives in -ima, and not -issima? Why
are adverbs morphologically identical to adjectives? Sure, the old
accusative neuter adjective = adverb, but why in a "logical" language
where presumably one is seeking to reduce confusion of forms?
Might also be noted that "perfect" is not a tense, but an aspect like
imperfect. What's a "past future tense"?
Why is the reflexive pronoun "ze" and not "se"?
Why do the numbers switch to Sanskrit for the 10s? Then Greek for six
and the hundreds?
Padraic
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
