讯息： 386
语言: English
johmue (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日上午10:57:50
razlem:Introducing ambiguities.johmue:So you'd like to have some kind of marker, that tells you wether a verb is transitive or intransitive. This would add an extra syllable to more or less every verb. Quite a bit of an overhead, don't you think?I would have no markers, but make every action ambitransitive.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日上午11:53:35
There is so much work to be done before you can turn an idea for a language into a viable language.
This precisely why it is laughable to compare Esperanto with the language projects that came after it, as though they had the same status.
ceigered (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午12:00:41
sudanglo:This precisely why it is laughable to compare Esperanto with the language projects that came after it, as though they had the same status.Please, stop being so god damn condescending with such hyperbolic statements (intentionally or unintentionally written).
Esperanto may have progressed further as a language but that does not give it some sort of divine status that grants such mockery touted around on a public forum as if it's the sensible and correct thing for any intelligent individual to do.
qwertz (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午12:25:27
ceigered:Esperanto definitivly has no divine status. But probably movaduloj will not wanna accept that. I really "hope" that the spirit of the e-o komunuloj will take over that exciting Esperanto language project.sudanglo:This precisely why it is laughable to compare Esperanto with the language projects that came after it, as though they had the same status.Esperanto may have progressed further as a language but that does not give it some sort of divine status.
Btw. Interesting video about the Interlingua folks. (Thanks to KienLi)
T0dd (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午2:14:17
sudanglo:Todd, I think you have admirably hit the nail on the head.No, that's precisely why it's laughable that you persist in insinuating (you've backed away from asserting outright) that Ido and Interlingua aren't languages. People really have done a lot of work on these, over generations, beyond the death of the people who started them. That video of the Interlingua gathering doesn't look very different from the Esperanto gatherings that I've experienced. If you want to claim that we're speaking (and singing) a language but they're not, you can't really expect anything but laughter.
There is so much work to be done before you can turn an idea for a language into a viable language.
This precisely why it is laughable to compare Esperanto with the language projects that came after it, as though they had the same status.
razlem (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午2:42:51
johmue:If you take the verbs out of context, then yes. But this is true of any language. One can not hope to create a language with no ambiguity.razlem:I would have no markers, but make every action ambitransitive.Introducing ambiguities.
johmue (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午3:16:15
razlem:But with less ambiguity than others. That's the philosophy of Esperanto. Create as little ambiguity as possible.johmue:If you take the verbs out of context, then yes. But this is true of any language. One can not hope to create a language with no ambiguity.razlem:I would have no markers, but make every action ambitransitive.Introducing ambiguities.
Your "true for any language" sounds a bit like "There is no 100% security, so why should I care about security issues?"
qwertz (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午4:51:33
Pardon, that probably was something off-topic.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年3月13日下午7:06:31
Why do you not find them compelling? Isn't he right.