Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | INTERLNG: Discussiones in Interlingua |
Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:15:54 -0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Car Harleigh,
Quanto a linguas artificial (includente Interlingua)
e al necessitate de parlatores native pro constatar
correctessa, io crede que tu erra. Il non necessita
parlatores native, e parlatores native non difinarea
correctessa in tal linguas. (e.g. mi filio parla
Esperanto nativemente.)
> An utterance like "this books" or "these book" would
> be ungrammatical because no native speaker would say
> them.
Io non comprende. Ante poc tempore, io te diceva:
"On pote anque demandar - qui ha le derecto
de dictar le formas "correcte" de anglese?
Harleigh? Stan? Tomaso? etc.."
E tu respondeva:
"Si, exactemente. Io nunquam ha mantenite
que mi version del anglese es le sol version
correcte del lingua."
Io concludeva que tu pensa, que il non ha criterios
pro correctessa in anglese.
A proposito, io non accepta, que "grammatical" (in le
senso le qual tu usa) signifa "correcte".
> Constructed languages don't have a body of native
> speakers who can be used as informants to determine
> grammaticality and ungrammaticality. Thus what is
> grammatical in them is largely the opinion of the
> individual people using these languages.
On defina nihil lingua secundo le balbutiamento e
murmuration de personas qui lo parla mal.
> There is no rational reason, for example, why
> "eventualmente" cannot be used in the same sense
> as the English "eventually." Condemning it as
> ungrammatical is an arbitrary matter of individual
> opinion.
Non ungrammatical sed confundive.
Io jam ha te monstrata un exemplo de tu textos le
qual ha un signification contrari come lo que tu
voleva dicer. ("efectos eventual" o similar.)
> It is because of these considerations (and the fact
> that their planners don't really understand the
> complexities of living languages) that all planned
> languages with a fairly large number of adherents have
> interminable arguments about grammatical and
> ungrammatical constructions. (One famous case out of
> Esperanto is the supposed ungrammaticality of using
> infinitive constructions after "sin.")
Interminable? (BTW, I assume you mean "sen" and not "sin"
because infinitives after "sin" have always been acceptable.
"Sin trompi", for example, is perfectly good Esperanto).
De PMEG (mi traduction)
"Sen + I-verbo es tradicionalmente reguardate como
un error (vide Lingvajn Respondojn p. 74). Sed
sen + I-verbo es un maniero de expression totalmente
logical e multo opportun. Tal uso jam deveneva
commun, e ergo a pena pote causar problemas de
comprehension."
Il ha discussiones interminable super le grammatica
de Esperanto (e.g 1961), sed illes non include "sen"
plus infinitivo.
A revider,
Tomaso
|
|
|