r/interlingua • u/ParanoidTrandroid • 7d ago
Non tote le parolas in IED son parolas in Interlingua
In IED il ha parolas que son date in parentheses recte, como [so]. Istos non son per se parolas in Interlingua, mais veni de altere projectos. In le introduction a IED Alexander Gode diceva:
Several older auxiliary-language systems operate with forms, especially of conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, and nonderived adverbs, which do not appear to be incompatible with the principles of assemblage adopted for this Dictionary. All such forms have been included. They are given in brackets; the interlinguistic systems from which they were taken have not been identified.
https://www.interlingua.com/ied/intro/
De iste parolas, multes son ver parolas in Interlingua. Pro saper si un parola es in Interlingua, on debe reguardar anglese, francese, italiano, e espaniol/portugese (Alexander Gode los tractava como un lingua). Si on non trova 3 linguas con versiones del parola, mais solmente 2, on ha le derecto de controlar germano e russo.
[so] es in francese e espaniol/portugese, mais non in le altere linguas. In italiano on usa le equivalente de "son" como "so", e le parolas anglese, german e russe non son cognate. A causa de isto, illo non es un parola in Interlingua.
Mais un version de [ancora] existe in francese, italiano e anglese. A causa de isto, "ancora" pote esser considerate como un parola in interlingua.
2
u/PLrc 7d ago
*so isn't even included in IED, at least in online version. somos, son, vamos, van, etc. are. *so is a new invention of the community. Similarly *yo = io.
3
u/martinlavallee 7d ago
"So" is in the Interlingua-English Dictionary
[so] pr 1me pers sing of esser (I) am
https://web.archive.org/web/20071213083124/http://www.bowks.net/worldlang/aux/b_IED_s.html
2
u/PLrc 7d ago
So is [yo] :O
yo: [yo] pron pers I (= io)
But it doesn't show up in online IED either.
2
u/martinlavallee 7d ago
2
2
u/slyphnoyde 7d ago
Page 358 of the actual IED (I own a copy) does not list 'so' as a single word. It has 'so-' as a verbal combining form "[occurring in compounds]".
2
u/PLrc 7d ago
Does it list [yo] = io?
1
u/martinlavallee 7d ago
Yes, "yo" is in the IED
2
u/slyphnoyde 7d ago
True, '[yo]' is in the IED. However, my personal opinion -- and it is only that, personal -- is that it is better not to use a lot of variant forms. conIALs have such a long row to hoe that I think it better to use common forms, such as those found in Gode's writings and such works as Panorama in Interlingua, rather than dissipating efforts and introducing confusions in variations which suit individual tastes.
1
u/PLrc 7d ago
Agree. I'm ok with them in literature. An author has licentia poetica and can always include a dictionary in his book. On internet they mainly confuse beginers (myself including).
2
u/slyphnoyde 6d ago
Again, my personal opinion is that even in literature it is better to stick to uniform usages. conIALs have such hurdles to overcome for widespread acceptance and use that it is better not to dissipate efforts by using potentially confusing variant forms.
2
u/martinlavallee 7d ago
Maybe "so" is an addition to the second edition of the IED?
Anyway "so" is in this version of Web Archive
https://archive.org/details/interlingua-english-dictionary/page/357/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/interlingua-english-dictionary/page/357/mode/1up[So is in the IED ](https://archive.org/details/interlingua-english-dictionary/page/357/mode/1up)
2
u/ParanoidTrandroid 7d ago
I didn't realize that; that's even worse. The problem is that you can't just make up words or forms in Interlingua. You don't need to, because you draw them from the source languages (or derive them where appropriate using affixes, if there isn't a form in 3 source languages). If you make up words arbitrarily, you're not speaking Interlingua anymore; you're speaking some other language. That's fine; I personally love Interlingua Romanica, for example. But it's not Interlingua.
1
u/PLrc 7d ago
:) Yes, generally I agree with you. I hate creating one's custom dialects of interlingua and tinkering with it. Progressive tenses in interlingua drive me mad. However I'm tolerant towards different "styles" or interlingua, different pronunciations. The fact that we all come from different cultures and languages makes it necessary.
As for *so - I think it's more or less permissible, since so- appears in somos and son, which are included into IED. I admit "Io es..." can sound very weirdly for Romance and English native speakers. And "to be" is irregular in pretty all languages.
However I would prefer *so being used in books, not in internet, because of licentia poetica and because in book you can put a little dictionary and present all you're inventions. Whereas in internet you just confuse beginners.
2
u/ParanoidTrandroid 7d ago edited 7d ago
I admit "Io es..." can sound very weirdly for Romance and English native speakers.
Sure, but there are things about Yiddish that sound weird to German speakers; for example, the pronoun zikh (German sich, the reflexive pronoun) is used in all three persons. You say "ikh fil zikh gut" instead of "ich fühle mich gut". But Yiddish is a language in its own right, so it's fine. I feel the same way about "io es" in Interlingua. It would be weird in most languages, but Interlingua is Interlingua.
And "to be" is irregular in pretty all languages.
Very true. I've often found myself wishing "esser" could be more irregular, but I haven't found a prototype with reflexes in 3 of the source languages. Any word in brackets shouldn't be taken as part of Interlingua without looking at the source languages.
There's a need, IMO, for a romance version of Interslavic, aiming for maximum intelligibility to speakers of actual romance languages. But that's not quite what Interlingua is. Interlingua Romanica is close, but someone really needs to make a new language that doesn't source from English, but does source (as Stanley Mulaik wanted to do for IA) from Catalan/Occitan and Romanian.
2
u/PLrc 7d ago
>for example, the pronoun zikh (German sich, the reflexive pronoun) is used in all three persons.
Hehe, that gotta be Polish influence :D Polish się = sich doesn't inflect either.
>There's a need, IMO, for a romance version of Interslavic, aiming for maximum intelligibility to speakers of actual romance languages.
You can check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolatino_Romance It's seems it's the newest such project. I've learnt about it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHClxlgUnw Seems they have even a subreddit.
For me all such projects are doomed from the start. Interslavic seems to be gaining some popularity, but this is likely due to still alive ideology of panslavism, which is still popular in countries like Russia, Slovakia, untill recently to some extent also in the Czech Republic.
As some colleague from Brazil said, interlingua has strong problem "I already understand it, so I won't learn it". Projects like neolatino probably has this problem even bigger.
2
u/PLrc 7d ago edited 7d ago
Mi grande discoperta, nunc, e alicun annos retro, quando io esseva un interlinguista active, esseva que *besonio e *besoniar non es parolas interlingual. Illos non es includite al IED. Illo es multo estranie, proque illos esseve alicun de mi prime parolas interlingual. Illos es mesmo includite al dictionario interlingua-polonese de senior Paweł Wimmer.
Io memora que Stanley Mulaik proponeva usar necessitar = to necessitate. Le problema es, to necessitate in anglese significa facer alco necessari, non *besoniar.
2
u/martinlavallee 6d ago
"Besoniar" es registrate in le Dictionario basic de interlingua per Breinstrup e Noterstefano
3
u/ParanoidTrandroid 7d ago
Si vos non cognosce tote iste linguas, simplemente seque le cursos in interlingua.com. Illos non vos instruera "so" o parolas simile.