| Posted at 17:07 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
 Member Prof Gumby Posts: 488 | I was indeed talking about Esperanto. Thanks for reminding me  ----- I am on a hot streak... Litterally. |
| Posted at 11:50 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Master Gumby Posts: 134 | Quote: By Eagle: There is already an international language that been created by mixing all the main languages together. Unfortunatly, I don't seems to remember the name (I hear about it very rarely). Oh, that would be US or internet English  |
| Posted at 11:40 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Dr Gumby Posts: 268 | There are so many s on this page...Jeez, we must be pretty rude...----- Mock ugly people. Praise ugly goats. |
| Posted at 06:55 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
 Member Prof Gumby Posts: 607 | Well, there is another option: creating a language that's not based on any existing language... according to this short explanation I found this is called an a priori language. I can't imagine singing to each other all the time though. Quote: Constructed Languages All nice ideas, but I can't see how you would 'implement' them for the entire world at once; I mean, some countries don't even have schools where they could teach people a new language...Another way for a language to arise is through intentional creation. The best-known constructed or artificial language is Esperanto, created in 1887. But Esperanto was not the first constructed language. Solresol was a language based entirely on the eight notes of the musical scale. You could either speak the syllables do re mi fa sol la si do or else sing them. For example, the word for "God" was domisol, composed entirely of these syllables. Now, the word for "devil" was solmido which simply reverses the syllables for a word of the opposite meaning. Solresol was an a priori language, based on logical principles, not on any other language. Two other a priori languages were John Wilkins' Real Character (1650) and Leibniz's language based on the prime numbers. Volapük was the first invented language actually to acquire a following. But its rules of phonology were so strict that many of the words it borrowed from other languages were unrecognizable. The word Volapük was actually a compound noun, Vol a pük "world ('s) speak", where the first and last syllables were supposed to resemble the English words. So, for all intents and purposes, Volapük was also an a priori language. Most Volapük speakers learned Esperanto shortly after it was published in 1887 by L.L. Zamenhof as "Lingvo Internacia". Zamenhof used the pen name "Dr. Esperanto" (one who hopes), and that name caught on for the language. Esperanto is an a posteriori constructed language, meaning that it borrowed words and grammar from existing languages. But Esperanto also regularized the irregularities of these languages, and so it could be considered somewhat a priori as well. For example, in Esperanto, all nouns end in o, all adjectives end in a, and all adverbs end in e. For more information about Esperanto, visit the Esperanto League for North America or the Universal Esperanto Association. ----- "One Very Important Thought" |
| Posted at 06:37 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
 Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11126 | You might be talking about Esperanto. My grandparents speak it, they used to be quite active in that 'community' until a few years ago. I'm not all that sad it's dying. My main argument against this artificial language is the 'main languages mixed' point: it only takes romanic and 'germanic' (don't remember the proper term) languages into account and is therefore another example of the complete 'eurocentrism' of the world. If we want to have one 'world language', all language families would have to be taken into account equally - just that this is impossible, because the structures are too different. So I guess we should stick to a multipolar world. Cultural diversity is better anyway. ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
| Posted at 06:35 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 607 | Wasn't that language called 'Esperanto'? It was created to be as easy as possible to learn, of course no-one did since there's little use for it. Pretty sad really. ----- "One Very Important Thought" |
| Posted at 06:34 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 488 | There is already an international language that been created by mixing all the main languages together. Unfortunatly, I don't seems to remember the name (I hear about it very rarely). If I was considering about adopting a new language, that's the one I would take. It's only sad that this particular language is dying... I guess the world first nations prefer their homeland tongue... Quote: Posted at 18? on June, 15th 2003 by Mr Creosote At least your language isn't being torn up with tons of actual and pseudo words from a certain other language... That's what you think. The North American French been completely torn apart at a time when we almost got assimilated by the American culture and way of life. It's not like we really like it, but think about it; when you buy wares that come directly out from there without a french translation, you don't really have the choice but to take the english name. Fortunatly, Québec is better now that we fight for our language and that we can produce about everything we need. It's not the '60-'80 anymore... ----- I am on a hot streak... Litterally. |
| Posted at 04:54 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
 Member Prof Gumby Posts: 560 | Quote: Posted by Mr Creosote at 12:43 on June, 16th 2003: Indeed, the only obvious choice would be Flemish Yeah, everybody knows that if Europe ever got a common language, it would be the one most people speak natively anyway Actually I'ld prefer it if they would take Letzenburgs (sp?) as common language. If they choose French, they piss of the Germans, Brits and Spanish (and any other combination of these four) but if they choose Letzenburgs, they piss of everybody equally (which is the fairest in my opinion) and everybody would have to learn a new language so it requires the same effort for everybody (well, not exactly the same seeing as Dutch, German, French and English I think are related to letzenburgs so we should have an edge over the more romanic (sp?) languages) excpet of course for the letzenburgers themselves but hey, it's not like they count... (what's a few hundred thousand compared to the rest of europe, right?) Of course, my main preference is no lingua franca at all... I like our linguistic diversity so let's keep it. And if you wanna go to a place where they speak a different language, take the effort of learning it (wel at least enough to get by). It will make you understand your own language better and makes it easier to learn other languages... Edited by Pada1 at 12:56 on June, 16th 2003 ----- "In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable" |
| Posted at 04:43 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11126 | Quote: Posted by sterge10 at 09:13 on June, 16th 2003: Yeah, everybody knows that if Europe ever got a common language, it would be the one most people speak natively anyway Goat - Thats one of the oldest hoax's out there Quote: And to everyone else telling me my English is all wrong like i'm over it Like, you know, stuff.Edited by Mr Creosote at 12:43 on June, 16th 2003 ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
| Posted at 03:56 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 560 | like good for you To each their own I always say  ----- "In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable" |
| Posted at 01:13 on June 16th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
 Member Prof Gumby Posts: 421 | Goat - Thats one of the oldest hoax's out there And to everyone else telling me my English is all wrong like i'm over it ----- Not all That Glitters Is Gold, Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost. |
| Posted at 14:11 on June 15th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 336 | Quote: Posted by sterge10 at 14:16 on June, 13th 2003: No it's not rubbish, our english language class where you learn the finer aspects of the language, has taught us all that there is infact no correct english because it differs so much from one english speaking country to the next and even differs inside those various countries Being English, and having an English education I would disagree with that whole heartedly. Yes the language spoken differs from country to country, even region to region through the accent however the correct grammatical structure of the language does not change. Where I grew up in England the regional accent tends to drop the word "the" quite often from sentances so instead of saying "In the fridge" I would just say "In fridge". Just because this happens does not mean that there is no correct way to say it, it means that I'm saying it wrong by dropping the "the" and the grammatically correct way of saying it is "in the fridge". Other countries may differ, but thats differant because US and Australia dont speak English, they speak American English and Australian English respectively which to all intents and purposes are differant languages. When it comes to English though, there is definately a correct way of saying/writing things... ....and "would of" is most certainly incorrect. |
| Posted at 11:22 on June 15th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11126 | Obviously a hoax. ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
| Posted at 11:20 on June 15th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Dr Gumby Posts: 268 | Speaking of which (somebody posted this on another messageboard. I don't know if it's true, and I sure as hell hope it isn't), The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, and as per Germany's requests, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English". In the first year, 's' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard 'c' will be dropped in favour of the 'k'. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome 'ph' will be replased with the 'f'. This will make words like 'fotograf' 20% shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double leters which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. Also al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer peopl will be reseptiv to steps such as replasing 'th' with 'z' and 'w' with 'v'. During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary 'o' vil be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou' and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to oza kombinations of letas. After ziz fifz yer ve vil have a rali sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu anderstand ech oza. Ze drem of an united urop vil finali kum tru! ----- Mock ugly people. Praise ugly goats. |
| Posted at 10:25 on June 15th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11126 | At least your language isn't being torn up with tons of actual and pseudo words from a certain other language...  ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
| Posted at 09:25 on June 15th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 488 | Quote: Posted at 08:44 on June, 13th 2003 by sterge10 Maybe in American society, but here Would Of is perfectly acceptable. And remember there is no correct english! Aaaaand that's with people thinking that way that people who really knows how to spell correctly are as scarce as ever every passing day... But don't worry, I beleive it's happening with every single language on the world... ----- I am on a hot streak... Litterally. |
| Posted at 20:31 on June 14th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 421 | Quote: Posted by Da_Goat at 20:29 on June, 14th 2003: Sterge: Would you say "ofn't" instead of "haven't"? Would you say "I wouldd of died by now" instead of "I wouldd have died by now?" They are not synonyms and they cannot be used interchangably. Well firstly I wouldn't spell would with two d's Yes because as I have argued would of died is perfectably acceptable, but your first example makes no sense. Mr C: I know there exists rules of language, when I say there is no correct english, I am meaning that you can't say no you pronounced that wrong or no that is spelt wrong (e.g colour/color) because spelling and especially pronunciation differs so much. ----- Not all That Glitters Is Gold, Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost. |
| Posted at 12:29 on June 14th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Dr Gumby Posts: 268 | Quote: Posted by Mr Creosote at 11:47 on June, 11th 2003: I was correcting grammar, not spelling. Quote: grammer So much for Goat's 'corrections' Sterge: Would you say "ofn't" instead of "haven't"? Would you say "I wouldd of died by now" instead of "I wouldd have died by now?" They are not synonyms and they cannot be used interchangably. ----- Mock ugly people. Praise ugly goats. |
| Posted at 06:20 on June 13th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11126 | There are official language rules which may differ in some details from country to country, but still, these rules exist. You can always tell if something is correct or incorrect based on rules x or y. As for your teacher saying "would of" is acceptable, you shouldn't have asked that orally - because he/she might have thought you mean using the short form "would've" instead of "would have" ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
| Posted at 06:16 on June 13th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 421 | No it's not rubbish, our english language class where you learn the finer aspects of the language, has taught us all that there is infact no correct english because it differs so much from one english speaking country to the next and even differs inside those various countries ----- Not all That Glitters Is Gold, Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost. |