Talk:Latino sine flexione

404

The second site under "External Links", http://babel.inno.bme.hu/ , is coming up 404. But I'm leaving it there, in hopes that someone knows an updated URL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.221.16 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 March 2006

Questions

In the vowel pronunciation section, it says "e--as in th'e'y or 'a's" but they and as are totally different sounds. I seem to recall that 'a' in 'as' or |æ| is an exclusively English sound... I doubt this is true. However, I, knowing know 'Lation sine Flexione' wouldn't know so could be wrong. Also, it says that r is the 'rr' in correct since that is 'trilled' however correct is in no way trilled in any way I've ever heard it (unless spoken with, say, a Russian accent) so I doubt this is a suitable example. Another thing, in the Latin Proverbs section, the English translations are written in noticeably middle English (ie: "to-morrow" (tomorrow) "laboureth" (labors) "thyself" (yourself) etc.) Although latin in general has an older feel, a speaker of latin would in no way feel 'transported into the past' or 'not at ease' when they heard the phrase as would an English speaker hearing "laboureth" or "theyself." For this reason, I find they should be changed. Of course, again, I am not expert on 'Latino sine Flexione' and perhaps in this language the words do take on such a feel. I simply don't know. Alexandre-Jérôme 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if Latino sine Flexione would be considered a constructed language. Controlled language may be the more correct term. Bguest 03:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good point. I'll go see what a few other people in the IAL community think and then change it to controlled language if they agree. Mithridates 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA

I added the IPA pronunciationsiations based on how I thought the English example is pronounced and what I guessed the person meant in some cases. Corrections or clarification is welcome. [æ] is also found in other languages such as Scandinavian (North Germanic)Languages and Arabic, but doesn't seem very logical in this case. I put in anyway as I did with the two r pronunciations (first English (approximate), second trilled (as in Spanish or Italian). Bguest 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I changed the pronunciations to reflect more Italian pronunciation and less English because this is probably what was intended by the founder. I left in [æ] but removed the untrilled r because [r] is used as a symbol for r's in general anyway. Bguest 03:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables of Noun Declensions

The quick-glance tables depicting noun declension endings are not in the accepted scholarly numerical order of the actual Latin noun declensions. For example, the -is ending is in the fifth position on each table, whereas this is the third declension. I will attempt to make corrections for clarity. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Could be slightly clearer with proper enlargements of the actual table, but I don't have the time right now to puzzle out the arcane formulations of table-making, and this is at the very least better than before. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the list of "nouns" given before the tables is incorrect: ad is a preposition and et being a conjunction. However, being unfamiliar with Latino sine Flexione, I'm not going to edit it in case I am incorrect.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latino sine flexione. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722063830/http://www.dm.unito.it/collanacdrom/index.html to http://www.dm.unito.it/collanacdrom/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://elewthero.livejournal.com/870.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latino sine flexione. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201315/http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf to http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Family: Linguistic and Utilitaristic

A problem presents itself here and on Interslavic with the language family.

On the one hand, both are distinct developments from a given family, in case of Interlingua-IL even seamlessly: In Interlingua-IL from Neo Latin, in Interslavic from Old Church Slavonic. Every family attribute for those ancestor-languages is also correct for the planned languages.

In Interslavic, the family "South Slavic]] is omitted, because Interslavic has assimilated also elements from East- and West-Slavic languages, and has specifically abolished parts specific to the "South Slavic" family of Old Pannonic. In Interlingua-IL, Neo Latin is specifically the authority on orthography (but not flections).

On the other hand, both can be seen as "constructed" languages, even though Interlingua-IL is a stretch of the concept and is more of a controlled natural language than a "conlang". They are IALs ("usage"), A posteriori languages, and controlled/naturalistic languages.

The distinction between "zonal AL" and "international AL" may be a bit far-fetched; I'd use the "zonal AL" attribute more for the Meißen Midland German Chancellery Language (1500-1800) or, if it has simplifications compared to existing dialects, Mandarin (Red China) or Hindi (Indian Republic). Russenorsk etc. also come to mind. Interslavic IMO is better characterised as "IAL", regardless of every part coming from one family (Interlingua-IL itself is no different, but not considered "zonal").

So all in all, a posteriori naturalistic / planned IALs seem to have, at the moment, two distinct family trees, linguistic and utilitarian; both parts connot be omitted, that would put them on par with either a natural language like Ukrainian or Italian, or would put them on the same level as pet projects like Klingon, Dothraki, Valerian (or at least, less derogatory, Quenya). Instead of Volapük/Idiom Neutral, they are not a priori / guest elements so alienated they are no longer recognisable even to natives of the host language (eg. Volapük: Vol: from en. world; pük: from en. speech) that they are de facto a priori. Esperanto also draws from so rich a multitude of host languages on equal footing it no longer is possible to put it into an existing language family (perhaps Indo-Germanic/-European, but not (far) lower in the pedigree).

Perhaps the Template:languages could be altered so utilitarian as well as linguistic family were accounted for? (Most languages would have "usage=natural" or "usage=standardised natural" / "usage=natural dialect".)

--217.224.132.211 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

This section was tagged in October 2021 with "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutrality" etc. The tagger didn't see fit to elaborate in the Talk. What did she mean?

I like it that the article puts the descriptive stuff first and discursive stuff after. To integrate them would disrupt the coherence. As for the idea of rewriting the section, the tagger says nothing about how.

It's time to be bold and remove the tag. It all looks good as it to me.Moonsell (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Beginnings and the Academy

Dear friends of free knowledge, I believe that the beginning of the article is a little misleading. Latino sine flexione is clearly the brainchild of Mr Peano. The academy mentioned is the former Volapük Academy. It is misleading to say that the academy as such would have come up with Latino sine flexione, and certainly not since 1887. Back then, as I said, it was founded as the Volapük Academy. Ziko (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)