Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interslavic Language

steen.free.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Interslavic Language

#101

Post by lacampbell »

aasasd wrote: post #91
lacampbell wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words derived from the same source as 'Loft' seem to universally mean 'sky' or 'air' in almost all germanic languages... except English where it means 'small room near the ceiling'.

I guess Wiktionary might be mistaken, but it says the not-really-so-modern meaning of ‘loft’ is shared among Germanic languages: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loft

Nope, seems I am in the wrong here. Looks like Danish for example has both "Luft" (air) and "Loft" (the room), which come from the same word.

Re: Interslavic Language

#102

Post by strenholme »

asveikau wrote: post #59
strenholme wrote: post #30

As someone who has followed the constructed language and international auxiliary language community for a couple of decades, and as someone with an undergraduate degree in linguistics, I do not see a constructed language catching on with the mainstream public any time soon. A constructed language is a language that someone sits down and creates; this is different from a natural language which just forms as people com…

I'm curious what you would think of the history of Standard Italian or Modern Hebrew. In both cases, there was no such thing as a native speaker 300 years ago, but they were revived from historical literary sources to coincide with a new political identity or state, and today millions of people count them as their native language. It seems awfully like the story of a constructed language with high state, political an…

I don’t see either Hebrew or Italian as constructed languages. Hebrew, as other posters has pointed out, has been a liturgical language (akin to Latin or Coptic) for a long time, and is a direct derivative of a natural language. Italian is also a natural language, derived from the Florentine dialect of the Tuscan language.

I see a constructed language as something created when someone sits down and deliberately makes a language, as did Zamenhof did when he sat down and made the Esperanto language. This has been a number of times; a partial list is at https://ial.fandom.com/wiki/Linguas

Natural languages occur when two or more people together realize they need to communicate, but do not have a common language to do it with. Nicaraguan Sign Language is a notable example of a language just appearing out of the blue in the last 50 years. Idioglossia languages also frequently pop up, seemingly out of the blue. Pidgin languages (where two or more groups of people who speak different languages need to speak to each other) also pop up pretty quickly when communication needs to be done (and if children are exposed to a pidgin language, it then transforms and becomes a creole language because children will fill out all the “gaps” in the language to make it a full bodied language).

Re: Interslavic Language

#103

Post by nine_k »

wolf550e wrote: post #64
asveikau wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you would think of the history of Standard Italian or Modern Hebrew. In both cases, there was no such thing as a native speaker 300 years ago, but they were revived from historical literary sources to coincide with a new political identity or state, and today millions of people count them as their native language. It seems awfully like the story of a constructed language with high state, political an…

Hebrew had over a million speakers even when it wasn't anyone's native language. It was known to Jewish men who studied in a cheder as boys (those who did not continue to higher studies/seminary in a yeshiva), the way I think Arabic is known to Muslims who are not native speakers. Hebrew was used for literature and poetry and for communication between Jewish communities that didn't share a native language. It wasn't…

The problem that there were several dialects, each having a significant number of speakers, both in medieval Hebrew and medieval Italian languages, to say nothing of Germanic languages.

It took certain development of compromise standards and getting used to them, when a single state appeared which needed a unifying language: Israel, Italy, Germany.

All these countries still have a number of dialects spoken casually, but at least there is a common standard to use when in doubt.

Re: Interslavic Language

#104

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

lacampbell wrote: post #74
pvg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't specific to Slavic languages, it's the norm for all sorts of related languages or even the same language evolving over time. Think of the etymology of 'nice' or 'guest'/'host'/'hostile'/'hospital'.

Words derived from the same source as 'Loft' seem to universally mean 'sky' or 'air' in almost all germanic languages... except English where it means 'small room near the ceiling'.

Lofty carries some of the original meaning. The verbal loft also, which is where the contemporary meaning of the noun derives from.

Re: Interslavic Language

#105

Post by villedepommes »

tasogare wrote: post #95
villedepommes wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d immediately try English. Unless it's a literal matter of life and death to understand what the other person is saying without too much of a delay, it's a pretty asshole-y thing to do: a) The other person will "immediately" know that you think that their Russian is not up to snuff. b) They'll know their well intended effort isn't appreciated.

I'm living in a foreign country and speak fluently 3 languages, and known a few things in a forth one. Deciding which language to use with which person is a taxing effort in itself, especially in a group setting. There is no such thing as "asshole-y thing" to use English because each communication setting is different. Sometime the most important thing is to be understood quickly, then using English if there is any f…

> There is no such thing as "asshole-y thing" to use English because each communication setting is different

Exactly because each communication setting is different, in a number of them, switching to English unconditionally, which is what the parent was suggesting, is indeed an "asshole-y" thing to do.

> Sometime the most important thing is to be understood quickly

Isn't this exactly what I said, "Unless it's a literal matter of life and death to understand what the other person is saying without too much of a delay?"

> Deciding which language to use with which person is a taxing effort in itself, especially in a group setting

In a group -- yes. Else, you just sound lazy at best and like a person who doesn't give a duck at worst.

> On the other hand, if the goal is to build some emotional rapport, trying harder in the other person's native language is worth doing.

The goal is to just be a decent human-being who is at least sometimes considerate of others' wants.

Re: Interslavic Language

#106

Post by jwr »

yeellow wrote: post #5

Very interesting. I've tried to read some texts and I could easily understand them (as a native Polish speaker). I wonder if it is as easy for other Slavic nationalities. If so, it could be a nice intermediary language, if only for written texts. Unfortunately I guess almost nobody would learn to write or speak it but it is still funny to have a passive ability to read and understand and I guess all Slavic languages…

I am a native Polish speaker as well, and I can understand the texts very well, but I think they might be more difficult for younger readers, who did not learn any Russian. It seems to me that Polish has drifted away from most other Slavic languages.

As an example, without learning any Russian you have no chance to understand "govorju" which is like the Russian verb "govorit'", which is "mówić" in Polish.

One thing I found interesting is that the cyrillic versions are actually easier to read, as many Slavic sounds can more easily be represented (like "ч" or "щ").

Re: Interslavic Language

#107

Post by adrianN »

strenholme wrote: post #30

As someone who has followed the constructed language and international auxiliary language community for a couple of decades, and as someone with an undergraduate degree in linguistics, I do not see a constructed language catching on with the mainstream public any time soon. A constructed language is a language that someone sits down and creates; this is different from a natural language which just forms as people com…

Esperanto would have had a good chance of becoming a useful language had the League of Nations adopted it as its official language. However the French veto prevented this and essentially killed the movement.

Re: Interslavic Language

#108

Post by 3flp »

yeellow wrote: post #5

Very interesting. I've tried to read some texts and I could easily understand them (as a native Polish speaker). I wonder if it is as easy for other Slavic nationalities. If so, it could be a nice intermediary language, if only for written texts. Unfortunately I guess almost nobody would learn to write or speak it but it is still funny to have a passive ability to read and understand and I guess all Slavic languages…

Another native Czech here; I find the text at least 80% to 90% understandable without any training.

Re: Interslavic Language

#109

Post by gpvos »

amatic wrote: post #63
asveikau wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you would think of the history of Standard Italian or Modern Hebrew. In both cases, there was no such thing as a native speaker 300 years ago, but they were revived from historical literary sources to coincide with a new political identity or state, and today millions of people count them as their native language. It seems awfully like the story of a constructed language with high state, political an…

Serbo-croatian might go to that list as well, as it was an official language in the former Yugoslavia. French too. Spanish (Castillan). Seems like interslavic might have a chance only in a hypothetical panslavic country.

According to Wikipedia, Serbo-Croatian was standardized before there was a unified Yugoslav state.

Re: Interslavic Language

#110

Post by tomcooks »

adrianN wrote: post #107
strenholme wrote: post #30

As someone who has followed the constructed language and international auxiliary language community for a couple of decades, and as someone with an undergraduate degree in linguistics, I do not see a constructed language catching on with the mainstream public any time soon. A constructed language is a language that someone sits down and creates; this is different from a natural language which just forms as people com…

Esperanto would have had a good chance of becoming a useful language had the League of Nations adopted it as its official language. However the French veto prevented this and essentially killed the movement.

There are a lot more problems with Esperanto than the French veto I believe
Post reply on HN