| 20 Sep 2023 |
 dobridensky | 
Download image.png | 16:52:55 |
| dobridensky | Fun fact: Whereas this text in ě has 276 characters, its German translation would have 342.
Kvod nos može lerne od to? Ekumenski e twitterfrendli lingua. 😎 | 17:04:34 |
 christiansi | so you need to sorry to finish it before twitter is completely dead! 🏃♂️ | 17:57:09 |
| christiansi | i didn't quite get the blablagram, what will the helmutivi particle be? | 17:57:35 |
| christiansi | * so you need to hurry to finish it before twitter is completely dead! 🏃♂️ | 17:57:44 |
| dobridensky | Kvod?
Me denked ke kvod Elon Musk kaufe, never ve mortiske. 😃
As for your question: You actually got the blablagram right because it was not stated there how the particle would look like.
The most probable choice would be Russian da. So in the Lord's Prayer it would read "da vente tei regia, da pase tei vol". And one of my favorite expressions would be "da vive di vojvod de Fridlant!"
This da would thus correspond to да in Russian (and, if I got it right, Bulgarian and Serbocroatian), ať in Czech, naj in Slovene (which would be an option too), mey in Occidental and que in Interlingua. | 18:05:30 |
| christiansi | ah ok, i see | 18:06:26 |
| christiansi | but the -ej form will still be a valid alternative, right? | 18:06:50 |
| dobridensky | I guess not: That's the idea behind considering to replace it by an analytical form.
This is not entirely sure yet, but in any case it would avoid any chance to mix up -ej as an imperative with -ej in nouns like sprej, plej, bobslej, komitej, botej etc. Normally context and word order should make it clear, but this is to be on the safe side, and in order to avoid any ambiguities.
Besides I think: The fewer endings a verb can take (with an analytical helmutive, there would be left five in ě), the clearer the grammar becomes. | 18:12:52 |
| dobridensky | * I guess not: That's the idea behind considering to replace it by an analytical form.
This is not entirely sure yet, but in any case it would avoid any chance to mix up -ej as an imperative/helmutive with -ej in nouns like sprej, plej, bobslej, komitej, botej etc. Normally context and word order should make it clear, but this is to be on the safe side, and in order to avoid any ambiguities.
Besides I think: The fewer endings a verb can take (with an analytical helmutive, there would be left five in ě), the clearer the grammar becomes. | 18:13:55 |
|  geamy#0 changed their display name from .gaemy#0 to geamy#0. | 18:24:29 |
| christiansi | it's certainly a step in the direction of making ě more worldlangy, or creole-like 😃 | 18:52:21 |
| dobridensky | Right, which is not a bad thing. Besides it gets ě closer to Occidental and Novial, whereas an own form for conditional mood keeps it also close to Esperanto. | 18:57:52 |
 ellipsis3344 | I don't see why it would be fundamentally an adjective– "open" is just the past participle of "to open" | 21:45:12 |
| 21 Sep 2023 |
| dobridensky | Yes, that's what I initially thought too. But when I saw that wiktionary categorizes it as an adjective, this was almost a relief for me: If we took "open" as a past participle (by the way, wouldn't that rather be "opened" in EN?), according to Ekumenski's grammar this would lead to ope as the infinitive form:
ope - me/te/el etc. ope; me oped; me opejsi; opent; open.
This would look even weirder to me, as the -n-, which characterizes this concept in all Germanic languages, would then appear only in the past participle form. | 04:48:59 |
| dobridensky | * Yes, that's what I initially thought too. But when I saw that wiktionary categorizes it as an adjective, this was almost a relief for me: If we took "open" as a past participle (by the way, wouldn't that rather be "opened" in EN?), according to Ekumenski's grammar this would lead to ope as the infinitive form:
ope - me/te/el etc. ope; me oped; me opejsi; opent; open.
This would look even weirder to me, as the -n-, which is present in all Germanic languages, would then appear only in the past participle form. | 04:57:23 |
| christiansi | english and german both have two forms (open/opened, offen/geöffnet), while esperanto and elefen have just one for both. i think one is sufficient. | 06:57:17 |
| christiansi | * english and german both have two forms (open/opened, offen/geöffnet), while esperanto and elefen have just one form. i think one is sufficient. | 06:57:36 |
| dobridensky | Yes, Romance languages also have only one form (e. g. ES abierto, as an irregular past participle of abrir), and if I got it right, it's the same thing with Slavic languages (e. g. SK otvoríť - otvorený). So one could indeed argue that one form was enough.
However, I see a slight difference between something that is open (it might have never been closed, e. g. open space) and opened - the latter implies that someone, or something, has opened the thing in question (e. g. "the window was opened by the wind").
So the question will be whether Ekumenski rather goes for expressiveness, or for simplicity. | 11:24:15 |
| christiansi | i don't think that expressiveness is very helpful in practice. | 12:52:18 |
| christiansi | when people here about an open door they probably don't that it it was never closed, so it's mostly just synomyous anyway. | 12:53:19 |
| christiansi | * when people here about an open door they probably don't that it it was never closed, so it's mostly just synonyms anyway. | 12:53:26 |
| dobridensky | Hum. Good point. | 14:52:32 |
|  sabrakadabra joined the room. | 18:02:15 |
| 22 Sep 2023 |
|  lucio971#0 changed their display name from Lucio to lucio971#0. | 14:55:03 |
| lucio971#0 set a profile picture. | 14:55:09 |
| 23 Sep 2023 |
|  pdyq#0 changed their display name from pdyq to pdyq#0. | 09:54:10 |
| pdyq#0 changed their profile picture. | 09:54:18 |
|  wasted_youth.#0 changed their display name from mitochondrium to wasted_youth.#0. | 23:12:14 |
| wasted_youth.#0 changed their profile picture. | 23:12:26 |
