Latino sine Flexione

[Nephele]

Since auxiliary languages (such as Esperanto) have always interested me, and with this being a board dedicated to all things Roman, I was wondering whether anyone here has ever dabbled in Latino sine Flexione?

 

In 1903 Prof. Giuseppe Peano published an article titled De Latino sine Flexione, Lingua Auxiliare Internationale. Its point was simple: why quibble over which planned language would make a better international tongue when the world already has one -- Latin! Not classical Latin, which died with the Empire, but the living Latin of English and the Romance languages. Anglo-Latin, as it were. And simplified Anglo-Latin at that, without all those hydra-like inflexions, conjugations, double roots, and so forth. In fact, without any grammar at all. Less, Peano argued, is more.

 

It seems that, with merely a Latin dictionary in hand and an understanding of the simple system of rules for LsF, one can let fly with the following useful phrases (taken from the website):

 

Da ad me cervisia.

Give me the beer.

 

Da ad me hoc cervisia.

Give me this beer.

 

Da ad me illo cervisia.

Give me that beer.

 

Da ad me uno cervisia.

Give me a beer.

 

Da ad me illo meo cervisia.

Give me that beer of mine.

 

Da ad me uno meo cervisia.

Give me one of my beers.

 

Cervisia es bono.

Beer is good.

 

Hoc cervisia es bono.

This beer is good.

 

Might Latino sine Flexione have some usefulness -- if not as an international language, then for entertainment purposes as an easy-to-learn and amusing faux Latin for folks interested in ancient Rome?

 

-- Nephele

Edited March 4, 2007 by Nephele Carnalis

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Eh, I have a teacher who knows Esperanto and it does seem really easy. However, it does not seem original or has that aura of intelligence IMO.

Edited March 4, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[docoflove1974]

I, too, am not much of an Esperanto lover (sorry, Nephele), and this Latino sine Flexione seems fun, but that's about it.

 

--All nouns taken from the genitive??? Whoa, that's bucking tradition; in the Romance languages, most nouns are taken from the accusative, with a few nominative exceptions (particularly in Italian and Rumanian). I note that Latino 2nd declension is -o, more like the accusative...in fact, one could argue that all the endings they show for the declensions are more similar to the accusative inflexions (minus the final consonant, if there is one) than the genitive.

 

--Nouns as verbs...eh, I guess it could work, but it's a bit simplistic.

 

--The paring of inflection on verbs, I assume, is the Anglo side of things? I guess aspect is more Anglo-based, with the heavy reliance on adverbials.

 

--Articles as illo or uno--this is historically correct, although the lack of gender is bothersome; again, highly important in Romance and early English

 

--Plurality as optional...even English shows plurality...

 

--

There's a fundamental flaw in the "naturalistic" approach to neo-Latin conlangs that undermines their whole reason for existence. That flaw, of course, lies in the fact that it's the irregularities and complexities of Latin that created the need for an artificially streamlined version in the first place. To incorporate those drawbacks into a planned language is to re-invent a square wheel. Why, for example, preserve the gender markers of Latin in a language claiming to have no gender at all? How does one justify to a student that he should say muliere and not muliera or muliero, or poeta and not poete or poeto? If Esperanto's akcento seems artificial to those accustomed to writing accento, accent or even accentus, at least its form is predictable; who but a Latin scholar might guess that the Latino word is accentu?

 

Ok, this probably is what bothers me more than anything else. Gender is a categorization, and nothing else. As far as the inflexion, this is determined primarily by declension and animacy--lexical gender assignment is based off of how the animate nouns are set up. If noun A (inanimate) resemble noun B (animate) in sound or form at the end of the word, then noun A will have the same gender. So, there is a reason for gender--in order to group nouns together. The rules must be learned as a type of categorization rule, and students are shown the patterns in the gender categories (well, by the good instructors, at least ) To say that there seems to be no reason for gender inflexion as it is in Latin (or any other language) show ignorance.

 

The other aspect of ignorance: if one studies Latin, then there is an observance that there is a difference between the first and second declensions on the one hand, and the third, fourth and fifth on the other. There is a reason for this: the first and second declensions were later inventions of Proto-Indo-European, and seem to have come about once PIE went from a gender system based on animacy (animate vs. non-animate) to masculine/feminine/neuter. The Latin third declension in particular, but even the fourth and fifth, are archaic, and do not show true gender inflection (save for a masc/fem vs. neut distinction). So, again, there is a reason that muliere is as it is...it's a third declension noun. Also, for many third declension nouns, as they evolved into the Romance languages, they remained non-inflecting for gender, but follow the same gender (for the most part) in Latin. But the first and second declensions grew in their dominance, and one could argue that this is due to its obvious inflection for gender. As for poeta--the Greek borrowings into Latin for -ma, -pa and -eta came into Latin masculine (I believe without exception), and to this day the Romance languages keep most of them in the masculine. They are, for the most part, considered to be 'educated words' (cultismos in Spanish), and it is this reason that they've kept their masculine gender. I will say that, supposedly, in rural areas many have been switched to the feminine gender (e.g. la problema), but I don't have studies on hand to reference to, so I'll just chalk this up to being rumor.

Edited March 4, 2007 by docoflove1974

[Nephele]

Thank you, DoL, for your comments and analysis of LsF.

 

To say that there seems to be no reason for gender inflexion as it is in Latin (or any other language) show ignorance.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think the author of that piece was saying that there seems to be no reason for gender inflexion as it is in Latin, so much as he was questioning why LsF purports to be gender-free, yet still retains the appearance of gender inflexion. I have to admit that I find LsF to be contradictory in that regard, with the phrase: "Cervisia es bono" looking just plain wrong.

 

Of course there's a reason for gender inflexion, conjugations, and so on in language, and you've done an excellent and scholarly job in making that case. But auxiliary languages such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, LsF, etc. were designed by idealists for simplicity in international communication. As I'm sure you already know, an auxiliary language's purpose isn't to replace one's existing language, it's only to serve as a bridge between two people when neither one speaks the other's primary language. The quicker the auxiliary language can be learned, the quicker the bridge can be built. At least, that's the intention.

 

From personal experience, I can't say that even Esperanto, by far the most successful of the auxiliary languages, serves the purpose for which it was originally intended. Most of the people I've encountered who had in interest in learning Esperanto also had an interest in (and aptitude for) learning other languages as well -- thereby negating the need for this bridge language. Esperanto is also something with which I amuse myself, much the same way that I amuse myself with anagrams. (I'm equally intrigued with the created languages of J.R.R. Tolkien.) I suspect that the vast majority of other Esperanto speakers out there are playing around with the language for pretty much the same reasons as I am.

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

A secret language for Romanophiles, the way Klingon is for Trekkies!

[Nephele]

A secret language for Romanophiles, the way Klingon is for Trekkies!

 

Hahahahaha! You devil -- you nailed it!

 

-- Nephele

[docoflove1974]

A secret language for Romanophiles, the way Klingon is for Trekkies!

 

Hahahahaha! You devil -- you nailed it!

 

-- Nephele

 

Completely! Nephele, my feelings are similar to yours, then. As for J.R.R. Tolkien, I really am quite in admiration of the languages he created; highly complex, if I recall correctly. U.Texas offers an undergraduate course from the Linguistics dept. on the languages, and I always wanted to take it, but never had the time.

[Nephele]

Completely! Nephele, my feelings are similar to yours, then. As for J.R.R. Tolkien, I really am quite in admiration of the languages he created; highly complex, if I recall correctly. U.Texas offers an undergraduate course from the Linguistics dept. on the languages, and I always wanted to take it, but never had the time.

 

 

I love the beautiful Elvish names Tolkien created, with the melodic Welsh sound to them. I once tried anagramming Elvish names for people, but it was pretty difficult, as I wasn't all that familiar with the formation of Tolkien's names at the time and I wanted the anagrammed names at least to have a semblance of authenticity. There are various elements that go into the creation of an Elvish name, and I was doing better with Quenyan than with Tolkien's other languages. I may take it up again someday, and launch a "Your Hidden Elvish Name" over in the Hora Postilla Thermae forum.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Edited March 5, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Gaius Octavius]

Never nick a pack of Peter Piper's pickled pickles.