There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Leonardo Castro
1b. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Daniel Burgener
1c. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: MorphemeAddict
1d. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Roger Mills
1e. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Roger Mills
1f. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Logan Kearsley
1g. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Padraic Brown
1h. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Matthew George
2a. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: BPJ
3a. Re: Do people ever make variant numerical systems for non-primitive
From: Logan Kearsley
4a. Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to conlan
From: Matthew George
4b. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
From: MorphemeAddict
4c. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
From: Adam Walker
4d. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
From: Gary Shannon
4e. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
From: selpa'i
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 6:18 am ((PST))
2013/3/7 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I don't remember if my friend found a simple way of performing
>> divisions. I think division requires "guessing" quotients and checking
>> if you have to raise or lower it in the next trial. That's how we do
>> with Indo-Arabic numerals too, isn't it?
>>
>
> I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
> http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
But I think this method also involve guess and check: the operation
"42 ÷ 25 = 1 remainder 17" is presented as a single step, but it
involves guessing 1 and checking that 25x1 is less than 42, then
guessing 2 and checking that 25x2 is greater than 42. If you can do it
very fast, it's another matter. Dividing (e.g.) 343 by 42 would not be
as easy to do in one's head.
Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
>
> The guess and check method sounds especially tedious in roman numerals
> where multiplication is tedious.
>
> -Daniel
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 6:20 am ((PST))
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2013/3/7 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I don't remember if my friend found a simple way of performing
> >> divisions. I think division requires "guessing" quotients and checking
> >> if you have to raise or lower it in the next trial. That's how we do
> >> with Indo-Arabic numerals too, isn't it?
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
> > http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
>
> But I think this method also involve guess and check: the operation
> "42 ÷ 25 = 1 remainder 17" is presented as a single step, but it
> involves guessing 1 and checking that 25x1 is less than 42, then
> guessing 2 and checking that 25x2 is greater than 42. If you can do it
> very fast, it's another matter. Dividing (e.g.) 343 by 42 would not be
> as easy to do in one's head.
>
> Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
> heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
> skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
>
> >
> > The guess and check method sounds especially tedious in roman numerals
> > where multiplication is tedious.
> >
> > -Daniel
>
Fair enough.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:13 am ((PST))
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2013/3/7 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I don't remember if my friend found a simple way of performing
> >> divisions. I think division requires "guessing" quotients and checking
> >> if you have to raise or lower it in the next trial. That's how we do
> >> with Indo-Arabic numerals too, isn't it?
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
> > http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
>
> But I think this method also involve guess and check: the operation
> "42 ÷ 25 = 1 remainder 17" is presented as a single step, but it
> involves guessing 1 and checking that 25x1 is less than 42, then
> guessing 2 and checking that 25x2 is greater than 42. If you can do it
> very fast, it's another matter. Dividing (e.g.) 343 by 42 would not be
> as easy to do in one's head.
>
> Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
> heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
> skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
>
> >
> > The guess and check method sounds especially tedious in roman numerals
> > where multiplication is tedious.
> >
>
This is where the multiplication table comes in. A table of values already
calculated for easy reference. It's also why kids are taught the times
tables. (They still are, right?)
stevo
> -Daniel
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:42 am ((PST))
--- On Thu, 3/7/13, Daniel Burgener <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
=========================================================
That's pretty much what I learned back in the Dark Ages (1940s) and what I
still use when I don't have a calc. or comp. handy ;-) except for the first
step (25 into 4 = 0). Our rule of thumb was: if the divisor doesn't go into the
first digit, start with the first two digits (25 into 42 in their ex.).
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:02 am ((PST))
--- On Thu, 3/7/13, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
2013/3/7 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
>
> I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
> http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
But I think this method also involve guess and check: the operation
"42 ÷ 25 = 1 remainder 17" is presented as a single step, but it
involves guessing 1 and checking that 25x1 is less than 42, then
guessing 2 and checking that 25x2 is greater than 42. If you can do it
very fast, it's another matter. Dividing (e.g.) 343 by 42 would not be
as easy to do in one's head.
Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
=====================================
Yes, but.... that's where knowing the multiplication table helps. Doesn't
anyone learn that anymore???
42 is obviously bigger than 25; but you _know_ that 2x25 is 50, so 1 is the
obvious answer..... Same with 343 by 42-- you _know_ that 6x40 is 240 which
would leave 83 (and deduct 7x2=14 from that gives 69, which also contains 42)
so you'd try 7 or 8 (and 8 turns out to be right).
Yes, it can involve a certain amount of trial and error, but I suspect even the
(cleverer?) ancient Romans knew things like this too........ But is there any
alternative????
>
> The guess and check method sounds especially tedious in roman numerals
> where multiplication is tedious.
>
> -Daniel
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:51 am ((PST))
On 7 March 2013 10:02, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 3/7/13, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 2013/3/7 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
>>
>> I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
>> http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
>
> But I think this method also involve guess and check: the operation
> "42 ÷ 25 = 1 remainder 17" is presented as a single step, but it
> involves guessing 1 and checking that 25x1 is less than 42, then
> guessing 2 and checking that 25x2 is greater than 42. If you can do it
> very fast, it's another matter. Dividing (e.g.) 343 by 42 would not be
> as easy to do in one's head.
>
> Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
> heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
> skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
> =====================================
>
> Yes, but.... that's where knowing the multiplication table helps. Doesn't
> anyone learn that anymore???
>
> 42 is obviously bigger than 25; but you _know_ that 2x25 is 50, so 1 is the
> obvious answer..... Same with 343 by 42-- you _know_ that 6x40 is 240 which
> would leave 83 (and deduct 7x2=14 from that gives 69, which also contains 42)
> so you'd try 7 or 8 (and 8 turns out to be right).
>
> Yes, it can involve a certain amount of trial and error, but I suspect even
> the (cleverer?) ancient Romans knew things like this too........ But is there
> any alternative????
I don't think so; however, you can eliminate all of the trial and
error by simply trying all possible options in order. The radix/base
of your numeral system determines how many options there are- given
two numbers with the same number of digits, in a base-10 system the
smaller can go into the larger a maximum of 9 times, so you have only
have 10 options, and on average it will take 5 attempts
(test-multiplies) to find the right match going through the
possibilities linearly, or 3.3 attempts if you use bisection. Knowing
multiplication tables lets you cut down the average number of attempts
by constraining the range you need to check to something smaller than
0-9 by comparing only the leading digits.
This only works if you can get things into a positional notation with
a consistent base, of course, but it's already been noted that Roman
bi-quinary numerals can be grouped into decimal positions.
Using a smaller base means that generating each digit of the result
will be faster, because there are fewer options to try, but that's
balanced out by the fact that you just have to do it more times. A
binary system is nice for division because there are only two options,
and the next result digit depends solely on whether one number is
bigger than the other or not, so division can be done entirely by
shifting digits and subtracting; memorized multiplication tables for
a binary notation help essentially by simulating a quaternary, octal,
or hexadecimal system and generating multiple digits at a time.
Note that the division algorithm is strongly dependent on the fact
that we use a place-value notation. Different representations can make
different operations easier or harder in surprising ways, such that
sometimes the easiest way to perform some calculation might actually
be to change your notation, do the calculation in a different,
specialized, notation, and then translate back to your standard
notation- that's what we'd be doing by grouping Roman numerals into
simulated decimals. But for an example where Indo-Arabic numerals are
particularly bad, it turns out that calculating roots is really easy
when you represent things in an exponential notation (scientific
notation, or IEEE 754 floating-point format).
-l.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 10:12 am ((PST))
--- On Thu, 3/7/13, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
>
> > Besides, arithmetic usually involves know a lot of simpler results by
> > heart and using them to perform more complex ones. Maybe you could
> > skip a lot of intermediate calculations with Roman numerals too.
>
> Yes, but.... that's where knowing the multiplication table
> helps. Doesn't anyone learn that anymore???
We did (1970s). Does anyone know if the Romans had multiplication or
division tables?
It would be a trivial matter for an educated slave to crunch numbers and
then for other slaves to copy the results into usable tables. Thereafter,
not much need for heavy crunching -- just look up the answer in the
Liber Magnum Ruber Calculonum.
Much like the various sine and log books of yore -- why reinvent the wheel
every time you want to multiply 12 by 143, when all you have to do is look
up the answer in a book?
I just did the experiment of how to multiply in RomNum -- trivially easy,
by breaking down large numerals into smaller constituents, using a table
or memorised answers and then toting up all the small constituents. (The
bias to *think* in arabic numerals is not easy to overcome!)
Division proved to be a rather harder mountain to climb. A table would be
extremely handy, but I don't know if the Romans would have thought simialrly.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 12:12 pm ((PST))
Why bother creating a system to make less work for slaves? They're *slaves*
.
Or so I presume the Romans would have thought.
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:49 am ((PST))
On 2013-03-07 11:33, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 7 March 2013 10:43, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As far as I could gauge from information found on
>>> the SIL website they
>> are basically the same. I used Shoebox once upon a
>> time but have been keeping my vocabularies in CSV
>> files for years now.
>>
>>
> I like Toolbox because it keeps things tidy,
> automatically sorts entries (with the correct
> alphabet order, despite my use of weird letters :) ),
> while the back-end is still just plain text files. It
> lowers the overhead a lot.
Too much mouse-pointing and menu-mucking for my taste.
I'm basically a plain-text guy. Besides I can sort any
which way me pleases (almost) from within perl:
<https://metacpan.org/module/Sort::ArbBiLex>
You'll notice it's by the same author. He used to be
*the* linguist on the CPAN. BTW I have an object-
oriented wrapper around this module which allows you to
define a sort-key generating function, chuse the
normalization form to use during sort[^1], return
objects which can tell their string value as well as
their sort key and their family rather than as plain
strings -- although they stringify to their string
values! -- get the entries as a list of lists, one for
each family, and give families arbitrary names like
"digits". It's in need of documentation, but if anyone
is interested I might get around to writing that
documentation. It was part of a project to write a
Unicode-aware drop-in replacement for makeindex with
support for arbitrary sort orders. Maybe one day...
[^1]: It's a good idea to use NFD during sorting
because then letters with unforeseen decomposable
diacritics get sorted under their base letter rather
than just ignored!
>
>
>>>>
>>> My programming skills are rusty, but that may be a
>>> good opportunity to revive them. It may be useful
>>> for other people as well.
>>>
>>> I looked at the code for that parser and it wasn't
>>> that complicated. I
>> got a bit of an itch to rewrite it -- easy to resist
>> since I don't have any currently relevant data set
>> of my own and many other things including Real
>> Work(TM) on my hands.
>
>
> I've actually discovered a PDF entitled "From Toolbox
> to LaTeX", with a link to a Perl script and a LaTeX
> style that claim to do exactly what I want. It's at:
> http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/uploads/media/tb-to-
> tex.pdf I've downloaded the scripts, and it seems
> that they could be useful as starting point, but
> there's a lot of work needed before either can be
> used with my dictionary. You're welcome to scratch
> your itch on those if you want (my Perl skills are
> basically non-existent. I'm more of a Ruby guy
> myself).
Sorry to say but there was a bug which would cause it
not to compile right on line 11! Also It's quite
ancient from days before perl was unicode-aware or
before XeTeX was around! Anyway my itch got kinda
piqued, so maybe I'll look into it once my current
commission is done in a couple of weeks. I'm unlikely
to get a new commission right away anyway.
Anyway you might probably write something in Ruby to
get your database into a datastructure. The parsing
code in Text::Shoebox isn't exactly complicated, though
it too shows its age.
> Unfortunately, the only computer I have access to on
> which I can use Word is locked down, and I can't
> install fonts on it. So I'll just have to make do
> with the fonts already installed there.
I'm not surprised! I ditched MSW in both senses years
ago and haven't looked back. That's part of why I'm
reluctant to use Toolbox even under wine.
> That's why I'm so keen on a LaTeX solution. I could
> then use XeLaTeX on my home computer and use any font
> I want to.
I hardly ever use a WYSIWYG WP program willingly any
more; it's vim, pandoc and XeLaTeX all over the place.
(*un*willing = paid work is another matter. Luckily
OpenOffice/LibreOffice can open most anything they
throw at me -- usually .doc(x)!)
>> I know the feeling! I changed the transcription of
>> Sohlob once when going from ASCII to Latin-1 --
>> which then only meant to replace some unambiguous
>> digraphs tj sj dj ae with c ç j æ -- but I won't
>> 'remedy' the digraphs that remain, especially since
>> ny ng ngg for /J N Ng/ and hl hr hm hn hng for
>> voiceless liquids and nasals are pretty intuitive.
>> Rather the problem is that c ç for /ts\ s\/ aren't
>> intuitive for most people!
>>
>>
> In the past I've looked at alternatives for |l, |n,
> |s and |z, but I could never find anything pleasing.
> It's important that those four characters should keep
> a connection (the phonemes they represent behave in
> the same way in some environments, and differently
> from any other consonant), but I've never found
> anything that worked across the board. Diacritics
> just look wonky on _l_.
At least unless they go below, and Unicode doesn't
offer much in that department, pre-composedwise. In
fact acute and underdot are the only ones which come
with all your four letters, and Å/ź and á¹£/Ạlook wonky
for affricates! At a pinch I'd probably use ḷá¹
ṡż
-- after all the dot is the mother of all diacritics
and it would be justified to exceptionally put it
below l.
I now see that the latest Unicode has some new offerings
which might give you a reasonable set which recalls the pipe:
0141 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L WITH STROKE
0142 LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH STROKE
A7A4 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER N WITH OBLIQUE STROKE
A7A5 LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH OBLIQUE STROKE
A7A8 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S WITH OBLIQUE STROKE
A7A9 LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH OBLIQUE STROKE
01B5 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z WITH STROKE
01B6 LATIN SMALL LETTER Z WITH STROKE
The s with oblique stroke glyphs I've seen so far
are way to similar to a digit 8 though! There is
also your very good point that
> I'd rather have
> people plainly not knowing how to pronounce words
> rather than people *thinking* they know how to
> pronounce words and doing it wrong.
Very good point indeed!
But then I suppose you should replace j with y!
And I suppose you know that based on your own
description of Moten morphophonology and spelling
lj nj ts dz would be perfectly unambiguous!
>
> In the end, I decided to stick with the pipe. It may
> be a weird choice, but it works for me, and it now
> *feels* like part of Moten's identity. It gives it a
> unique look on the page at least :) .
I can't blame you. Back in typewriter days I used
overstruck slash with impunity! :-)
On 2013-03-07 14:02, A. da Mek wrote:
> There is one disadvantage of non-letter characters - Google does
> not recognize such string as one word.
Well Christophe could always (ab)use 01C0 LATIN LETTER
DENTAL CLICK! ;-)
/bpj
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Do people ever make variant numerical systems for non-primitive
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 10:32 am ((PST))
On 4 March 2013 18:44, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was thinking about Roman numerals, and how terrible for performing
> mathematics that whole system is. Then it occurred to me that I've never
> encountered a conlang with a system anything like it. Toki Pona's is
> somewhat similar, but much simpler, and is obviously related to that lang's
> design intent. Pretty much all of the other variation I've heard about
> involves numerical bases. But the place-value system, complete with zero,
> is always what people seem to choose.
>
> I haven't looked at all that many systems. Do people ever make clunky,
> irrational, and old-fashioned systems like the Roman numerals? Or are the
> purposes of number systems so practical that most conlangers have no
> interest in making such a complex (no, baroque) method for doing math?
> Most other aspects of conlangs seem to be deliberately elaborated and
> intricate, reflecting how much weirdness is out there and how the
> complexity of a language isn't related to how materially-advanced its
> society is. But historically, most peoples had very basic math skills.
>
> I'd love to see counter-examples to the modern place-value system. Can you
> recommend any?
Sadly, I cannot provide examples of conlangs with entirely
non-place-value systems. However, Klingon uses a place-value system
that's rather different from what most people are familiar with; it's
got three numerals, but the digits run 1 to 3, not 0 to 2.
Counting goes as follows:
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3 (three ones)
11 - 4 (one three and one ones)
12 - 5 (one three and two ones)
13 - 6 (one three and 3 ones; this is the kind of weird part)
21 - 7 (two threes and one one)
etc.
Most representations are the same as in a regular place value system
with zero, except for powers of the radix, which have one less digit,
eliminating the zero. A mechanical transformation can be done on any
regular place-value system to turn it into a zero-less system like
this.
I came up with a mixed system (intending to use it for Mev Pailom, but
that hasn't worked out very well as of yet) with basic numerals for 1,
2, and 5. Counting goes
1
2
1 and 2
2 2s
5
5 and 1
5 and 2
5 with 2 and 1
5 with 2 2s
2 5s
...
2 and 1 of 5 = 15
...
2 2's of 5 = 20
I don't have any sort of extra-linguistic numeral-only notation for it
yet. And it gets very clumsy when trying to describe numbers much
larger than 80 (2 2s of 2 2s of 5). So it needs a bit work still.
-l.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to conlan
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 12:17 pm ((PST))
I've been playing around with extending Esperanto so that it can easily
refer to certain complexities. If I manage to pull it off, what would be a
good way to expose others to it?
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 12:39 pm ((PST))
What kind of extension do you have in mind?
As for how to do it, just use it. When people ask about it, explain it. I
doubt there's any official way to 'extend' the language.
stevo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with extending Esperanto so that it can easily
> refer to certain complexities. If I manage to pull it off, what would be a
> good way to expose others to it?
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 12:50 pm ((PST))
Post it somewhere very public on an Esperanto forum. Anonymously.
Change your name. Go into hiding. Flee to a country with no
extradition treat for Esperantoland. And invest heavily in asbestos
undies.
Or simply Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...
Adam
On 3/7/13, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with extending Esperanto so that it can easily
> refer to certain complexities. If I manage to pull it off, what would be a
> good way to expose others to it?
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 1:09 pm ((PST))
Give it a different name and call it a separate language descended from (or
inspired by) Esperanto. For example: Romániço (inspired by Esperanto, but
not a descendant of it) http://www.romaniczo.com/en_cuestionos.html
QUOTE: Romániço began as an attempt to teach Esperanto to friends.
Unfortunately, certain features of the language proved to be unsurmountable
hurdles for many of them. ... (read more at the link above)
Once you create your own side branch you can do whatever you want with it.
There's no need to convince Esperanto users to use your changes because
your language isn't really Esperanto. It's better than Esperanto. (Of
course it must be better. If it's NOT better, then why bother creating it?)
--gary
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with extending Esperanto so that it can easily
> refer to certain complexities. If I manage to pull it off, what would be a
> good way to expose others to it?
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: Are there any conventions for issuing a proposed extension to co
Posted by: "selpa'i" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 1:38 pm ((PST))
la'o me. Matthew George .me cusku di'e
> I've been playing around with extending Esperanto so that it can easily
> refer to certain complexities. If I manage to pull it off, what would be a
> good way to expose others to it?
Be a living example. Translate something interesting into your variety
of Esperanto (maybe something that shows its advantages). Speak it
publicly a lot (in forums or in youtube videos for example).
I don't know what kinds of extensions you have in mind, but if they
don't break anything in the existing language, you might be able to get
some people to start using some of your ideas. It's difficult though, I
assume, and you should be prepared to face some resistance.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
