Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- correlatives [2021/04/25 21:59]
dragon
+++ correlatives [2021/04/25 22:30]
fenris
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=== Proposal 1 ===
+<markdown>
+# Correlatives
+## Proposal 1
 Naturalistic, with each word being taken from the corresponding word in the source languages.
-== Advantages ==
-  * Easier to guess the meaning of a word
-== Disadvantages ==
-  * Harder to learn, as there are more words to be memorised
-=== Proposal 2 ===
+### Advantages
+- Easier to guess the meaning of a word
+### Disadvantages
+- Harder to learn, as there are more words to be memorised
+## Proposal 2
+Schematic, with each correlative being predictable from its meaning by a combination of two words, along the lines of Esperanto's system. For example, all of the interrogatives would start with the word __vilk__, and all correlatives about location end with __sted__, so _where_ would be __vilk sted__ or literally _which place_.
+### Advantages
+- Perhaps easier to learn, as there are fewer words to be memorised
+### Disadvantages
+- Somewhat unintuitive as this is less naturalistic and less reflective of what the reference langs do
+## Proposal 3
+Schematic, with all of the correlatives predicable from their function, but more reflective of the reference langs. This is possible due to some schematic-ness already existing for historical reasons. For example, in English, most interrogatives start _wh-_ and most definites start with _th-_. Some locatives end in -ere, and some correlatives about things end in _-at_. This accurately predicts _"what"_, _"that"_, _"where"_, and _"there"_ (at least orthographically). A similar pattern exists in other Germanic languages.
-Schematic, with each correlative being predictable from its meaning by a combination of two words, along the lines of Esperanto's system. For example, all of the interrogatives would start with the word //vilk//, and all correlatives about location end with //sted//, so "where" would be //vilk sted// or literally "which place".
+### Advantages
-== Advantages ==
+- Perhaps the best of both worlds - easier to learn and easier to recognise
-  * Somewhat unintuitive as this is less naturalistic and less reflective of what the reference langs do
-== Disadvantages ==
-  * Perhaps easier to learn, as there are fewer words to be memorised
-=== Proposal 3 ===
+### Disadvantages
-Schematic, with all of the correlatives predicable from their function, but more reflective of the reference langs. This is possible due to some schematic-ness already existing for historical reasons. For example, in English, most interrogatives start wh- and most definites start with th-. Some locatives end in -ere, and some correlatives about things end in -at. This accurately predicts "what", "that", "where", and "there" (at least orthographically). A similar pattern exists in other Germanic languages.
+- The system is not perfectly followed in the reference languages (_"here"_ and _"this"_ cannot be predicted, for example), so there would still need to be some degree of irregularity and/or change from the reference languages.
-== Advantages ==
+</markdown>
-  * Perhaps the best of both worlds - easier to learn and easier to recognise
-== Disadvantages ==
-  * The system is not perfectly followed in the reference languages ("here" and "this" cannot be predicted, for example), so there would still need to be some degree of irregularity and/or change from the reference languages.

Folksprak-Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools