This is an old revision of the document!
Table of Contents
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
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.
Advantages
- 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.
