LISTSERV - INTERLNG Archives - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

INTERLNG Archives

Discussiones in Interlingua

INTERLNG@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

	LISTSERV Archives
	INTERLNG Home

	Log In
	Register

	Subscribe or Unsubscribe

	Search Archives

Options:	Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers
Message:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Subject:	Re: mancar / Romance particles
From:	Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:	Discussiones in Interlingua <[log in to unmask]>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:40:05 -0400
Content-Type:	text/plain
Parts/Attachments:	text/plain (29 lines)

Martedi, le 27 junio 2013 11:32:17 -0400, Paul Gideon Dann  
<[log in to unmask]> scribeva:

> On Wednesday 26 Jun 2013 02:28:26 you wrote:
>> Le parola interlinguistic deberea esser "probabilemente" (illo es in  
>> IED) e
>> qualcun forma de "pote esser" (le parola "potesser" es in ES-IA e PL-IA
>> dictionarios). Le parola latin "forsan" esseva seligite arbitrarimente.
>> Illo poteva essite "forsitan" o "fortasse". Necuno de iste formas es  
>> facile
>> de recognoscer pro gente moderne con education general.
>
> Essente un bilingue (anglese/francese), io ama multo plus "potesser" que
> "forsan".  Ha il alteres que es de accordo?

Isto NON es un bon idea! 'Potesser' non appare in le Interlingua-English  
Dictionary, ni in le Supplementary Interlingua-English Dictionary (1991).  
Vocabulos grammatic fundamental debe apparer in tal dictionarios. Si on  
crea nove vocabulos fundamental, il ha un periculo GRANDE que interlingua  
se fracassara. Nos debe NON haber dialectos!

-- 
Paul Bartlett

--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG