Talk:Latino sine flexione

message: In the vowel pronunciation section, it says "e--as in th'e'y or 'a's" but they and as are totally different sounds. I seem to recall that 'a' in 'as' or |æ| is an exclusively English sound... I doubt this is true. However, I, knowing know 'Lation sine Flexione' wouldn't know so could be wrong. Also, it says that r is the 'rr' in correct since that is 'trilled' however correct is in no way trilled in any way I've ever heard it (unless spoken with, say, a Russian accent) so I doubt this is a suitable example. 
Another thing, in the Latin Proverbs section, the English translations are written in noticeably middle English (ie: "to-morrow" (tomorrow) "laboureth" (labors) "thyself" (yourself) etc.) Although latin in general has an older feel, a speaker of latin would in no way feel 'transported into the past' or 'not at ease' when they heard the phrase as would an English speaker hearing "laboureth" or "theyself." For this reason, I find they should be changed. Of course, again, I am not expert on 'Latino sine Flexione' and perhaps in this language the words do take on such a feel. I simply don't know. Alexandre-Jérôme 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I added the IPA pronunciationsiations based on how I thought the English example is pronounced and what I guessed the person meant in some cases. Corrections or clarification is welcome. [æ] is also found in other languages such as Scandinavian (North Germanic)Languages and Arabic, but doesn't seem very logical in this case. I put in anyway as I did with the two r pronunciations (first English (approximate), second trilled (as in Spanish or Italian). Bguest 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: The quick-glance tables depicting noun declension endings are not in the accepted scholarly numerical order of the actual Latin noun declensions.  For example, the -is ending is in the fifth position on each table, whereas this is the third declension.  I will attempt to make corrections for clarity.   65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of Noun Declensions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latino sine flexione. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722063830/http://www.dm.unito.it/collanacdrom/index.html to http://www.dm.unito.it/collanacdrom/index.html
*Added  tag to http://elewthero.livejournal.com/870.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latino sine flexione. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201315/http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf to http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A problem presents itself here and on Interslavic with the language family.
On the one hand, both are distinct developments from a given family, in case of Interlingua-IL even seamlessly: In Interlingua-IL from Neo Latin, in Interslavic from Old Church Slavonic. Every family attribute for those ancestor-languages is also correct for the planned languages.
In Interslavic, the family "South Slavic]] is omitted, because Interslavic has assimilated also elements from East- and West-Slavic languages, and has specifically abolished parts specific to the "South Slavic" family of Old Pannonic. In Interlingua-IL, Neo Latin is specifically the authority on orthography (but not flections).
On the other hand, both can be seen as "constructed" languages, even though Interlingua-IL is a stretch of the concept and is more of a controlled natural language than a "conlang". They are IALs ("usage"), A posteriori languages, and controlled/naturalistic languages. 
The distinction between "zonal AL" and "international AL" may be a bit far-fetched; I'd use the "zonal AL" attribute more for the Meißen Midland German Chancellery Language (1500-1800) or, if it has simplifications compared to existing dialects, Mandarin (Red China) or Hindi (Indian Republic). Russenorsk etc. also come to mind. Interslavic IMO is better characterised as "IAL", regardless of every part coming from one family (Interlingua-IL itself is no different, but not considered "zonal").
So all in all, a posteriori naturalistic / planned IALs seem to have, at the moment, two distinct family trees, linguistic and utilitarian; both parts connot be omitted, that would put them on par with either a natural language like Ukrainian or Italian, or would put them on the same level as pet projects like Klingon, Dothraki, Valerian (or at least, less derogatory, Quenya). Instead of Volapük/Idiom Neutral, they are not a priori / guest elements so alienated they are no longer recognisable even to natives of the host language (eg. Volapük: Vol: from en. world; pük: from en. speech) that they are de facto a priori. Esperanto also draws from so rich a multitude of host languages on equal footing it no longer is possible to put it into an existing language family (perhaps Indo-Germanic/-European, but not (far) lower in the pedigree).
Perhaps the Template:languages could be altered so utilitarian as well as linguistic family were accounted for? (Most languages would have "usage=natural" or "usage=standardised natural" / "usage=natural dialect".)
--217.224.132.211 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family: Linguistic and Utilitaristic 

message: This section was tagged in October 2021 with "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutrality" etc. The tagger didn't see fit to elaborate in the Talk. What did she mean?
I like it that the article puts the descriptive stuff first and discursive stuff after. To integrate them would disrupt the coherence. As for the idea of rewriting the section, the tagger says nothing about how.
It's time to be bold and remove the tag. It all looks good as it to me.Moonsell (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Dear friends of free knowledge, I believe that the beginning of the article is a little misleading. Latino sine flexione is clearly the brainchild of Mr Peano. The academy mentioned is the former Volapük Academy. It is misleading to say that the academy as such would have come up with Latino sine flexione, and certainly not since 1887. Back then, as I said, it was founded as the Volapük Academy. Ziko (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginnings and the Academy