You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From time to time, the topic of short forms of the verb "byti" (som/sem, smo, ste) arises within the community. Despite its apparent simplicity, it is, in fact, a complex issue. Recent discussions, which highlighted the problem of clitics, concluded that using short forms was deemed too complicated for the majority of Slavs (with the exception of some Southern Slavs). This is because potential Interslavic short forms would most closely align with the South Slavic system. This compromises the simplicity of learning Interslavic, though it doesn't significantly oppose its naturalness.
Nevertheless, I am creating this issue to revisit the discussion in the future, when the time is right.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We have two survey drafts: one simple - for choosing the better word, and another more complicated - where each form of "to be" needs to be evaluated by survey participants.
We are still looking for a good method to conduct a survey and get enough data for analysis without having to do it two or three times.
For future cases - as Roberto Lombino is working with us - it'll be better to manually write it, instead of posting a screenshot or at least, describing the image
I spoke with Roberto on this subject and he explained that we cannot de facto have the short form “byti” either as a synonym for the long form or as a shortened form that replaces the long form, mainly because of Serbo-Croatian, where there is a difference between the short and long form of "byti", i.e. it is not used as a synonym but used in other situations
From time to time, the topic of short forms of the verb "byti" (som/sem, smo, ste) arises within the community. Despite its apparent simplicity, it is, in fact, a complex issue. Recent discussions, which highlighted the problem of clitics, concluded that using short forms was deemed too complicated for the majority of Slavs (with the exception of some Southern Slavs). This is because potential Interslavic short forms would most closely align with the South Slavic system. This compromises the simplicity of learning Interslavic, though it doesn't significantly oppose its naturalness.
Nevertheless, I am creating this issue to revisit the discussion in the future, when the time is right.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: