Talk:Irregularities and exceptions in Interlingua

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

If i is unstressed before a vowel, it is pronounced like in "onion" or "phobia" (instead of like in "machine").

I can't work this out at all. Someone needs to go through the pronunciation section and rewrite it using the IPA so it actually makes sense.

— Trilobite (Talk) 01:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree IPA would be useful. The i in onion is consonental, a completely different pronunciation to the i in phobia - this must be wrong. Also I think we need to examine the basis on which we classify things as irregularities, I do not have any detailed knowledge of Interlingua but classification seems to be on the basis of a dissimilarity to specific source languages but some usages can be accounted for in other source languages or latin. It may be that these usages or inconsistent with the broader structure of Interlingua in which case they should appear here and this comment is not valid. Orizon 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optional short forms: According to Gode´s grammer, §101, the forms va, ha, es are not optional, whereas e.g. son is. KCX 14:17, 10 Jan 2007

Move?

If nobody objects, in one or two week's time, I'm going to move this article to just "Exceptions in Interlingua." One, it's straight from the Department of Redundance Dept.; second, exceptions include irregularities, but irregularities do not include exceptions. Almafeta 23:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now feel that my creation of this page is a mistake. It's infeasible to document anything close to everything about a naturalistic language that might possibly be constructed as an exception or an irregularity, let alone beyond debate. The best thing to do now is to simply delete this page and salvage what's on it to the main Interlingua article. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend keeping this page for now. I'm working with some others on editing the main Interlingua page, and we may want to move some material from there over to here in order to streamline the presentation. For example, there are some irregular verbs that no one really uses (like somos 'we are'). We don't want to clutter up the presentation with them, but we may want to document them somewhere.

It seems to me we have to cater to two kinds of people: the general public who just want an overview, and serious users plus conlang aficianados who want all the nuts and bolts and trivia. Ultimately, we may need several sub-pages to satisfy the latter group. -- CJGB 20:40, 18 Nov 2005