訊息: 22
語言: English
erinja (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午1:25:43
Demian:I would personally prefer it because a language isn't just about communication, it's also about exploration.Broadening horizons is wonderful, but if you import too many terms, you end up with a version of the language that can't be readily understood.
erinja:Shall we also import the words "mzungu" and "pakeha"?There is no harm is importing these terms. It only widens your horizons, isn't it?
And since Esperanto is intended for international communication, in cases of doubt, I prefer to choose a term that can be understood by more people, without clarification. Or else you have to define a word before using it.
Indian English can be hard to understand for those of us from other Englishes, for this reason. It's interesting to learn about aspects of Indian culture and history, but if you get too many loan words in it, then it becomes unnecessarily opaque.
sudanglo:Silvestro is pretty old in Esperanto, Erinja. The Tekstaro gives several instances in La Fabeloj de Andersen (translated by no lesser soul than Uncle Zam himself).I'm well aware of that, and it fact it probably seemed like an obvious term to Zamenhof, because Silvestro seems to be the dominant word for that holiday in Eastern Europe.
I don't oppose use of the term, in general, but I think it's wise to have an internationally understandable alternate name, for use when you're talking to someone who isn't likely to have heard of "Silvester" (such as an American!).
We don't have to translate every single cultural nuance. No one needs to talk about eating "bengersenmaŝo" in Esperanto. "Kolbasoj kun terpoma kaĉo" is much easier to understand.
Demian (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午2:07:34
darkweasel:Indio is a chemical element, not a country.As I suspected! This creates an amusing situation!
Indianoj are a people with no country. What could have been their land - Indio - is a chemical element now.
At first glance, they appear to share the same root, isn't it?
erinja (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午2:55:06
"Indiano" in Esperanto can only refer to a Native American. It never refers to a South Asian, so the distinction in English between "American Indian" and "Asian Indian" is unnecessary in Esperanto.
The word is not indi/an/o; it is indian/o.
Or alternately, Indian/o, the American state of Indiana.
At first glance one might think that indi/o the element and indian/o the person share a root - but one would be wrong in thinking that!
The word is not indi/an/o; it is indian/o.
Or alternately, Indian/o, the American state of Indiana.
At first glance one might think that indi/o the element and indian/o the person share a root - but one would be wrong in thinking that!
Demian (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午2:59:33
erinja:Broadening horizons is wonderful, but if you import too many terms, you end up with a version of the language that can't be readily understood.I don't think absorbing new words means abandoning the old ones. Just look at English. If you avoid Americanisms and I don't use Indianisms we can communicate. But getting rid of these '-isms' forever or outlawing them will make English a dull language.
erinja:And since Esperanto is intended for international communication, in cases of doubt, I prefer to choose a term that can be understood by more people, without clarification. Or else you have to define a word before using it.I am not a linguist. Still I have a notion that without dialects, Esperanto will fail to maintain its internationalist flavour.
I love when some say Parolado de Slavoj ZIZEK pri la Hodiauxa Kulturo or Darwin estis grava por vivscienco. At the same time, I no longer cringe when others swap 'learned' terms for more 'colloquial' ones and say: Lekcio de Slavoj ZIZEK pri la Kuranta Kulturo or Darwin estis grava por biologio.
sudanglo (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午3:24:27
Still I have a notion that without dialects, Esperanto will fail to maintain its internationalist flavourThe use of a few specialist terms does not create a dialect.
When an English-speaker banker talks of a 'credit default swap' he may be using an expression which is not widely understood, but we would not say he is speaking a dialect.
You need different pronunciation and grammar, and different words for everyday things to warrant the term dialect.
erinja (顯示個人資料) 2012年3月13日下午3:35:03
Demian, I'll give you my standard response when it comes to disagreements over terminology.
Go ahead and use the words you prefer. Truly!
But don't be surprised or offended if people have no idea what you're talking about, and you spend a lot of time explaining yourself.
Esperanto is considerably more unified than languages such as English. Esperanto has little in the way of regional dialects. Names of local foods etc. do tend to be rendered into Esperanto, but most people have an alternate way of explaining those foods to people unfamiliar with them. But the base vocabulary tends to be the same, wherever you come from.
I do not view it as a good thing for communication, for a language to break into dialects. The point of Esperanto is to talk to people from other places, not to develop your own local dialect, among speakers of your language, that can't even be properly understood by people from elsewhere. That really defeats the whole purpose of the language. Esperantists want other Esperantists to understand them, so they tend to avoid using words that can't be understood, rather than insisting that Esperantists from other places learn shed loads of new vocabulary just to talk to someone.
I have found Esperanto to be quite a rich language. The richness doesn't come from people importing all kinds of roots from their own languages, roots that you can't understand. The richness comes from the way they *use* the language. The turns of speech they use, the way they put the elements together. In most cases you would never guess where someone came from, based on words they used or how they wrote. There are a few words that might give you a clue, but they aren't words like "gora".
Go ahead and use the words you prefer. Truly!
But don't be surprised or offended if people have no idea what you're talking about, and you spend a lot of time explaining yourself.
Esperanto is considerably more unified than languages such as English. Esperanto has little in the way of regional dialects. Names of local foods etc. do tend to be rendered into Esperanto, but most people have an alternate way of explaining those foods to people unfamiliar with them. But the base vocabulary tends to be the same, wherever you come from.
I do not view it as a good thing for communication, for a language to break into dialects. The point of Esperanto is to talk to people from other places, not to develop your own local dialect, among speakers of your language, that can't even be properly understood by people from elsewhere. That really defeats the whole purpose of the language. Esperantists want other Esperantists to understand them, so they tend to avoid using words that can't be understood, rather than insisting that Esperantists from other places learn shed loads of new vocabulary just to talk to someone.
I have found Esperanto to be quite a rich language. The richness doesn't come from people importing all kinds of roots from their own languages, roots that you can't understand. The richness comes from the way they *use* the language. The turns of speech they use, the way they put the elements together. In most cases you would never guess where someone came from, based on words they used or how they wrote. There are a few words that might give you a clue, but they aren't words like "gora".