Re "korpingo", both Eo and English sections of the Vortaro give "ĉerko" for coffin. Wouldn't "mortulingo" be better or "vampirejo" ?
"Subakvakorpingo" = diving suit
"Militkorpingo" = suit of armour
"Spacakorpingo" = spacesuit
But I would prefer "burko" = tute kovranta vesto portata de islamino.

"Diferenco" appears in the Vortaro in English-Eo but not in Eo-Eo. "Malsameco" and "malegaleco" cover everything except
.

piteredfan:
"Spacakorpingo" = spacesuit

One minor point - I'd say "kosma korpingo" instead of "spaca korpingo". Spaco means space as in room or area, e.g. "There's no space left on the table." Kosmo is the word that refers to outer space.

Kwekubo:

piteredfan:
"Spacakorpingo" = spacesuit

One minor point - I'd say "kosma korpingo" instead of "spaca korpingo". Spaco means space as in room or area, e.g. "There's no space left on the table." Kosmo is the word that refers to outer space.

Thanks for the correction, Kwekubo.
I was concerned that stripping too many synonyms and antonyms from E-o, would restrict shades of meaning, but the language many affixes help to avoid this kind of problem.
I came across a good example of English Newspeak today. Gordon Brown, British Chancellor of the Exchequer was taling about people becoming "home-owners" through "equity-sharing". What that means is that people pay rent for part of the their home and mortgage for the rest. They will never in fact "own" their home. To discuss housing without ideological spin, it is necessary to make the following distinctions(in English context):
Freeholders
Leaseholders
Mortgage-paying freeholders
Mortgage-paying leaseholders
Part buyers, part renters
Secure tenants
Nonsecure tenants
Occupiers of homes tied to a job
Occupiers of mobile homes
Lodgers
Squatters
Itinerants
Rough sleepers
No doubt all of these terms can be translated into Esperanto, together with obsolete words like tenant-in-chief, copyholder and serf, but it is beyond my ability to do so.

One antonym which appears to me to be redundant though is malmemori/forgesi. Is there a difference in meaning between the two words?

piteredfan:
One antonym which appears to me to be redundant though is malmemori/forgesi. Is there a difference in meaning between the two words?

I can't think of one but that doesn't mean someone won't devise one.

"Forgesi" is in general use, but - as I think it has already been mentioned - these redundant words are useful in poetry etc. "Malfelicxa" is somewhat long, so a poet may wish to use "trista" instead.

As T0dd has already mentioned, Esperanto is a language that belongs to its speakers. We can feel free to use whichever words we wish to use, and other people can feel free to use the words *they* wish to use. My personal opinion on this is that each person should make their own decision, after having informed themselves with the facts (this being the crucial step that some beginners tend to skip in their rush to 'improve' the language). After that,we can all beat one another unconscious with arguments about why our manner of speaking is better than someone else's manner of speaking, but I view this as being a waste of time, since it's so rare that someone's opinion is actually changed, one way or the other. Discussion of various views is fine, of course, I just hate to see things degrade into ad hominem attacks and unkind words. [disclaimer: this comment was not intended to be directed personally at you, piteredfan, or at any other user who has commented on this forum, it's just a general statement about some of the bitter debates that happen in the Esperanto community in general]

erinja:

piteredfan:
One antonym which appears to me to be redundant though is malmemori/forgesi. Is there a difference in meaning between the two words?

I can't think of one but that doesn't mean someone won't devise one.

As a point which is probably more pedantic than useful, one should consider the sequence of events. One has to know something before it can be forgotten. And that same something has to be forgotten before it can be remembered. Thus remembering is unforgetting. Malmemori has therefore, at least technically, "got the boot on the wrong foot". So forgesi is one word too many that I personally can completely forgive.

"Forgesi" is in general use, but - as I think it has already been mentioned - these redundant words are useful in poetry etc. "Malfelicxa" is somewhat long, so a poet may wish to use "trista" instead.

The argument about minimal, simple roots versus extra roots with shades of meaning, is an argument that can never really be won by either side. A language that is maximally easy to learn is obviously a desirable quality for an international language, but languages do not survive without the desire of its speakers to continue using it, and that takes such things as culture, the ability to deal with the nuances of human interaction, etc.

Nick

I wonder how you all interpret the 15th rule...

Pengolodh:I wonder how you all interpret the 15th rule...

For anyone who doesn't know, this refers to the famed 16 rules of Esperanto, as set forth by Zamenhof. In the "official" English translation, the 15th rule
reads as follows:

15. The so-called „foreign” words, i. e. words which the greater number of languages have derived from the same source, undergo no change in the international language, beyond conforming to its system of orthography. ― Such is the rule with regard to primary words, derivatives are better formed (from the primary word) according to the rules of the international grammar, e. g. teatr'o, „theatre”, but teatr'a, „theatrical”, (not teatricul'a), etc.

I guess it's all a matter of degree. I don't think anyone would argue that at some point you need to take a word from some language, because you can't build *everything* from existing roots and affixes. But people mainly differ on how often you should build on what exists, and how often you should pull a new root from other languages. But I, too, would like to hear some other opinions.

"But I, too, would like to hear some other opinions."

here's mine, since you asked for it:
I have always thought that this issue needs to be adressed in three ways:

1) That there is a fundamental vocabulary that everybody ought to know and understand. This should be limited to as few roots as possible, and be sufficient for casual communication and descriptions of daily life.

2) That there needs to be precise, standardized technical vocabulary for some fields. It is not necessary that everybody know all of the technical vocabulary for every field, and for this, precision should not be sacrificed in order to decrease roots that need to be learned.

3)That in any particular instance you can use whatever words will be understood. There is no point in chastising your friend for using words that you understand, and I think coining new words and roots creates an interesting "slang", which is, in my opinion, merely a technical vocabulary for living among friends. This is fun and moreover not contradictory to the general principles of the language as long as you understand (and differentiate between these words and)the fundamental and formal technical vocabularies.

Pengolodh:
1) That there is a fundamental vocabulary that everybody ought to know and understand. This should be limited to as few roots as possible, and be sufficient for casual communication and descriptions of daily life.

This seems reasonable, but of course it depends upon how strictly you interpret "as few roots as possible." As I stated earlier in this thread, I tend to think that fewer is better, because it helps to offset the learning burden for speakers of non-Western languages.

For example, we have "filozofo" and "filozofio," but clearly we don't need both when we can get "filozofiisto" from "filozofio."

We have "poemo," "poezio," and "poeto." They are familiar enough to a speaker of English or French, but to a Korean or a Japanese speaker it must be puzzling why we have all three. In fact, we don't need any of them, since we also have "verso," from which we can get "versaro," "versarto," and "versisto."

2) That there needs to be precise, standardized technical vocabulary for some fields. It is not necessary that everybody know all of the technical vocabulary for every field, and for this, precision should not be sacrificed in order to decrease roots that need to be learned.

Correct. And that's what happens in languages anyway. Either technical terms are coined, with very precise definitions, or new definitions are appended to familiar words. The physicist's definition of "velocity" is not the same as the layperson's.

3)That in any particular instance you can use whatever words will be understood. There is no point in chastising your friend for using words that you understand, and I think coining new words and roots creates an interesting "slang", which is, in my opinion, merely a technical vocabulary for living among friends. This is fun and moreover not contradictory to the general principles of the language as long as you understand (and differentiate between these words and)the fundamental and formal technical vocabularies.

Words such as "poka," "magra," "trista," and "mava" will be understood by many people with a certain linguistic background, but will puzzle many others. Should their use be encouraged? I'm inclined to think that they should not.

T0dd:
Words such as "poka," "magra," "trista," and "mava" will be understood by many people with a certain linguistic background, but will puzzle many others. Should their use be encouraged? I'm inclined to think that they should not.

Interestingly enough, I do have the linguistic background to understand "mava" but I didn't get it till I looked it up.

I'm not against use of these words in poetry, necessarily, since even English poetry will have words I don't understand if it's 'highfalutin' enough. I haven't read that much poetry but "trista" is the only word among those you mentioned that I ever really see.

Incidentally if people knew how many of these words came from Ido, I'm convinced they would use fewer of them (not that I see a lot of them in use in the first place, but still)