hebda999:

eitanulo:Didn't add any new rules, just improved some N' You don't have to memorise it, that's just the whole point here.

You did add a new rule, because you want people to speak other way than normal, and that is a new rule which makes the language more difficult to use.

And you're right, I would not memorize it - frankly I have already forgotten it. Let the beginners learn good Esperanto. Afterwards they can decide what is difficult and unnecessary and what is not. I think that's final.

Just started studying Esperanto four months ago, using the book by George Hess, a book written before the Second World War and with which have learned several generations of people in times that there were no facilities that now have Internet. I'm learning rules, grammar, want to learn the language correctly and respecting their style and ways, so I do not agree with changes that all they can do is confuse beginners.

tomasdeaquino:

hebda999:

eitanulo:Didn't add any new rules, just improved some N' You don't have to memorise it, that's just the whole point here.

You did add a new rule, because you want people to speak other way than normal, and that is a new rule which makes the language more difficult to use.

And you're right, I would not memorize it - frankly I have already forgotten it. Let the beginners learn good Esperanto. Afterwards they can decide what is difficult and unnecessary and what is not. I think that's final.

Just started studying Esperanto four months ago, using the book by George Hess, a book written before the Second World War and with which have learned several generations of people in times that there were no facilities that now have Internet. I'm learning rules, grammar, want to learn the language correctly and respecting their style and ways, so I do not agree with changes that all they can do is confuse beginners.

..Again.. With all respect, no offence, I think that the way the language is now it is by far too systimatical, and with many word roots added ending to that do not contribe anything, but make the language seem odd to most people. The idea is to keep in with the original, but take a different approach.

Amike Eitanul

eitanulo:..Again.. With all respect, no offence, I think that the way the language is now it is by far too systimatical, and with many word roots added ending to that do not contribe anything, but make the language seem odd to most people. The idea is to keep in with the original, but take a different approach.

Yes, I think we get all that. I think the question that is puzzling people is why you are posting it *here*?

Etulo, you may have fallen victim to certain accounts of how Esperanto works which are not strictly true.

The roots themselves are not defined, The root plus a finaĵo is defined.

Although people speak of a verb root or a noun root or an adjective root, This is just a shorthand for saying that the top entry in the dictionary is a verb or a noun or an adjective - ie a root + -i or -o or -a.

The meanings of other compounds with that root are usually influenced in a fairly systematic way by the top entry in the dictionary, but not absolutely always. And in some cases there can be doubt over which word should be the kapvorto.

Esperanto is much more pragmatic than I think you may have been led to believe.

RiotNrrd:

eitanulo:..Again.. With all respect, no offence, I think that the way the language is now it is by far too systimatical, and with many word roots added ending to that do not contribe anything, but make the language seem odd to most people. The idea is to keep in with the original, but take a different approach.

Yes, I think we get all that. I think the question that is puzzling people is why you are posting it *here*?

It looks as if Eitanulo wants to shove his proposal down our collective throats, and proceed to argue with us if we aren't willing to swallow his medicine. For the sake of taking the higher road here, ignoring this thread should suffice.

bpbatch:
ignoring this thread should suffice.

best idea mentioned in this thread.

eitanulo:Hid'all!!

Not intending to offend anyone here, but Iv'e just invented a new interesting speak to make Esperanto sound much much cooler and more natural..
--
Here's what you 'outto do:

1) Remove all '-a' and '-o's endings from nouns and adjectives, as long as they're in their original default format as defined by the Fundamento. (That would mean, an adjective that originaly was a verb in it's original form wold be left untouched, for ex.)

2) In the case of a word ending in an '-an' or '-on', you may shorten it to an apostrophe &'n', as long as it isn't heard to pronounce, as shows:

-- bela hundo ĉasas la katon >> bel hund ĉas l'kat'n ---

3) Any verb in plain present simple tense doesn't get an inflection.

4) 'la' turns into 'l''.

The *new* Esperanto antheme:

En l'mond'n venis nov sent
Tra l'mond ir fort vok
Per flugiloj de facil vent
Nun de lok, flugu ĝi al lok

Ne al glav sang'n soifant
Ĝi l'hom'n tir famili'n
Al l'mond eterne militant
Ĝi promes sankt'n harmoni'n

Sub l'sankt sign de l'esper
Kolektiĝ pacaj batalantoj
Kaj rapide kresk la afer
Per labor de l'esperantoj

Forte star muroj de miljaroj
Inter l'popoloj dividitaj
Sed dissaltos l'obstinaj baroj
Per l'sankt am disbatitaj

Sur neŭtral lingv fundament
Komprenante unu la ali'n
La popoloj faros en konsent
Unu grand'n rond'n famili'n

Nia diligent kolegar
En labor pac ne laciĝos
Ĝis la bel sonĝ del homar'
Por etern ben' efektiviĝos

Better is create dialect of Esperanto within your modifications.

sudanglo:Etulo, you may have fallen victim to certain accounts of how Esperanto works which are not strictly true.

The roots themselves are not defined, The root plus a finaĵo is defined.

Although people speak of a verb root or a noun root or an adjective root, This is just a shorthand for saying that the top entry in the dictionary is a verb or a noun or an adjective - ie a root + -i or -o or -a.

The meanings of other compounds with that root are usually influenced in a fairly systematic way by the top entry in the dictionary, but not absolutely always. And in some cases there can be doubt over which word should be the kapvorto.

Esperanto is much more pragmatic than I think you may have been led to believe.

Well Sudanglo, you know, it doesn't really change.. Because when I suggested that everyone knows what kind of root it is, I thought it over through.. And as with the roots that don't appear in the sentance as they were in the entry (Por ekz. sano, belo, hodiaŭa alio), they are to remain with their root + ending "a" aŭ "o".

Better is create dialect of Esperanto within your modifications.

Nope sorry that won't do.

It looks as if Eitanulo wants to shove his proposal down our collective throats, and proceed to argue with us if we aren't willing to swallow his medicine. For the sake of taking the higher road here, ignoring this thread should suffice.

chaw baby..!!

You may have missed the point, Etulo. Root+finaĵo is a compound word, whose meaning is ultimately defined by usage. The form is mnemonic. To be consistent your proposal should allow the dropping of ne-finaĵaj word elements - obviously absurd.

It is perfectly possible for an Esperanto speaker to know perfectly the meaning of various words eg sano, sana, and sanas, but to have to pause for thought to recall which is the kapvorto in the dictionary.

As soon as a word has several roots preceding the finaĵo, it gets even more complicated. What is matenmanĝ without a finaĵo? Is it to be matenmanĝ/i/as because the dictionary list 'manĝi' as the head-word? Is senpov to be senpova, senpovo, senpovas? What about senmon? What about words where the finaĵo is the ĉef-elemento.

(The legitimate elision of 'o', in certain cases, is a just device used in poetry and songs and is not necessarily related to the 'native' form - X' means X-o regardless)

sudanglo:You may have missed the point, Etulo. Root+finaĵo is a compound word, whose meaning is ultimately defined by usage. The form is mnemonic. To be consistent your proposal should allow the dropping of ne-finaĵaj word elements - obviously absurd.

It is perfectly possible for an Esperanto speaker to know perfectly the meaning of various words eg sano, sana, and sanas, but to have to pause for thought to recall which is the kapvorto in the dictionary.

As soon as a word has several roots preceding the finaĵo, it gets even more complicated. What is matenmanĝ without a finaĵo? Is it to be matenmanĝ/i/as because the dictionary list 'manĝi' as the head-word? Is senpov to be senpova, senpovo, senpovas? What about senmon? What about words where the finaĵo is the ĉef-elemento.

(The legitimate elision of 'o', in certain cases, is a just device used in poetry and songs and is not necessarily related to the 'native' form - X' means X-o regardless)

In the certain cases you brought up, it usually isn't too critical to know if it is a noun or verb, but you still could guess according to the context: mi senpov = What could it be?? (mi senpovo would be incorrect, mi senpova also incorrect, mi senpovi? - TRAFE!) There's also the option to leave it as is, since it doesn't have to be changed accordingly to the 'Glat Parole', see RULE 1.

...Finally somebody's done some homework!