erinja:kaŝperanto, I think it more likely that the Chinese person accidentally misspelled "ŝokita" (shocked) (or "ŝokigita," he maybe was intending to say) -- he was shocked that someone asked him for a bribe. If I were to encounter such a sentence, I would assume it was a misspelling of "ŝoki", and not the word "soko".

Well there you go, ruining my cool story of Esperanto...
I didn't even think to check for sx vs s, but that makes much more sense. I still may use sxokigxita every now and then just to throw people off.

pdenisowski:

kaŝperanto:I think you overlook the difference between "speak" and speak. Unless they are from a native English speaking land they are not going to be at a native level (unless perhaps they are linguists, which is more likely since they know Esperanto

As someone who was once in a PhD linguistics program, I can assure you that many linguists do NOT speak another language fluently. In fact, during my time working in a university foreign language department, I saw very few language professionals who could safely pass as a native speaker even in their specialty language(s).

That said, there are a GREAT number of people who will nevertheless claim native fluency in English. I worked as a translator for a number of years and the golden rule of translating is "always translate into your native language." However, since the volume of (foreign language) -> English translation jobs is much, much greater than vice-versa, I constantly found people claiming "native fluency" in English in order to bid on jobs. The result was that their English translations were full of awkward or unnatural language and outright grammatical mistakes, which would then have to be "proofread" (i.e. redone) by a native English speaker. I would estimate that at 80-90% of all (foreign language) -> English translation work is done by non-native speakers of English.

I've met a tremendous number of non-native speakers of English, but I can count on one hand the number of non-native speakers who could pass as natives, regardless of the length or nature of the conversation.

Amike,

Paul

Interesting. I guess that explains why all of the assemble-your-own furniture instructions are so difficult to follow.

In the engineering program where I studied it seemed like about 80% of the professors are foreign, and they are only able to speak somewhat fluently in subjects related to their field of study. I could see where translation would be problematic, because one may see any type of subject. In the thread on "English has been my pain for 15 years" the author writes very well in his area of study, but admits to being completely unable to talk about cookware/etc.

kaŝperanto:

erinja:kaŝperanto, I think it more likely that the Chinese person accidentally misspelled "ŝokita" (shocked) (or "ŝokigita," he maybe was intending to say) -- he was shocked that someone asked him for a bribe. If I were to encounter such a sentence, I would assume it was a misspelling of "ŝoki", and not the word "soko".

Well there you go, ruining my cool story of Esperanto...
I didn't even think to check for sx vs s, but that makes much more sense. I still may use ŝokiĝita every now and then just to throw people off.

BTW the correct word is "ŝokita". Ŝoki is a transitive verb (so: Via malĝentileco ŝokis min. Mi estas ŝokita! Mi ŝokiĝis."

Ŝokigi would likely mean something like "to cause someone to shock". Ŝokiĝita is a bit redundant, I wouldn't use it.

erinja:

kaŝperanto:

erinja:kaŝperanto, I think it more likely that the Chinese person accidentally misspelled "ŝokita" (shocked) (or "ŝokigita," he maybe was intending to say) -- he was shocked that someone asked him for a bribe. If I were to encounter such a sentence, I would assume it was a misspelling of "ŝoki", and not the word "soko".

Well there you go, ruining my cool story of Esperanto...
I didn't even think to check for sx vs s, but that makes much more sense. I still may use ŝokiĝita every now and then just to throw people off.

BTW the correct word is "ŝokita". Ŝoki is a transitive verb (so: Via malĝentileco ŝokis min. Mi estas ŝokita! Mi ŝokiĝis."

Ŝokigi would likely mean something like "to cause someone to shock". Ŝokiĝita is a bit redundant, I wouldn't use it.

Yes, you might be quite sxokigxita to hear someone use it!

korona:

erinja:

kaŝperanto:

erinja:kaŝperanto, I think it more likely that the Chinese person accidentally misspelled "ŝokita" (shocked) (or "ŝokigita," he maybe was intending to say) -- he was shocked that someone asked him for a bribe. If I were to encounter such a sentence, I would assume it was a misspelling of "ŝoki", and not the word "soko".

Well there you go, ruining my cool story of Esperanto...
I didn't even think to check for sx vs s, but that makes much more sense. I still may use ŝokiĝita every now and then just to throw people off.

BTW the correct word is "ŝokita". Ŝoki is a transitive verb (so: Via malĝentileco ŝokis min. Mi estas ŝokita! Mi ŝokiĝis."

Ŝokigi would likely mean something like "to cause someone to shock". Ŝokiĝita is a bit redundant, I wouldn't use it.

Yes, you might be quite sxokigxita to hear someone use it!

Oops, I actually meant to say that I may still use sokigxita, not sxokigxita. My previous post doesn't even make sense, lol.
I agree that sxokita is the correct usage.