I don't understand why Esperanto should prevent you from swearing like a trooper

It's a sociolinguistic thing. The Esperanto-speaking community doesn't have an uncouth underclass.

So whilst there are 'swear' words like Fek and Fik, they are very mild, not really taboo.

For such words to have the same force that their national language equivalents do they would need to be in usage by a cruder faction in the community, just as the national language equivalents are.

Probably the most taboo words or expressions in Esperanto, currently, are those that have a rasismo connotation, since rasismo is a widely disapproved of attitude in the current community.

sudanglo:Please translate for me Erinja:

We ain't gonna do it, bruv, innit!

I 'ave monet, said the Frenchman, who was feeling flush. Velly good, replied the Chinaman.

I hesitate to use the 'c' word or other really taboo words, there may be minors reading the forum - so just mild examples of uncouth language - Shut your trap, bitch!, Fan-bloody-tastic!

"We ain't gonna do it" just means "We are not going to do it" with contractions and reductions. There is nothing about the actual meaning of that statement that makes it hard or even strange to translate, unless you are trying to preserve the "feel" of the English accent in Esperanto, which is unnecessary.

Also I'm a native English speaker and I haven't a clue what "bruv" means, I guess "innit" is really just "in it" which again isn't a problem to translate. I'm American so I guess "bruv" is a British thing perhaps.

Something important to remember when translating is you should typically do "meaning for meaning" translations to achieve the most comprehensible translation. "word for word" translations typically do not make sense even for closely related languages because, at the very least, for syntax differences, however more important is that idiomatic language is common and doesn't translate well even to other related languages. Yes, I realize that these last sentences don't apply as much to Esperanto as to natural languages (yet) but I think it's still a good rule-of-thumb even when translating something to/from Esperanto. Or, you can do two translations, one meaning for meaning to get the most natural sounding phrasing, and another one that preserves the syntax, and possibly other grammatical aspects, to study the languages grammar as well as learning how to say something.

A bit off topic but Esperanto verbs are really a pain and sort of contradict the regular and easy theme of Esperanto which the ending of the main category of words fit so well, e.g. noun-o, adjective-a etc... Does anyone know any patterns that one could recognize to help infer if a verb is transitive or intransitive? It's really the only aspect of Esperanto that I don't like, the accusative doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I think it's nice. E.g. I could say "Li mortis" he died but not "Mi mortis lin" because that would mean "I died him" instead of "I killed him", which you'd probably understand even though it would sound silly, I think I would need to add a suffix to, like, "Mi mortigis lin" would be "I killed him" unless I got that wrong.

Jen kelkaj el la fontoj de Esperanto collocations ("kolokacioj"

I had a quick browse of your link 2. - very interesting.

But surely if the concept of collocations is to be of linguistic significance, then it has to reveal something about the language in which the collocation occurs, just as fast food (not quick or rapid food) tells you something about English.

It seemed to me that many of the expressions and compounds in the collection 2. revealed more about the nature of the world than something about Esperanto.

In other words, not knowing anything about actual usage in Esperanto, but knowing the grammar of the language and the meanings of words, and knowing the world, you could predict certain statistical associations.

You might expect to come across rapid-manĝejo - most European countries have such eateries, but rarely find, for example, rapid-ponto.

Surely, one of the great strengths of Esperanto is being to express yourself freely without having to learn, additionally to the grammar and vocab, what the defining community of speakers actually say - a feature notably absent when learning English.

mm-Esperanto-Krakow:Jen kelkaj el la fontoj de Esperanto collocations ("kolokacioj"):

1. Lentaigne - "Kiel diri…" (libro)

2. Vortaro enhavanta frazeologiajn esprimojn:
http://remush.be/tezauro/vortoj/parolx.html

3. Laŭtemaj “etvortaroj” (poŝformataj) de Ilona Koutny (enestas en ili kolokacioj)

Salutojn
Maria Majerczak
Jagelona Universitato
Pollando

Thanks for the info.

There is nothing about the actual meaning of that statement that makes it hard or even strange to translate

Of course not, Captain.

The point I was making is that ni ne faros tion does not capture the difference between we ain't gonna do it (unlikely from the mouth of a cabinet minister) and we won't do it..

In Esperanto there are only standard or ĝentilaj forms. we don't have the language of an illiterate underclass; nor do we actually need it, for Esperanto to serve its purpose.

sudanglo:The size of the catch-up for any conlang inventor is so great that the exercise seems pointless (except from a fun or academic point of view).

sudanglo:What's the point of reinventing the wheel, people will say.

But thats conservative view only. I.e. civil aircraft and military industrie doesn't care of that kind of 'innovation deadlock'. They permanently reinventing the wheel.

Often basic research is done that way to observe how creatures survive inside nature. (Here I could place field of naturalistic conlangs.) Also take a look at ISS and NASA efforts. So thats the mission of these companies permanently 'to reinvent the wheel' according excisting natural 'technical sequences and control cycles of our planet Earth'. Excample: Boston Dynamics (acquired by Google).

Technology seems to set measure level which decides to reinventing the wheel or not. Conservative 'The human is not made to fly like a bird' versus innovative Airbus 380 very well illustrates some everlasting conflict. Here innovation did determine change of society. Some conservative 'treasure chest': democractic structures to bring citizens volition up to rules and standards which let some society excists further.

At history of mankind there seems to be everlasting conflict between conservative and innovation human forces. Inside most democratic societies both strategies are 'equal before the law'. Hopefully Esperanto community shares that strategies, too.

sudanglo:I understand that the best demographic projections estimate that of the 11 billion people in the world that there will be in 2100, 9 billion will be in Africa or Asia, so not in the America's or Europe.

But even if this were to prompt a desire to develop an interlanguage easier for the peoples of those regions, such a language would have to have many of the features of Esperanto; features whose presence in Esperanto is dictated by logical considerations.

I accept your opinion, but I don't share your opinion. Like I already mention above I believe in role of innovative technology which is capable to change everything. There's always room for further innovation. That includes field of national language and conlang evolution, too.

sudanglo:Features like phonemic spelling, word-building to keep the vocab load down, the absence of unproductive grammar like gender and irregular verbs and plurals, and so on.

Phonemic spelling is not unique to Esperanto language only. If there would be some kind of self-defense survival situation then maybe even English would be changed phonemic. Its possible. Solution exists: Shavian alphabet

sudanglo:Probably the most taboo words or expressions in Esperanto, currently, are those that have a rasismo connotation, since rasismo is a widely disapproved of attitude in the current community.

There happened lot of excamples inside Lernu forum where English native speakers were discriminated by Esperanto users due its native language current role of English like world-wide pontlingvo.

captainzhang:Something important to remember when translating is you should typically do "meaning for meaning" translations to achieve the most comprehensible translation. "word for word" translations typically do not make sense even for closely related languages because,...

Well, depends on. Often it only needs 'to think outside the box'. German: 'Um die Ecke denken'. I'm German native so Dutch puts me into that situation of 'thinking outside the box' to understand Dutch language. Thats why I also like that Interlinear translation technique.

sudanglo:In Esperanto there are only standard or ĝentilaj forms. we don't have the language of an illiterate underclass; nor do we actually need it, for Esperanto to serve its purpose.

As far Esperanto will remain niche-like minority language I agree.

sudanglo:Surely, one of the great strengths of Esperanto is being to express yourself freely without having to learn, additionally to the grammar and vocab, what the defining community of speakers actually say - a feature notably absent when learning English.

In my opinion most of ESL learners who have to learn English doesn't care a lot of definitions which community of English native speakers are setting. People who have to learn some foreign language excludes culture related aspects. That doesn't relate to English language only. It relates to every 'have to learn' language.

sudanglo:Please translate for me Erinja:

We ain't gonna do it, bruv, innit!

Translation:
We are not going to do it, brother, isn't it!

isn't it = are we

So translation reads:
We are not going to do it, brother, are we!

Exclamation point shows that this is a statement, not a question.

"Brother" is not necessarily used as a kinship term, it could mean "friend", or "mate", with either positive or negative connotations.