Meddelelser: 32
Sprog: English
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 11.57.39
It is a generally accepted pedagogical principle that you should start with the simple and proceed to the complicated.
But open any Esperanto course for beginners and you wouldn't be surprised to see at an early stage something like this.
Saluton! Kio estas via nomo?
But this is inordinately complicated.
Now without looking it up, I wouldn't immediately know whether saluti is the base form from which saluto is derived, or vice versa, but let's imagine the base form is saluti. Then we have immediately the problem of what a noun derived from a verb means (if you accept the standard theory of Esperanto).
Then with have the accusative. Now the use of the accusative marker 'n' in Saluton can hardly be considered its basic use, which is as a direct object marker. Saying you have to subkompreni something like mi deziras al vi, doesn't make the usage look simple.
Next we have Kio. A recent discussion in the Forums demonstrates that even among experienced Esperantists there is some doubt as to the best form here. Should it be Kia, Kiu or Kio? (to avoid this many say Kiel vi nomiĝas)
Which brings us to estas which hardly demonstrates what is traditionally considered the basic use of -as, namely the present. The estas here in kio estas via nomo has little to do with now contrasted with the past or the futute. Kio estas via nomo is not a question about your current name versus your previous or past name.
Then there is via. For speakers of many languages this adjectival form of a pronoun will seem unusual. English speakers don't naturally think of 'your' as an adjective form of 'you'. Also there is the complication that whilst most words in Esperanto require a finaĵo, the words that don't (like 'vi' ) can also have a finaĵo. But via is odd in that, we do not say vi-i vi-o and vi-e, whilst most Esperanto words can exists in all parts of speech
At least nomo seems simple enough! Phew!
No wonder some think the claims of the Esperantists, that Esperanto is a simple language, are exaggerated, if this is how we teach beginners.
But open any Esperanto course for beginners and you wouldn't be surprised to see at an early stage something like this.
Saluton! Kio estas via nomo?
But this is inordinately complicated.
Now without looking it up, I wouldn't immediately know whether saluti is the base form from which saluto is derived, or vice versa, but let's imagine the base form is saluti. Then we have immediately the problem of what a noun derived from a verb means (if you accept the standard theory of Esperanto).
Then with have the accusative. Now the use of the accusative marker 'n' in Saluton can hardly be considered its basic use, which is as a direct object marker. Saying you have to subkompreni something like mi deziras al vi, doesn't make the usage look simple.
Next we have Kio. A recent discussion in the Forums demonstrates that even among experienced Esperantists there is some doubt as to the best form here. Should it be Kia, Kiu or Kio? (to avoid this many say Kiel vi nomiĝas)
Which brings us to estas which hardly demonstrates what is traditionally considered the basic use of -as, namely the present. The estas here in kio estas via nomo has little to do with now contrasted with the past or the futute. Kio estas via nomo is not a question about your current name versus your previous or past name.
Then there is via. For speakers of many languages this adjectival form of a pronoun will seem unusual. English speakers don't naturally think of 'your' as an adjective form of 'you'. Also there is the complication that whilst most words in Esperanto require a finaĵo, the words that don't (like 'vi' ) can also have a finaĵo. But via is odd in that, we do not say vi-i vi-o and vi-e, whilst most Esperanto words can exists in all parts of speech
At least nomo seems simple enough! Phew!
No wonder some think the claims of the Esperantists, that Esperanto is a simple language, are exaggerated, if this is how we teach beginners.
Bruso (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 12.29.33
sudanglo:It is a generally accepted pedagogical principle that you should start with the simple and proceed to the complicated.Unfortunately, it seems to be "a generally accepted pedagogical principle" of modern times that one should begin teaching endless greetings as stock phrases and continue to do so ad infinitum, lest anyone be scared away by the bogeyman of (OMG! OMG! OMG!) "grammar".
But open any Esperanto course for beginners and you wouldn't be surprised to see at an early stage something like this.
Saluton! Kio estas via nomo?
But this is inordinately complicated.
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 12.46.54
I agree. There is little point in teaching a language that is highly systematic, like Esperanto, in the same way that one teaches national languages.
antoniomoya (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 16.43.35
sudanglo:I agree. There is little point in teaching a language that is highly systematic, like Esperanto, in the same way that one teaches national languages.So Sudanglo, what would be the best way, according to you, to teach a language like Esperanto? I am curious to know.
Thank you.
Amike.
kaŝperanto (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 17.43.15
As one who can recall the time when I myself questioned why "Saluton" is sufficient for a greeting, I would say that Esperanto is taught somewhat too much like a national language in most courses. I find that many of these "difficulties" are far more systematic/logical than at first glance.
From my interpretation "saluton" is just an abbreviation for "Mi donas al vi saluton" (or something similar).
The kio/kia/kiu is definitely an issue in some cases, but for me "kia estas via nomo" is more like "what is your name like" than "what is your name". Kio and kiu are more difficult to differentiate here, but kio seems more suited to the general case. I would peg this as a deficit of natural languages more than a problem with Esperanto allowing too much specificity. The listings in vortaro for these words are quite descriptive.
As for the case when words take some endings but not others, this is to be expected. I don't find it odd at all that "libri", "libre", "spinaci", "spinace" etc. are not used, because their root meanings don't make sense as verbs or adverbs. I suppose that is why PMEG and other sources use terms such as "a-words" and "o-words" instead of "adjectives" and "nouns", because the general grammar vocabulary is not sufficient to describe the concepts.
That being said, it does make little sense to me that courses teach via memorizing stock phrases. Especially when it takes such a short time to reach the point where they can be explained via the logical rules and grammar of the language. I learned from texts circa the turn of the previous century, and they seemed a bit more focused on grammar than what I see today.
From my interpretation "saluton" is just an abbreviation for "Mi donas al vi saluton" (or something similar).
The kio/kia/kiu is definitely an issue in some cases, but for me "kia estas via nomo" is more like "what is your name like" than "what is your name". Kio and kiu are more difficult to differentiate here, but kio seems more suited to the general case. I would peg this as a deficit of natural languages more than a problem with Esperanto allowing too much specificity. The listings in vortaro for these words are quite descriptive.
As for the case when words take some endings but not others, this is to be expected. I don't find it odd at all that "libri", "libre", "spinaci", "spinace" etc. are not used, because their root meanings don't make sense as verbs or adverbs. I suppose that is why PMEG and other sources use terms such as "a-words" and "o-words" instead of "adjectives" and "nouns", because the general grammar vocabulary is not sufficient to describe the concepts.
That being said, it does make little sense to me that courses teach via memorizing stock phrases. Especially when it takes such a short time to reach the point where they can be explained via the logical rules and grammar of the language. I learned from texts circa the turn of the previous century, and they seemed a bit more focused on grammar than what I see today.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 18.16.33
sudanglo:It is a generally accepted pedagogical principle that you should start with the simple and proceed to the complicated.It may seem "generally accepted" to many, but that is not necessarily a universally held pedagogical principle.
Recently I acquired a video course (I am not yet done with it) on beginning Latin. I had studied Latin years ago and thought it might be an entertaining refresher. In many Latin courses, nouns are often started in the first and second declensions and verbs in the first conjugation, because these are thought to be "simpler." Not this instructor!
He deliberately starts with the third declension and third conjugation on the idea that if the student can master these, then the other inflections should be relatively easy. However, if an instructor starts with the "easy" inflections, when the student encounters the "harder" ones, s/he may become discouraged and give up. An interesting idea, I would say.
Some people assert that Esperanto is such an "easy" language to learn. I think they overplay their hand. Unquestionably E-o is easiER by far than most "national" or ethnic languages, but no language is truly "easy" (for adult learners), not even E-o (at least for someone like me). Yes, point out to the beginning student the relative (not quite complete) consistency and regularity, and demonstrate how this is a great advantage, but acknowledge that starting off with material which is supposedly so easy can become discouraging when the student encounters the more advanced stuff.
erinja (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 18.31.31
I think there's a balance to be struck. I would hate to get to lesson 7 of a language course and not know how to say "hello" or "thank you". I think this is a question people want to know, "How do I say hello in this language?".
There is a principle that you can teach just a few things without explanation (i.e. "saluton = hello", without explaining that the -n on saluton is actually an accusative ending) and then explain later, by the way, when we put the -n on saluton, that's an accusative ending, and this is why...
There is a principle that you can teach just a few things without explanation (i.e. "saluton = hello", without explaining that the -n on saluton is actually an accusative ending) and then explain later, by the way, when we put the -n on saluton, that's an accusative ending, and this is why...
michaleo (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 19.35.30
Learning vocabulary is the biggest difficulty in learning languages. To be able to quite freely use a language, i.e. read, write, watch, speak, listen to, you have to know tens of thousands of words and their collocations. And even then you permanently come across new unknown words.
bartlett22183 (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 20.07.34
It may depend on the individual. Over the years, I have read remarks from this person that grammar is harder than vocabulary and from that person vocabulary is harder than grammar. (For me personally, vocabulary is harder.)
However, one item which many people have claimed is part of Zamanhof's genius in the creation of Esperanto is the word formation. To be sure, I myself have sometimes found some conglomerated works with one or more roots and multiple affixes to be puzzles to be decoded rather than immediate means to communication.
However, on the whole I have come to the opinion (which I once did not hold so strongly) that Z's principle regarding word formation is on the whole sound. In contrast, as I have looked over the years at Ido, I think its principals introduced new roots when they simply were not necessary compared to E-o.
Consequently it may simply not be necessary to "know tens of thousands of words and their collocations" in order to have effective communication, at least with Esperanto. Yes, one may sometimes encounter specialist terms, but those may not be necessary for basic communication.
However, one item which many people have claimed is part of Zamanhof's genius in the creation of Esperanto is the word formation. To be sure, I myself have sometimes found some conglomerated works with one or more roots and multiple affixes to be puzzles to be decoded rather than immediate means to communication.
However, on the whole I have come to the opinion (which I once did not hold so strongly) that Z's principle regarding word formation is on the whole sound. In contrast, as I have looked over the years at Ido, I think its principals introduced new roots when they simply were not necessary compared to E-o.
Consequently it may simply not be necessary to "know tens of thousands of words and their collocations" in order to have effective communication, at least with Esperanto. Yes, one may sometimes encounter specialist terms, but those may not be necessary for basic communication.
michaleo (Vise profilen) 21. jan. 2014 21.15.00
bartlett22183:It may depend on the individual. Over the years, I have read remarks from this person that grammar is harder than vocabulary and from that person vocabulary is harder than grammar. (For me personally, vocabulary is harder.)I don't write about basic communication. I rather mean proficiency in using a foreign language near to proficiency in someone's native language. For example to be able to read books or watch films produced for native speakers you need to know much more vocabulary and stock phrases.
However, one item which many people have claimed is part of Zamanhof's genius in the creation of Esperanto is the word formation. To be sure, I myself have sometimes found some conglomerated works with one or more roots and multiple affixes to be puzzles to be decoded rather than immediate means to communication.
However, on the whole I have come to the opinion (which I once did not hold so strongly) that Z's principle regarding word formation is on the whole sound. In contrast, as I have looked over the years at Ido, I think its principals introduced new roots when they simply were not necessary compared to E-o.
Consequently it may simply not be necessary to "know tens of thousands of words and their collocations" in order to have effective communication, at least with Esperanto. Yes, one may sometimes encounter specialist terms, but those may not be necessary for basic communication.
Moreover, sometimes even basic communication can make difficulties. Let's take for example a common English word - get. According to an English-Polish dictionary it has over 30 meanings (I haven't tried to memorize all of them). During a conversation you have to decipher a meaning in a split second. Needless to say, the word is also very idiom-productive.