Späť na obsah
Odpovedať

Demotic Esperanto?

od Bruso, 26. februára 2014

Príspevky: 34

Jazyk: English

Bruso (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 15:27:36

In Chapter 18 of "Esperanto: A Language for the Global Village", Sylvan Zaft says:
Esperanto, like other languages, will continue to be spoken and written on different levels. Some will use the language on an ordinary level and they will be understood by everybody. Golden calls this species of the language “the demotic language.” On the other hand a minority of Esperantists will speak a more elegant, a more perfect Esperanto, what Golden refers to as “the elite version of the language.”

This “demotic Esperanto” can be learned very rapidly. It is a highly effective means of communication. The “elite version” of the language takes more effort to master. This latter version of the language is suitable for literary works of the highest quality.
The only context Zaft gives for this is the correct use of transitive and intransitive verbs, with a passing reference to the accusative ending. So presumably the elite version is "Mi boligas la akvon" and the demotic is "Mi bolas la akvo."

Hmmmm. There has to be more to "literary works of the highest quality" than that.

Is "demotic" necessarily ungrammatical? Or just simple? Any good (and more general) examples of what demotic vs elite would mean?

efilzeo (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 17:29:15

I doubt too. I speak a basic Esperanto yet I don't do such grammatical errors. The grammar is really easy in Esperanto, but to talk fluently is all another story. Anyway to speak elegantly in Esperanto is clearly easier than to speak elegantly in any other language; and I would say that the difference between a simple speaking from an elegant one is the way you describe things, the direct one, naming the subject and the actions it does, and the elegant way, where you decorate your description beating about the bush.

Simple: I am thirsty. (I can say that in Esperanto)
Elegant (complex): My throat is parched. (I cannot say that in Esperanto)

erinja (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 19:31:57

I disagree with Zaft about a demotic Esperanto.

All I would say is that there are various levels of the language, and someone who doesn't get a lot of practice might not speak with the same level of grammatical perfection as someone who has been active in Esperanto for a long time.

And some people have been involved for a long time and speak fluently but imperfectly. I suppose they just don't notice, or perhaps don't care, whether they speak perfectly. I would characterize that as being careless rather than 'demotic'.

The use of "demotic" assumes a certain set of grammatical rules different than the elite version, and it also assumes that said "demotic" speaker, if well-educated, is capable of code switching between the demotic version and the elite version. I don't agree that such a thing exists in Esperanto, not any more than walking into a year 2 Spanish course and saying that the students are speaking "demotic Spanish" because they make a lot of mistakes.

robbkvasnak (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 22:04:17

Some of the more esoteric conversations here on (or in) lernu are probably what Zaft meant with "elite". Like some of the entries in "Libro de Amo".

erinja (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 22:07:06

Seems that Zaft is saying that only an elite can speak grammatical Esperanto, and that the Esperanto underclass go around speaking their "demotic Esperanto" instead. Since he talks about grammar, I doubt that he is simply talking about subject of conversation, rather than the language itself.

richardhall (Zobraziť profil) 26. februára 2014 22:59:41

Bruso:Is "demotic" necessarily ungrammatical? Or just simple? Any good (and more general) examples of what demotic vs elite would mean?
I assumed he had in mind usage that was more than simply a bare translation of a national language. Erinja has already given an example on another thread: tagmanĝi is more elegant than "manĝi la tagmanĝon"

robbkvasnak (Zobraziť profil) 27. februára 2014 0:32:01

Or maybe like "bluas la ĉielo" instead of "la ĉielo estas blua"?

sudanglo (Zobraziť profil) 27. februára 2014 13:07:24

Demotic: Denoting or relating to the kind of language used by ordinary people; popular or colloquial

Watcha, mate.
That ain't gonna happen.
Dunno

This register is largely absent in Esperanto.

You have beginner's Esperanto, which naturally may have errors of grammar and lexis, and you have a more elegant/refined usage of the spertuloj many of whom may have a very good command of their native language.

But I have never encountered much in the way of the code switching that Erinja mentions.

orthohawk (Zobraziť profil) 27. februára 2014 16:33:55

erinja:I disagree with Zaft about a demotic Esperanto.

All I would say is that there are various levels of the language, and someone who doesn't get a lot of practice might not speak with the same level of grammatical perfection as someone who has been active in Esperanto for a long time.

And some people have been involved for a long time and speak fluently but imperfectly. I suppose they just don't notice, or perhaps don't care, whether they speak perfectly. I would characterize that as being careless rather than 'demotic'.

The use of "demotic" assumes a certain set of grammatical rules different than the elite version, and it also assumes that said "demotic" speaker, if well-educated, is capable of code switching between the demotic version and the elite version. I don't agree that such a thing exists in Esperanto, not any more than walking into a year 2 Spanish course and saying that the students are speaking "demotic Spanish" because they make a lot of mistakes.
In the history of Modern Greek there was a time (up to sometime in the 80's I believe) where there were two different forms: katharevousa (the "elitist" version with a lot of archaic features held over (or sometimes even directly borrowed from) even earlier forms, e.g. Koine or even Classical) and the demotic, the way the people actually spoke. Every "demotic" form of any language (be it Greek or Latin (though in Latin's case it was termed "Vulgar Latin" the Latin of the people) or any other) first started out being "ungrammatical"; In Classical Latin, the indirect object is in the dative case. However, in the demotic form ("vulgar latin" ) it was constructed with the preposition "ad"....i.e an ungrammatical (from the standpoint of "the official" version, anyway) way of denoting the indirect object. When this "less than grammatical way" of speaking a language gets accepted as normal, it then gets called "demotic" or some other word meaning essentially the same thing. The obvious solution here is to be very vigilant in NOT accepting ungrammatical Esperanto as "normal" and the problem takes care of itself. And for the record, yes, I'm a prescriptivist when it comes to languages.

Rikat (Zobraziť profil) 27. februára 2014 18:50:17

Here's an example of what might have been meant by Demotic Esperanto. In Lingvaj respondoj 37a, Zamenhof said infinitive verbs can only be used after por and anstatau, not after other prepositions. However his argument for treating por and anstatau differently is weak and unconvincing.

Some Esperantists might say something like levu la skatolojn sen fleksi la dorson. Such a construction is perfectly reasonable but is prohibited by an obscure and irrational rule.

If that's the sort of thing we mean by Demotic Esperanto, then the demotic verison will actually be more logical because its rules will have fewer exceptions. It's like rural American English using the single form ain't instead of requiring speakers to distinguish between isn't and aren't and am not. Streamlined.

In using the term Demotic Esperanto, Zaft seems to be referring to something written by Bernard Golden. Does anyone know specifically which article of Golden's is being referenced?

Nahor