Alkanadi:

It is an idiom.

I had a feeling that was the case. I thought the language is supposed to be literal and idiom neutral.

Idiom neutral yes, but not literal. There are many citations of figurative usages of words in Butler's Esperanto-English dictionary.....however, there, there is at least some connexion between the figurative and literal meanings of a word........

Esperanto isn't idiom-neutral; this is one of the biggest myths circulated about it. Even in Zamenhof's time he acknowledged the opposite: that idioms exist in Esperanto and that he simply hoped they would disappear little by little and give way to completely logical expressions. This wish of his is not part of the Fundamento de Esperanto (therefore it's private), it's probably not possible and even if it were possible, most people would probably prefer to leave Esperanto as it is.

I apologize for losing my patience; that was all me and had nothing to do with you. I simply felt like I wasn't being taken seriously, and that you believed the opinion of a machine translator was more valuable than mine. Clearly no one else saw what I saw, so I was probably wrong.

leporinjo:Esperanto isn't idiom-neutral; this is one of the biggest myths circulated about it. Even in Zamenhof's time he acknowledged the opposite: that idioms exist in Esperanto and that he simply hoped they would disappear little by little and give way to completely logical expressions. This wish of his is not part of the Fundamento de Esperanto (therefore it's private), it's probably not possible and even if it were possible, most people would probably prefer to leave Esperanto as it is.

I dunno. The big advantage of Esperanto over most (all?) "wild" languages is clarity and logicality (?) of expression, and I just do not see how it can be called logical to create expressions for which the meaning cannot be ascertained from the component parts; i.e. there must be a connexion between the parts, and I daresay the phrase "to whistle about something" (a direct translation of a German idiom, IIRC) means absolutely nothing to a monoglot English speaker (I've asked around; not one monoglot English speaker of my acquaintance from around the US has any idea of what the phrase is supposed to mean). Idioms are anathema to a supposed international language. All they do is increase (needlessly IMO) the amount of vocabulary items that need to be learned.

orthohawk:I dunno. The big advantage of Esperanto over most (all?) "wild" languages is clarity and logicality (?) of expression, and I just do not see how it can be called logical to create expressions for which the meaning cannot be ascertained from the component parts;

I agree, although as leporinjo noted, idiomatic expressions and idiom-like words are a part of the language, so for better or worse one still has to learn them. A term like "prifajfi sekson" may well be inscrutable to someone unfamiliar with that particular idiom, but since 'fajfi pri' exists and is in wide use I think it should not necessarily be deemed evitinda. Though I suppose clearer expressions like 'ĉiuseksema' and whatnot are probably better alternatives.

tommjames:

orthohawk:I dunno. The big advantage of Esperanto over most (all?) "wild" languages is clarity and logicality (?) of expression, and I just do not see how it can be called logical to create expressions for which the meaning cannot be ascertained from the component parts;

but since 'fajfi pri' exists and is in wide use I think it should not necessarily be deemed evitinda. Though I suppose clearer expressions like 'ĉiuseksema' and whatnot are probably better alternatives.

I dunno about "wide use".....I've never seen that expression except here on lernu.

I think it is impossible to avoid a certain idiomaticity. Subtle idioms are present in the very way compound words are formed: take subauskulti and subacxeti - literally to "underhear" and "buy under", but actually "eavesdrop" and "bribe". This is a totally normal use of sub- for a Russian speaker, but bizarre for the anglophone (even proficient anglophone Esperantists can get confused when I use these or similar verbal prefixes). Or even necesejo - a necessary place? Oh, a toilet...

The benefit of Esperanto, however, is that these idioms are kept to a minimum, and in general words are not used to mean something different than what they say at face value (the limit being set at metaphors). Compare this to English, where a "near miss" is not "nearly a miss", a "fast" door is a door that doesn't move at all, and "I hate you" is said to good friends as a reaction to some enviable accomplishment, etc.

"Fajfi pri" seems to go a bit beyond the "metaphor" limit which Zamenhof and others have tried to maintain. It's an established - if not too frequent - expression, so I can't criticise it, although I don't use it myself.

As a general rule, however, these kinds of "pseudo-idioms" should be avoided in favour of a more obviously intelligible alternative.

tommjames:

orthohawk:I dunno. The big advantage of Esperanto over most (all?) "wild" languages is clarity and logicality (?) of expression, and I just do not see how it can be called logical to create expressions for which the meaning cannot be ascertained from the component parts;

I agree, although as leporinjo noted, idiomatic expressions and idiom-like words are a part of the language, so for better or worse one still has to learn them. A term like "prifajfi sekson" may well be inscrutable to someone unfamiliar with that particular idiom, but since 'fajfi pri' exists and is in wide use I think it should not necessarily be deemed evitinda. Though I suppose clearer expressions like 'ĉiuseksema' and whatnot are probably better alternatives.

Prifajfi was opaque to me. I had to use Google and find it referenced in a Wikipedia article to understand it. Before doing that, I had wondered whether it meant something about drawing attention, since my own experience with whistling has mostly seen people use whistling to get someone's attention. And of course there is the whole terrible sexist use of whistling by men towards women, the wolf whistle. So I was rather confused by it.

It's probably impossible to erase idioms completely away from a language. One of the skills that our brains have developed is to represent objects and/or ideas with other objects. Maybe even at some sort of deep level, every word itself is idiomatic, we accept that certain combinations of sounds communicate ideas, but those sounds themselves are not the ideas, they are symbols of the ideas that are tossed about in our heads and minds.

Which likely means there is no perfect solution to it, except for all of us to try to be mindful that just because we think something is clear, that it must be clear to the recipients of the message. Communication is often about patience. I'm glad to have learned about this idiom of Esperanto. I'm certainly not a perfect Esperanto speaker or writer, but I do fairly well and am able to read most Esperanto texts with fairly rapid comprehension.

tommjames:I have absolutely no idea where the accusation of sexism comes from.

Neither do I. I was really shocked about that.

I had a friend who is East Indian and he always accused everyone of being racist to him. If he didn't get a job then it was because people were racist. Someone got promoted ahead of him and he accused everyone of being racist.

I had a different friend whose wife wore hijab and she didn't get a job that she wanted. She blamed it on her hijab.

I had a white friend who didn't get a job with the Fire department and he said it was because of affirmative action (the white quota was full).

All these 3 assumptions may have been correct but it is somewhat doubtful. In the words of Homer Simpson, it is easy to blame ourselves, but it is even easier to blame others.

I knew many feminists who get really angry when they see other women bringing up gender issues for things that are completely unrelated to gender. They hate it because it detracts from the real issues. They don't like it because then everyone views them as whiners and doesn't take them seriously.

leporinjo:I apologize for losing my patience; that was all me and had nothing to do with you. I simply felt like I wasn't being taken seriously, and that you believed the opinion of a machine translator was more valuable than mine. Clearly no one else saw what I saw, so I was probably wrong.

I don't think anyone trusts google. We all know that it is just a tool with many failures.

I don't know who you are apologizing to, but if you are apologizing to me then I forgive you. Don't worry about. It isn't a big deal. Just remember that on the internet it is really hard to get a sense of a person's attitude or intonation. I think this is what happened.

orthohawk:
I dunno. The big advantage of Esperanto over most (all?) "wild" languages is clarity and logicality (?) of expression, and I just do not see how it can be called logical to create expressions for which the meaning cannot be ascertained from the component parts; i.e. there must be a connexion between the parts, and I daresay the phrase "to whistle about something" (a direct translation of a German idiom, IIRC) means absolutely nothing to a monoglot English speaker (I've asked around; not one monoglot English speaker of my acquaintance from around the US has any idea of what the phrase is supposed to mean). Idioms are anathema to a supposed international language. All they do is increase (needlessly IMO) the amount of vocabulary items that need to be learned.

Yah. You are 100% right. It makes things more difficult and causes confusion. This is one of the cool things about Esperanto: You can take it literally (maybe, not too literally as I just learned).

I think if it is full of idioms then it isn't beneficial for the language.

Part of the problem with natural languages is the cultural weightiness of the language. I have met so many ESL students that can speak English but they can't understand so many things we say. For example, "We can kill two birds will one stone". They can guess the meaning but they really struggle with it.

These common phrases make it so hard on people who try to communicate in English.