글: 96
언어: English
Tempodivalse (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 8일 오후 11:51:21
What I discovered was that, although my changes solved the initial difficulties I perceived, they resulted in other, more substantial problems, which Zamenhof's solution had cleverly avoided. I'm convinced now that there is a good reason for almost every feature of grammar and lexicon, and any real improvement over Z's work, if possible, would be negligible and not worth the side effects associated with reforms. I came away from my little 'experiment' with even more respect for the language. Perhaps I will share more detailed discoveries in another thread sometime.
Unfortunately, a person who does not have a good grasp of Esperanto is in no position to make this kind of evaluation, because he isn't aware that there is almost certainly a reason why a particular part of Esperanto is the way it is, and not another way. This awareness can only come via repeated use and familiarization with the intricacies of the language.
The "fixes" proposed by nespertuloj remind me of the conservative music publishers of the late 19th century, who would "fix" the dissonances of great composers like Scarlatti and Moussorgsky, as if the latter didn't know how they wanted their music to sound! Anyone properly informed about music theory, however, will see the reasons for such dissonances or apparent errors, and be able to appreciate the genius behind such originality.
morfran (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 8일 오후 11:52:52
efilzeo:when i started to learn the language i too thought "we could change this, we cuold change that", so i'm 100% culprit of it. if the new learners are into esperanto enough they'll probably come to the conclusion that the language is already done.
erinja:I experimented with "na" and "far" as a beginner. I thought "the language evolves, so there's no problem with using these new forms, it's just the language evolving"If both of you have had your own youthful indiscretions with neologisms, and both of you have evolved to your present linguistic rectitude on your own — presumably without first being branded apostates by the Esperanto community — then I still don’t understand why the threshold of tolerance for other people still in the flower of their own noobulence is so low in here. If your own naismo and farismo didn’t seriously threaten the language, surely we can afford to let even the most stubborn of noobs get it out of their systems on their own without hypocritically whipping out the Willy Wonka memes so soon after their arrival in the forum.
I stopped using those words then I was fluent enough to realize that these innovations aren't really necessary, that almost no fluent speaker uses them, because a proper name with no accusative is still understood due to word order, and that "de" works fine for giving the author of a work.
AllenHartwell (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 1:09:09
erinja (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 1:19:32
It is a small degree of arrogance to suppose you know what is best for a language you don't even speak. I don't have a problem with newbies getting interested in reforms. I do have a problem with them refusing to listen to experienced speakers who suggest politely that they learn the language as-is first, and then reconsider whether it really needs reforming.
morfran (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 1:20:36
Is hyperbolic English its own language, like Simple English?
AllenHartwell:I’m sure you've heard of "when in Rome?”I sure have. I believe I saw someone selling “Question Authority” T-shirts there for 30 denarii.
AllenHartwell (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 1:31:05
morfran:“Force”? “Lipartisan misuse of language in an effort to support an immediate political objective or viewpoint.The term is defined as "the partisan misuse of language to support an immediate objective or viewpoint." Hence why I said it sounds inflammatory until you understand its meaning. Then it just looks spot on. I've yet to see a reformist who didn't have some half-baked political activism agenda in mind and was simply using the language as a vehicle for that.
artisan misuse of language in an effort to support an immediate political objective or viewpoint.
guistic terrorism?”
Is hyperbolic English its own language, like Simple English?
AllenHartwell:I’m sure you've heard of "when in Rome?”I sure have. I believe I saw someone selling “Question Authority” T-shirts there for 30 denarii.
Some authority is open to question. Some is not. The authority of the Fundamento has already been ruled valid by the majority of the speaking community itself. That decision itself was rendered permanent. This is why I insist that kontrauxfundamento usage isn't really even Esperanto. It fails to conform to the one inherently valid specification document.
morfran (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 1:49:16
AllenHartwell:the partisan misuse of language to support an immediate objective or viewpointThat’s not exactly a Webster’s Dictionary definition of “force”. Or even a Wiktionary definition. It’s almost as if you found this neologistic use of the word on some website (say, antiessays.com), and are now trying to float this definition here in Lernu’s sacred halls.
If only there were a recent example of someone like that so that I would know how to respond — dickishly, or very dickishly.
AllenHartwell:This is why I insist that kontrauxfundamento usage isn't really even Esperanto.And that is why I must insist that this Humpty Dumpty-like, knock-down argument isn’t English, but some dialect spoken only on Bandini Mountain.
On the bright side, you really should send your resume to FOX News — I think you have an excellent future as the new Glenn Beck.
AllenHartwell:Some authority is open to question. Some is not.My, but those jackboots sure look sharp on you. Where can I get a pair?
patrik (프로필 보기) 2014년 5월 9일 오전 4:45:07