Mensagens: 41
Idioma: English
RiotNrrd (Mostrar o perfil) 22 de março de 2008 00:43:44
My reaction was to the dismissal of "OK" BECAUSE it started out as an English word. I don't believe that is a valid reason for rejecting it. There may be other, quite valid, reasons for rejecting it, but simply that it is an English word should not be one of them.
As you (Erinja) point out, there are lots of words that have made it into Esperanto from English, and I assume that there will probably be more in the future. At this point in time, "OK" is understood almost universally (at least, according to what I have read concerning it). This is why I don't object to its use in Esperanto. And because the word is now so nearly universal using the English pronunciation, I see no need to force it to conform to the Esperanto orthography (morphology? I actually am not sure which is the correct term), which would, in fact, change its pronunciation to something less readily understood.
But, as I also pointed out, what words one uses are a matter of personal preference. No one who objects to it need use it.
erinja (Mostrar o perfil) 22 de março de 2008 17:27:56
For the same reason, I do not use "ĉaŭ" (from Italian ciao) in Esperanto, though it is also widely known internationally and adapted into many other languages. I have always felt that "ĝis", the homegrown Esperanto equivalent, was preferable to adding an unnecessary word.
In any case, each Esperanto speaker has the right to make their linguistic choices and use them, and other speakers can in turn accept those choices and adopt them, or reject them and use something else. The language evolves the same as any other.
Interestingly, "okej" is not really that widespread in Esperanto, considering how deeply it has penetrated into other languages.
Wilhelm (Mostrar o perfil) 22 de março de 2008 22:44:45
RiotNrrd:I just wanted to point out that the language of origin of a particular word has always played a role in determining whether it would entered the language or not.
My reaction was to the dismissal of "OK" BECAUSE it started out as an English word. I don't believe that is a valid reason for rejecting it. There may be other, quite valid, reasons for rejecting it, but simply that it is an English word should not be one of them.
Now, if someone doesn't like a word because of it's perceived "Englishness", is this not a valid opinion? It's not as though peoples subjective value choices can be right of wrong. They just are. Maybe they feel there are already too many english roots, and want to avoid becoming a second english (Whether this would actually happen is another matter, but peoples fears are real enough).
RiotNrrd (Mostrar o perfil) 22 de março de 2008 23:09:18
Wilhelm:Now, if someone doesn't like a word because of it's perceived "Englishness", is this not a valid opinion?Of course the opinion is valid. No one is compelled to use a word if they don't want to, and no one has suggested that they should.
Hymake (Mostrar o perfil) 22 de março de 2008 23:26:11
Another way? How about 'orde'?
Mi bone fartas/estas
Mi orde estas
rabhiuz (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de março de 2008 00:22:19
eb.eric:How about "Mi fartas ne malbone" (or "Mi fartos ne malbone")?
The sense I'm aiming for is "things aren't bad, they may be good, but generally everything will probably work out... I'll be okay."
Hilded (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de março de 2008 12:41:55
mnlg (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de março de 2008 21:06:29
RiotNrrd:My reaction was to the dismissal of "OK" BECAUSE it started out as an English word.I didn't dismiss anything. I think I have stated quite clearly that I was merely trying to find a reason to answer your question. The word might be international as you say it is, but its pronunciation is very English to me. If it had to enter Esperanto, it would have to be adapted (this is why I presented the example of "kompjudro"), but this process would reduce it to something like "oko" or "o ko", which I think would sound rather silly and wouldn't be easily recognized. Thus, my conclusion: "okay" is recognized as long as it is heard the way it sounds in English. Thus, it is still somehow tied to English, and therefore its internationality is partial. I'm not saying that this is reason enough, but it is a reason nonetheless.
I don't believe that is a valid reason for rejecting it.I feel free to reject any neologism for any reason I like, when it comes to my personal use
I agree with what erinja said. I never use "ĉaŭ", I find it too italian. On the other hand I have seen it used more often than I expected. This doesn't change my opinion though; it is not vital, and unless I really have to sound foreign, I'm going to avoid it.
Amike!
RiotNrrd (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de março de 2008 21:32:15
(I didn't actually intend to be the defender of "okej" - really, although I have used it once or twice before, it's been a pretty rare occurence; though I use it in my daily life in English constantly.)
pacepacapaco (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de março de 2008 00:14:41
Maybe this is common knowledge, but I've read that the word comes from abbreviation of the facetious "Oll Korrect." I think the evolution of the word is just beautiful. =)