Messages: 26
Language: English
Zvoc47 (User's profile) January 25, 2017, 2:21:24 AM
While searching for the Esperanto word for "paw", I found "piedo" which is the same as the word for "foot". While studying Esperanto, I assumed that most words have exactly one meaning. In a sentence where a fictional cat says "Mi ŝatas leki piedojn.", it means that it likes to lick feet, but I'd like to specify that it likes to lick paws. This is how I came up with the idea of my own radix for this. I checked the dictionary for the radix "ŝap" and saw that it hasn't been made. "Ŝapo" comes from the Croatian word "šapa" which means "paw". According to this, the fictional cat will say "Mi ŝatas leki ŝapojn." which is more accurate. How can I make this "ŝapo" word standard in Esperanto since there's no word for "paw" that isn't "foot"?
Roch (User's profile) January 25, 2017, 7:13:38 AM
raffadalbo (User's profile) January 25, 2017, 2:33:19 PM
Anĝel:Adding a neologism like "ŝvisto" is not.I think adding neologisms is strongly against fundamento. Do not forget that, while you think to introduce "ŝvisto", a group of Chinese esperantists might discuss on a Chinese forum to introduce, for the same meaning, a word like "tomotolo" kaj a group of Brazilian esperantists might agree to use "sambalambo" together with some Spanish friends in another forum.
It is true that some neologisms were introduced and spread over, but the idea of Zamenhof was different:
* either you pick a word that is already widespread internationally
* or you try to get a kind of approval at a level that is widely accepted (in principle only Akademio, maybe also wikipedia or PIV)
Kirilo81 (User's profile) January 26, 2017, 12:07:23 PM
1) (paw)
You are free to use any word you want for a concept not already existing in Esperanto. But there is little chance for a new word for "paw" to catch on, as the word piedo works in most cases (a paw is nothing else than a foot; would you name feet of men other than of women?), and in the seldom cases where a distinction could be useful, bestopiedo does the trick.
2) The argumentation of anĝel with regard to gefratoj and a sexually neutral word for "sibling" is totally correct. I feel a need for parental terms without male base, too. In a scientifc paper on this topic I once tentatively proposed siblingo.
3) @raffadalo
"I think adding neologisms is strongly against fundamento. "
This claim is unfortunately wrong in two ways. "Neologism" is an ambiguous term not used in the Fundamento. The Fundamento distinguishes between "vorto internacia" (internationally spread root), "nova vorto" (word where there is no official root for in E-), and "formo nova" (synonym to an official root). While the latter are forebidden unless the Academy approves them, the international words are seen as part of the language from the beginning (whether synonymous to an official root or not), and the "new words" can be used as you like.
Kirilo81 (User's profile) January 26, 2017, 7:20:46 PM
The only problem I see is that already now there are like 5 proposed neutral words around for every male word, it would be very good if the people pushing them (I don't use them, it was rather a proof of concept) could have a kind of consensus on which one to use.
Vestitor (User's profile) January 26, 2017, 9:41:11 PM
Even English, which is (unfortunately) very accommodating to novelty and changes, can't express everything. The users - in everyday speech, in poetry, in songs - stretch the capabilities without having to become agents of official change for the language.
In any case, the addition of more and more ballast has a negative effect upon one of the initial benefits of Esperanto which is extracting a lot from a little. The latter makes the learning and usage burden much less.
akueck (User's profile) January 28, 2017, 5:25:20 PM
Kirilo81:3) @raffadaloGood clarification. On 19 January 2017, I presented a flow chart on the principles of word use in Esperanto in a meeting of my local Esperanto club at Oldenburg, Germany. Here is a report in Esperanto. When you read the report, you will find out that the presented principles are in accordance with Kirilo81's clarification, but they seem to be not acknowledged on the part of many Esperanto speakers. What is the explanation for that refusal?
"I think adding neologisms is strongly against fundamento. "
This claim is unfortunately wrong in two ways. "Neologism" is an ambiguous term not used in the Fundamento. The Fundamento distinguishes between "vorto internacia" (internationally spread root), "nova vorto" (word where there is no official root for in E-), and "formo nova" (synonym to an official root). While the latter are forebidden unless the Academy approves them, the international words are seen as part of the language from the beginning (whether synonymous to an official root or not), and the "new words" can be used as you like.
bartlett22183 (User's profile) January 28, 2017, 7:52:19 PM
Vestitor (User's profile) January 28, 2017, 9:55:42 PM
Personally I've never encountered a language where so many people involved in it are obsessed with its relation to linguistics and all the endless drivel about what's authoritative, what's in and not in the 'PIV'. There's way more analysis than necessary. It's no wonder there's more people who know more about the language than have mastery of it.
Go to any forum dedicated to learning other languages and this sort of thing almost never appears, apart from the hard-core geeks.
Roch (User's profile) January 28, 2017, 10:46:27 PM
akueck:se tiaj shanghoj montrihghos necesajKirilo81:3) @raffadaloGood clarification. On 19 January 2017, I presented a flow chart on the principles of word use in Esperanto in a meeting of my local Esperanto club at Oldenburg, Germany. Here is a report in Esperanto. When you read the report, you will find out that the presented principles are in accordance with Kirilo81's clarification, but they seem to be not acknowledged on the part of many Esperanto speakers. What is the explanation for that refusal?
"I think adding neologisms is strongly against fundamento. "
This claim is unfortunately wrong in two ways. "Neologism" is an ambiguous term not used in the Fundamento. The Fundamento distinguishes between "vorto internacia" (internationally spread root), "nova vorto" (word where there is no official root for in E-), and "formo nova" (synonym to an official root). While the latter are forebidden unless the Academy approves them, the international words are seen as part of the language from the beginning (whether synonymous to an official root or not), and the "new words" can be used as you like.
one too many h!
