Til innholdet
Svare

Language questions

fra marianas,2008 8 3

Meldinger: 22

Språk: English

davidwelsh (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 12:57:04

I can't say I really understand the logic of the "racist" argument. That would mean that the word "Scotland" is more racist than the word "Australia", because Scotland is a country named after a people, whereas Australia is a geographical term, and Australians are named after their country.

Does anyone really experience terms like "Scottish", "English", "Somali", "Swiss" or "Danish" as being more racist than "Australian", "Ethiopian", "Canadian", "Indian" or "Chinese"? And if it's not racist in English, why is it racist in Esperanto?

Miland (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 13:17:50

For myself I would say that I am British but not English. Oddly, speaking hypothetically, if I were in an independent Scotland I don't think I would feel the same unease. I don't have the negative feelings about the SNP that I would have about the BNP, because the SNP is not a racist party.

I forgot to mention another reason for my preferring io: its use by the UEA, as the webpage containing the names of countries involved in the recent World Congress in Rotterdam shows.

mnlg (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 13:21:28

One of the arguments against -uj- is that it might be rooted in a 19th Century convention according to which a European country is a mostly homogeneous collection of citizens, whereas colonies or former colonies are not. Is Italy a "container of Italians" (ital-uj-o)? This was perhaps a lot more true in 1870 (or in the case of Italy, perhaps a lot more false). Can you find the same homogeneity in a former colony? It can be argued whether back at that time you could or not. It risks to be a very long discussion regarding culture, common background, the impact of racial or biological differences, how much time should pass before a country can be declared homogeneous, and why, and by whom, and so on. I have no intention to go through all that, of course, but it is true that you can see a connection in the naming scheme for countries. Perhaps it's a coincidence and I wouldn't be so fast in branding it as racist, however it is worth being considered.

erinja (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 15:25:25

I wouldn't say that "Britujo" is racist, especially since a "British" person, to me, is a modern construct; in the past, you had Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. but not "British".

But to me, it is certainly a fact that while France was once a nation of "the French", the France of today (and also Britain, Germany, Italy, etc) can hardly be said to be homogeneous. It is a good argument for the use of -io, although I would never say that -ujo is racist. You could argue that "Germanujo" is, for example, the "historical homeland" of the germanoj, even though all sorts of people live there now. To me, that isn't racist (much like how many places in the US are named "Germantown", even if Germans no longer live there, or have long since blended in with the population)

Rao (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 15:31:41

Why would "Germanio" be less racist than "Germanujo"? Aren't both named after a specif group? There are more than 50 ethnic groups in China, of which the Chinese people is only one; does it matter if the word is "Cxinujo" aux "Cxinio"? I see no valid arguments but aesthetic ones in favor of the use of -io instead of -ujo, and still, they are subjective.

(btw, sorry for poor writing. It has been a long time since I last wrote anything in English besides keywords in Google lango.gif)

erinja (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 6 21:26:10

Rao:Why would "Germanio" be less racist than "Germanujo"? Aren't both named after a specif group? There are more than 50 ethnic groups in China, of which the Chinese people is only one; does it matter if the word is "Ĉinujo" aŭ "Ĉinio"? I see no valid arguments but aesthetic ones in favor of the use of -io instead of -ujo, and still, they are subjective.

(btw, sorry for poor writing. It has been a long time since I last wrote anything in English besides keywords in Google lango.gif)
Germanio is a name of a place based on a name of a people. Germanujo implies that it is a place *for* a certain type a person. Like a "monujo" is a place designed to hold money, you could say that "Germanujo" is a place designed to contain germanoj.

I don't believe that "Germanujo" is racist.

Regarding Ĉinio/Ĉinujo, I don't think it's racist either way. Although China has many ethnic groups, none of those are called "Chinese". The dominant ethnic group in China (more than 90%) is the "Han". But it's Ĉinujo/Ĉinio, and not "Hanujo/Hanio" (the word "China" is thought to come from the word Qing, pronounced "ĉing" in Esperanto; it's a historical dynasty of China)

guyjohnston (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 7 02:27:44

davidwelsh:I recently read the book "Rusoj logas en Rusujo", and found the argument put forward for the use of the -uj- suffix by Esperantists like Renato Corsetti and Bertilo Wennergren so convincing I decided to change. During the UK, I noticed that Prof. John Wells (President of the Academy) used the -uj- ending himself.
I also agree with the reasons for using "-uj". For example, I thought for a long time that kebekoj live in Kebekio (thinking it was Kebekujo), until I recently found out that Kebeko is the city. Also, not many people know that etiopoj and somaloj live in Etiopio/Etiopujo and Somalio/Somalujo, rather than etiopianoj and somalianoj, despite the fact that tanzanianoj and zambianoj live in Tanzanio and Zambio. I also still don't know whether bavaroj live in Bavario. Therefore I use "-uj" when writing. However I don't usually when speaking, as I think it sounds a bit pedantic and possibly overly formal when everyone else in the conversation is saying "-i". Though if I was giving a speech I might use "-uj" instead.

guyjohnston (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 7 02:35:00

With the "racist" argument, from my understanding, words like "franco" and "germano" are generally used to mean anyone living in that country (or at least originally from it), regardless of their race or ethnic origin. Therefore it doesn't seem racist at all to me naming those countries after those people.

davidwelsh (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 7 09:36:45

erinja: Germanio is a name of a place based on a name of a people. Germanujo implies that it is a place *for* a certain type a person. Like a "monujo" is a place designed to hold money, you could say that "Germanujo" is a place designed to contain germanoj.
So the question is whether "germano" really is more of an exclusive term than "usonano" or "auxstraliano". I understand that grammatically it is, but that's the case in English too. Is a "germano" really used as an ethnic term (rather than a term for someone who lives in Germany) to a greater degree than the word "auxstraliano"?

Maybe in Zamenhof's time it was, but nowadays I can't really see that people think that way. (At least not in any language other than Esperanto...)

davidwelsh (Å vise profilen) 2008 8 7 09:41:08

Miland:I forgot to mention another reason for my preferring io: its use by the UEA, as the webpage containing the names of countries involved in the recent World Congress in Rotterdam shows.
On the other hand, the official address of the Academy of Esperanto is in "Italujo".

Tibake til toppen