Here's what I mean:

When the fluent speaker reads the words of William Shakespeare in English, he experiences the beauty of Shakespeare's language. That is, he is struck by the beauty and craftsmanship of the language. It's the difference between the writer being a legitimate wordsmith and being merely someone who has the technical skills to properly construct sentences to convey a certain meaning.

I would imagine, however, that it requires a certain proficiency in a language to really be able to appreciate it when one runs across a high-level example of its use. I say that because at the lower levels of understanding you are doing your best to just grasp the meaning of what is being said, and you haven't had enough exposure to various texts to know true art from something that is merely competent.

So here's here's my question: When you read in Esperanto, do you ever run across something where you're struck by the sheer beauty of the language and its use? Or are you simply engaged in the process of understanding the meaning of what's being said?

Just my own personal experience. I'm very much a prose guy.

Vividness, and economy of expression are the things I personally appreciate, but in general it seems to me that with Esperanto it's clarity that is most highly valued. Though that hasn't stopped plenty of people having a stab at poetry.

When reading a book in Esperanto I will, occasionally, come across a turn of phrase and think that is neat (sorry can't immediately recall examples). And even more occasionally I will actually use a phrase and feel pleased with myself at how I have expressed the thought.

For example, I do remember being at an Esperanto congress and complaining vociferously about the party that I was forced to share a room with and saying (referring to the samĉambrano) Estis terure, dum la tuta nokto li ronkis kiel 19-jarcenta vapor-maŝino. - which I thought nailed it.

There are some nice turns of phrase in the Proverbaro

One example of very many Volus kato fiŝojn, sed la akvon ĝi timas.

Or what could be more economical than Dirite, farite

... do you ever run across something where you're struck by the sheer beauty of the language and its use?...

Oh, all the time. Like sudanglo, I'm a prose guy, not a poetry one, but I particularly enjoy coming across words that perfectly/efficiently/cleverly encapsulate some idea or other in a way I've never seen before but are also so clear I can't help but understand them the moment I see them. I also can't think of any examples off the cuff, but I run across such words just about every time I read anything of any length written by long-time speakers. These words generally have no English equivalents, and might require a pretty good knowledge of Esperanto's word-building capabilities, prefixes, suffixes, etc. to fully appreciate.

sudanglo:Just my own personal experience. I'm very much a prose guy.

Sure, me too. Shakespeare is about the only poetry I ever read, and even then I reading for the story. But I would say poetry or prose, there's a line beyond which writing passes from mere craftsmanship to artistry.

I just recently started re-reading Brave New World. I first read it maybe 15 years ago and thought it was time to give it another go. It only took a few sentences for me to be very impressed with the quality of Huxley's writing.

I actually read somewhere that BNW will enter the public domain in the US in 2028. I believe it is already public domain everywhere else. That makes me wonder if someone is already working on an Esperanto translation, and what it would be like to read it in Eo. I would be very interested to see the translation decisions that are made to port it over. Due to the complexity of the language, I think it would be a difficult work to translate and would require some serious attention to detail.

Hey, who knows, maybe I can take a crack at it one day. If I shoot for the date of public domain here in the US then that gives me eight years.

sudanglo:Vividness, and economy of expression are the things I personally appreciate, but in general it seems to me that with Esperanto it's clarity that is most highly valued. Though that hasn't stopped plenty of people having a stab at poetry.

I've seen the work of William Auld praised, though I have not read any of it myself. I do understand that he was the one who translated Lord of the Rings, so it will be very interesting to compare his translation to the original.

sudanglo:
For example, I do remember being at an Esperanto congress and complaining vociferously about the party that I was forced to share a room with and saying (referring to the samĉambrano) Estis terure, dum la tuta nokto li ronkis kiel 19-jarcenta vapor-maŝino. - which I thought nailed it.

LOL. That's funny.

BTW why do you use "Estis terure" and not "estis terura"? I would translate "Estis terure" as "It was terribly. . ." which doesn't sound right.

sudanglo:There are some nice turns of phrase in the Proverbaro

One example of very many Volus kato fiŝojn, se la akvon ĝi timas.

Or what could be more economical than Dirite, farite

Nice.

I guess since we're throwing out proverbs, here's my contribution:

Havi multajn amikojn estas embarase;
Sed ofte amiko estas pli sindona ol frato.

RiotNrrd:... do you ever run across something where you're struck by the sheer beauty of the language and its use?...

Oh, all the time. Like sudanglo, I'm a prose guy, not a poetry one, but I particularly enjoy coming across words that perfectly/efficiently/cleverly encapsulate some idea or other in a way I've never seen before but are also so clear I can't help but understand them the moment I see them. I also can't think of any examples off the cuff, but I run across such words just about every time I read anything of any length written by long-time speakers. These words generally have no English equivalents, and might require a pretty good knowledge of Esperanto's word-building capabilities, prefixes, suffixes, etc. to fully appreciate.

The word-building aspect of Esperanto is still something that I'm not totally clear on.

In English, you can't just go making words up without someone pointing a finger and going, "Hey, that's not a real word!" But it seems that in Esperanto people just make words up all the time.

I would say "estis terure"is right because "terure" is modifying the verb — telling how "it" was, but there is no "it" involved — cf."pluvas rapide."

I recall reading William Auld's La Infana Raso and being struck by the writing. This was some ecades back, but you might take a look at that sometime.

Leisureguy:I would say "estis terure"is right because "terure" is modifying the verb — telling how "it" was, but there is no "it" involved — cf."pluvas rapide."

I guess what I'm thinking here is that, at least in English, you would said, "It was terrible, during the whole night he snored like a 19th century steam machine." You wouldn't say, "It was terribly, during the whole night. . ."

I suppose that makes sense, now that I think of esti being a verb and being modified by an adverb. But I wouldn't say there is no "it." The "it" is the experience being referred to.

You have improved my understanding though. I guess this is just another Esperanto quirk I will have to get used to. There are several of those.

Leisureguy:I recall reading William Auld's La Infana Raso and being struck by the writing. This was some decades back, but you might take a look at that sometime.

Thanks for the heads up. I might have to check that out.

PrimeMinisterK:

Leisureguy:I would say "estis terure"is right because "terure" is modifying the verb — telling how "it" was, but there is no "it" involved — cf."pluvas rapide."

I guess what I'm thinking here is that, at least in English, you would said, "It was terrible, during the whole night he snored like a 19th century steam machine." You wouldn't say, "It was terribly, during the whole night. . ."

I suppose that makes sense, now that I think of esti being a verb and being modified by an adverb. But I wouldn't say there is no "it." The "it" is the experience being referred to.

You have improved my understanding though. I guess this is just another Esperanto quirk I will have to get used to. There are several of those.

"Terure" is not modifying the verb. It is what you call a "predicative" or in Bertilow's Esperanto grammar a "perverba priskribo" (something that modifies the subject through the verb, but does not modify the verb itself).

Still "terure" and not "terura" is completely correct in this sentence.

You can look it up here.

I quote:

Oni uzas E-vorton anstataŭ A-vorto ankaŭ kiam ne ekzistas subjekto. Tiam la perverba priskribo priskribas la tutan situacion:

Estis al mi tiel terure, kiam vi ĵetis min de la ponto en la malvarman akvon! Estis terure estas ĝenerala priskribo de la situacio. Subjekto mankas.

Estas troe, ho Levidoj!

Estos sufiĉe, se ni diros al vi la jenon.

Ĉu hodiaŭ estas varme aŭ malvarme?