Bovo is in fact the generic term for 'bovine animal'. We have virbovo for 'bull'.

Thanks for all of the replies!

I'm glad that some of that is out of the way, even though I would prefer that the language maintains more structure in syntax, I suppose that I have a lot more to learn before I can judge the language.

There is still one thing that I can't comprehend, why does Esperanto use a separate ending for direct objects anyway?

I've heard that "That way someone can use their native subject/verb/object order", but if they're speaking to someone with a different order, then they'd have to learn it anyway! So that's out...

I've also heard that it clarifies the syntax, however I do believe that the ORDER is the primary indicator, and that the ending is too subtle to override the order that I use with a new language, to avoid this I've been having to think of everything I learn in different order.

It's easier for me to learn a language with a completely odd subject/object/verb order than it is to learn multiple methods (which will be necessary if the person you're communicating with doesn't use your order).

Basically there must be a valid reason for it, otherwise a logical analysis would have removed it by now. I'm just trying to find that reason.

Also, on a side note, why do adjectives have to agree with nouns in case and tense?

Granajn Hundojn, why not just Hundojn Granda or Granda Hundojn? As it's just as easy to figure out, and the redundancy is lost. The "oin" sounds strong enough if you ask me.

Sorry for all the questions, but I've found little explanations, and most of the threads that I lookup up just end in people slamming a language called "Ido" instead of providing real answers.

Thanks again, and I am sorry for being so curious.

Aaron

webgovernor:
There is still one thing that I can't comprehend, why does Esperanto use a separate ending for direct objects anyway?

Also, on a side note, why do adjectives have to agree with nouns in case and tense?

I suggest you check out this link, which gives an excellent summary of why the adjective agreement is used in Esperanto.

Here

And for an excellent discussion about the accusative ending go to the next page

Here

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with being curious, or even disagreeing with some (or all) of the structures of esperanto. But I would caution you that there is a problem among beginners in esperanto that often they see structures that they don't like or aren't familiar with and they start arguing to change them. You'll not find anyone in the Esperanto community amenable to those arguments. Because Despite whatever flaws it has, Esperanto simply works. And Changing it radically now is against the rules. Who would want to learn an international language if all the work they spent studying it today might be worthless because of changes that will be made to the language tomorrow (which they'd have to relearn). The stability of Esperanto is one of the things that makes it useful as an auxiliary language.

And yes, there are structures in Eo that I don't like, and if I were making an attempted Esperanto replacement I'd probably do things a lot differently. But I doubt my replacement would still be around 100 years after my death. I'm quite sure that Esperanto will be.

And to be honest, there were some things I hated when I first started learning Esperanto but as I've used the language i've grown to really appreciate them (both for their structure and for the character they give the language).

The -n ending, as previously mentioned, is to help give Esperanto a freeER word order than many natural languages. You will hear, now and then, the claim that this gives Esperanto a completely free word order. You need to be careful, because that claim is patently false (hence my use of the word "freeER").

Word order is important in many cases in Esperanto. "Ne", for example, requires a fixed order - it always modifies what follows it. Prepositions are also always word-order dependent; again always associated with what follows them. "La", too, only relates to what immediately follows it.

You can shuffle the subject, verb, and direct object around with wild abandon, but that doesn't mean you can simply take an Esperanto sentence, shuffle the words in any order, and still have it mean the same thing in every case.

Mi ne parolis pri la kato.
Pri la kato mi ne parolis.
Ne parolis mi pri la kato.

All mean the essentially the same thing (although with different emphasis). But:

Ne mi parolis pri la kato.
Mi parolis ne pri la kato.
Ne la kato pri mi parolis.

All mean different things (different amongst themselves and different from the original example(s)). And:

Pri ne kato mi la parolis.

This is grammatically incorrect and thus meaningless (even though the same words as before are all still there, but in an order which makes no sense).

First, to RiotNrrd and awake, I do truly appreciate the replies, and when I wrote that statement I fully expected to be reprimanded for doing so. I'm pleasantly surprised.

@RiotNrrd, what you said was exactly (although arranged differently) what the link awake posted said. Right on the money.

Although, the freedom with adjectives and nouns is a valid argument, where the "open for all people with their own national structure" is, in my eyes, not a valid arguments as multiple structures will need to be learned to clearly understand differently formed texts anyway,with or with out the subtle "n" sound.

Emphasis seems to be the advantage here, and I can sympathize with that.

I can also tolerate the funky characters, at least it's not Kanji or sanskrit.

The "n" ending would be totally fine with me as long as (any) sentence order existed, it could be Subject/Verb/Object, Object/Subject/Verb, or whatever, because my two accomplices in language learning are now both wanting to give up on Esperanto and try to turn another more structured IAL into a global reality, I doubt they have the influence required to do so, but it would be fun to try.

It comes down to one thing, and that is where I will put my time and money. Should I put it into something that needs work but is used by a large group of people, or should I put it into something that needs less work but is used by a smaller portion of people? I'm very much for an official IAL, as it would save me money in translations of our products, but if people aren't willing to learn the "-n" ending does it still stand a chance?

Now, I'm almost positive that I'll receive a few flames for the above comments, but please keep in mind that these are serious questions and I honestly do wish to heavily invest into a chosen option. Also, I do have way too much time on my hands.

As a side note I cannot, for the life of me, figure out the difference between the "ach" (Hx I think) and "K". The "Hx" is pronounced like the K sound in "Mach" or "Johann Sebastian Bach", correct?

I guess I'm trying to figure out a way to make an IAL possible as a world goal (I need something to do with my time, seriously), but with people giving up at the sight of an "-N" ending is that going to happen? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Webgovernor, I think you have a slight bias towards English. English is a language that doesn't have much in the way of declension and it suffers in clarity for that. I have yet to see a misplaced modifier in Esperanto, because it you always can tell what modifier is modifying what. In eo, adjectives agree with their noun so you know which noun, etc.

The key for me, when listening to Esperanto, is to not parse a statement as it's being said, but to instead gather all of the parts and sort them in my head as an idea instead of as a sentence. For example, "can talk I this you like understand and probably still". It'll take a bit of work, but you can gain the meaning without the correct syntax. I found that after I started approaching eo like that everything clicked a bit more easily.

Personally, I'm quite fond of the accusative. It's not the only language to mark the accusative either, according to Wikipedia, Latin, Sanskrit, Greek, German, Polish, Russian and Arabic, all do or one did mark it. In all honesty, I'm all for grammatical moods and I'm a bit crestfallen that esperanto doesn't have a subjunctive or an epic mood.

I'm getting off topic.

Esperanto's k is the hard k sound you get in English, in "chalk" and "conglomerate" (or at least, how I pronounce the latter). ĥ is that stereotypical Scottish ACHHH sound, like in "Loch Ness". Yeah, it's the ch in Bach. It doesn't really matter though, k is replacing ĥ in most words.

tl;dr: Most of the structures in Esperanto seem a bit unwieldy to a native English speaker but that's only because English is a horrible language (and it's my birth language :/).

Sandy

PS: Sorry if this comes off sounding too didactic or like a rebuttal. It's not meant to. It's just late.

webgovernor: I guess I'm trying to figure out a way to make an IAL possible as a world goal ...

People have been trying to 'improve' Esperanto since the early days. Here's a wiki article on early proposals for reform, which may be of interest.

The early Esperanto community rejected them, and at the first international congress in 1905, when Zamenhof handed the 'ownership' of the language over to the community, they declared the foundations to be 'untouchable'. This has given stability to the movement and the language.

It is also important to remember that Esperanto underwent a good deal of revising and testing before publication. The author, Zamenhof, underwent a great deal of personal testing throughout his life. You will find it worthwhile to read Marjorie Boulton's biography Zamenhof: creator of Esperanto to get an idea of just how exacting it was.

Although, the freedom with adjectives and nouns is a valid argument, where the "open for all people with their own national structure" is, in my eyes, not a valid arguments as multiple structures will need to be learned to clearly understand differently formed texts anyway,with or with out the subtle "n" sound.

English's lack of noun-adjective agreement can sometimes create ambiguity. For example, consider the phrase "red book and pencil": are both book and pencil red or just the book? In English it could mean either. In Esperanto it would be clear since it should either be ruĝaj libro kaj krajono ("ruĝaj" applies to both) or ruĝa libro kaj krajono (just the book).

Of course, English gets by without this feature, but still it's a useful thing for Esperanto to have. If nothing else, learning this now will come in handy if you ever learn a natural language that features noun-adjective agreement, like German or Spanish (or many, many others).

The "open for all people with their own national structure" thing is less of a learning aid than an aid in translating, IMO. Texts translated into Esperanto can be translated much more literally in many cases, reflecting the original word order and so on more closely without losing clarity, than is the case for texts translated into English.

As a real-world example of what I mean, consider the Bible: in English we have Young's Literal Translation, which is probably as close to being a word-for-word translation of the Bible as possible in English, but it's just about unreadable due to being structured so differently than "normal" English. Most church-goers prefer a more readable paraphrased translation. The Esperanto Bible translated by the London Bible Society on the other hand is both very close to being literal and is also very readable (assuming you read Esperanto of course).

Thanks again for the replies.

@trojo, Thank you very much. The translating argument is by far the most logical that I've heard for the ability to use it freely. I do appreciate your input.

@Miland, I understand that by locking a language, you are able to use it without the worry of later modification. However, some modifications proposed are minimal and I do not see the issue.

Actually, prior to choosing Esperanto as my IAL, I read an excellent essay on the hypothetical IAL scenario, and Esperanto would be an excellent candidate if it was put into action by authority, but some complexities deter many people from learning it in their free time. I understand that Esperanto is a complete language, where many IALs are not.

@Paamayim, I do have a bias towards English, and I do know a little Latin. Yes, Latin does have the common -em, -inem, -u/em accusative endings, but Latin is not a constructed language. I also know the "basics" of ES and FR. My bias towards EN in this case is because of the simplicity of grammatical structure, but I hate the pronunciation issues and the nonsensical creation of tense.

Your comment didn't sound the least bit hostile, the only assumption that you've made was that relating to my bias towards EN, and you were correct, thus I have nothing to be upset about.

I'm still not seeing the difference between "awk" and "K" "Loch","Lock","Sock","Mach","Bach", are all the same too me. However, the "Hx" doesn't really sound like the "K" sound to me either, it sounds more like a really nasal and hard "H", but I know people who pronounce an "H" like this anyway. Bah.

Thanks again guys, I guess my next step is to spend 30 hours in my top four potential IALs. Esperanto, Ido, Novial, and Lojban. And, after research is done, I'll post a follow up here just in case someone is curious. But, Esperanto has a good chance because of the number of speakers, and because of it's proven usage.

Hi webgovernor

First, welcome to the world of Esperanto! Through Esperanto, you can meet wonderful people from all over the world, travel cheaply, and learn about different cultures by talking to people who actually live there.

I commend your enthusiasm! As some others have already said, it is very common for enthusiastic beginners to propose lots of changes to the language. It's understandable; they are excited, they have found this great language, and with just a few improvements, it can be even better! So of course they are enthusiastic.

Others have already discussed previous reform efforts; I'm not really going to address those except to say that Esperanto does evolve gradually, through time. Esperanto speakers tend to be conservative about change, as some people have already noticed. Why is that, when the language is so clearly imperfect?

There are two main reasons, as I see it. First reason - Esperanto, as you know, wasn't the first, and wasn't the last international language to be created. The past is littered with unsuccessful international languages who have very few speakers today, or none at all. Many of these languages have been through numerous reforms, but they are dead today. Why? One - each reform will have supporters and opponents. The speaking community is easily fractured into opposing parties, and a small and weak language often cannot survive having its speaking population divided and set against each other. It's a "united we stand, divided we fail" type of situation. Also, imagine that you are a person looking into learning a language. You discover that this language is still being edited and change. Are you going to learn it today, or are you going to say "Call me when it's perfect and it's done being changed, I'll learn it then"? Most people don't want to take the considerable effort to learn, and then have to re-learn everything when someone has made the decision to change it. The practical point is, no language will ever be "perfect", if only because we as humans can't agree on what features a "perfect" language would even have! At some point, a constructed language has to say "This is not perfect but it is good enough, I will stop here and call this the final form". You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So let's say that no one is thinking about any of this. Why are experienced Esperanto speakers generally resistant to changes? It's not because they think the language is perfect, I assure you. In fact, the more experienced you get, the more you recognize small aspects of the language that could use some improvement. The bottom line is, that when you become experienced, things that seemed to be a big deal when you were a beginner become very minor. It is not a big deal to learn the -n ending. It seems like a big deal at first, but trust me, it becomes not a big deal. It allows you to add nuance to your words, and it allows you to make distinctions that aren't possible in English (at least not without adding a ton of extra explanatory words). The whole thing about preserving your native word order is a red herring. Hardly anyone does that. Esperanto has relatively flexible word order but in many cases there is a "most common order", and a deviation from that order is usually assumed to mean that the person is emphasizing some part of the sentence, using word order to add nuance. Regarding a male suffix - we have the prefix vir-, and that's good enough for me. In my opinion, only a few roots are truly gendered (vir/, patr/, frat/, etc) and all other roots are neutral. That means that you'd add -in- to make it feminine, vir- to make it masculine, if you felt it was necessary to do so. This is a subject of some debate as I think you have already seen in these forums, but bottom line, this isn't that big an issue and 99% of Esperanto speakers don't see it as a problem. In most cases I do not find it necessary to specify a gender; who cares, in most situations, if it was a male bus driver or a female?

I am going to continue this in another message, as I am running out of characters here.