Miland:suri

This would conflict with sur.

mnlg:

Miland:suri

This would conflict with sur.

Good point. That leaves tajŝi or (idiomatic, from Russian) pravi or invented variants like previ so far.

In the Australian accent 'pravi' would be 'praavi', no diphthongisation there.

previ also sounds good, but between Tajsxi and Previ its a hard choice (either going for a far east asian root or a east-europe/central asian root). Suri wouldn't be suitable anyway because it means 'to do' (e.g. to perform something in a general sense), thus if it was incorporated it would probably cause more confusion that 'korekta'.

Soz for any bad spelling, in a hurry at the moment...

So really, we are looking to add zillions of neologisms to Esperanto, to quadruple the amount of words that need to be learned to speak the language and make it harder to understand one other.

Guda idea. Mina dinka az ŭi posas maĥi la langaĵon gengan ĥoroŝion.

Everyone understands perfectly and we are all happy now right? An international gibberish that takes one word from every language in the world, and that no one understands at all, just like what people think Esperanto does?

erinja:So really, we are looking to add zillions of neologisms to Esperanto, to quadruple the amount of words that need to be learned to speak the language and make it harder to understand one other.

Guda idea. Mina dinka az ŭi posas maĥi la langaĵon gengan ĥoroŝion.

Everyone understands perfectly and we are all happy now right? An international gibberish that takes one word from every language in the world, and that no one understands at all, just like what people think Esperanto does?

No one said that zillions of neologisms were going to be added, and this doesn't mean we'll have 152.59999 ways to say the same word. From what I gather (please Miland correct me if I am wrong) this is an investigation into the need for another word in order to correct express an abstract concept. Even then, 2 words for one concept isn't hard to learn, all you need is a couple of flashcards. Lets vs this with pronunciation, grammar, and other aspects of language, and vocab learning is easy.

In fact, it may be found that a neologism isn't needed. And personally the only people who don't really have trouble understanding others when it comes to conversing any language are those who are fluent*. Learners can use a dictionary - the hardest thing for a learner is not so much what an individual word means but what a sentence or paragraph means as a whole. I do see your concern, but I still don't agree.

*I mean this strictly in a very general sense.

If this is an investigation, then it has already shown a conclusion - that Esperanto already has a word for each meaning of cope. The "investigation"'s purpose was not to find a way to get across this idea in Esperanto, but to add an unnecessary word to the language, one that would have every possible meaning of cope.

In that case, this new Esperanto word would also have to include the meaning "to cover or furnish with a cope" (that's a long type of church vestment), and also the meanings "to meet in combat", "to strike", and "to fight". Also, to shape a structural member to fit a coping.

I am all for translation discussions. Someone says, "Hey, I am unsure of how to express this particular idea in Esperanto, anyone have any ideas on how to translate this expression or word?" I am happy to help with these requests. The translation in question usually does not end up very literal, or else the person wouldn't have had a problem figuring it out.

It's another thing to say "Let's arbitrarily add a word to the language! Let's bring in a neologism with the exact meaning of this particular word from my native language! Yes, neologisms, that's how we can all communicate better! The more international words the better!"

I am an experienced speaker. I was talking with someone in Esperanto some time back and they used a word I didn't know. I had no idea what they were talking about and had to ask them to explain. It turned out that I knew exactly what they were talking about, but they used a weird word to describe it; the word they used was a neologism similar to a word in their native language. I didn't even find any trace of it in online dictionaries, except in a list of neologisms that should be avoided! They could have used an existing Esperanto root or compound word to express the same idea, and I would have understood instantly, but they chose this neologism instead, because they didn't like the way that Esperanto expressed this idea with native roots (by the way, it was still with a single word - this didn't even require a whole phrase to explain). Neologisms sure increased comprehension there, didn't they?

The point of Esperanto is not to have lots of international words, and to represent as many words as possible with its vocabulary. The point of Esperanto is to be understood. And adding lots of neologisms, when Esperanto words already exist to express those concepts, is not a good way to be understood, even with experienced speakers.

Well then I would blame the lack of resources for Esperantists regarding new or far flung words. I still don't really have a problem with neologisms, but what you have said does show that there is currently a lack of support for the use of such vocabulary. Esperanto also is disadvantaged as most of its communication is restricted in a way that the 'big' languages (e.g. English, French, Spanish, Chinese, German, Arabic and so forth) don't quite have - even though Esperanto is the most spoken conlang, it does seem quite disadvantaged in terms of how quickly new terms and vocab catch on, where as those big languages have plenty of speakers and learners and support systems for learning that Esperanto is yet to have (although lernu does make a big step in that direction).

Maybe it's a cultural thing too. I know that in Australia we have different generations at the moment ranging from the older 'true blue aussie' to the younger 'multicultural-to-the-point-that-you-could-have-come-from-anywhere-in-the-solar-system-and-you'll-still-be-called-an-aussie' (unless you're English) to the even younger generation of 'American-copy-cats'. As a result such a society often is used to neologisms or a wide range of strange yet expressive vocabulary. Possibly my support for neologisms and wide vocabulary is drawn from such cultural influence? (I would have fit in the 2nd category).

Nonetheless (please forgive me if I am wrong) I believe that the U.S. isn't quite so much as influenced by foreigners as much as it influences them, so maybe the same culture doesn't exist there? I haven't gotten the chance to go to America yet so it is hard for me to know this.

Anyway I'll leave the rest of the 'to cope' stuff to a more experienced esperantist(s). I still however think there are plenty of words esperanto could have (for existance, there is no intensifying adjective - how can you say 'goodonya, ye bloody legend' in Esperanto if there's no intensifier?! *faints from horror*)

EDIT: @ Erinja: I reread your message and I do have to say though, if a proper Esperanto word does express a concept properly then the need for a neologism is pretty much nullified. And also consider: Esperanto is pretty much made of European neologisms, so it doesn't matter how smaller a vocab you have, its still going to be alien to many others in the world, especially the further east you go.

I'm not against internationalism, but even if we did add lots of east Asian neologisms to the language, it would still not be easier for them to learn the language. A Japanese-derived word is just as hard for a Chinese person as a French-derived word.

Consider this also - East Asian Esperanto speakers are on the forefront of the movement to use existing Esperanto roots rather than adding neologisms. Words like "biologio" are confusing to them because although most European languages use Greek roots for science terms, their languages do not, so these words present added difficulty to them. They would prefer to use terms like "vivscienco", composed of existing roots. So please don't try to introduce new words to the language, even with Asian origins, under the guise of "It makes it easier for the Asians", because it doesn't make it easier for them. The famous Esperanto speaker Claude Piron, who did about a year ago, was a proponent of using existing roots, and wrote a book called 'La Bona Lingvo' to explain his ideas.

There is a website, www.bonalingvo.it containing lists of neologisms and suggested simple words with the same meaning.

One thing I want to make clear is that there is plenty of room in Esperanto for neologisms, in fields like technical terms, specialist words, etc. But to express everyday thoughts like coping with a problem, Esperanto is already perfectly able to do this, without neologisms. And if a beginner has problems expressing himself or herself, the beginner should look at a book like "Being Colloquial in Esperanto", or the equivalent book for another language. Simply asking more experienced speakers is a great way to learn. "Hey, what's a good way to say this"

Regarding Australians, in the US we do use slang etc but my impression is that Australians do it a lot more. Nearly anyone I know who has visited Australia has told me that Australians tend to abbreviate a lot more words and use more slang than we do in the US. They have found that Australians can be hard for outsiders to understand, for this reason (not because of the accent, which is not difficult in and of itself). In Esperanto, it is preferable to err on the side of caution; the point is to have people understand you worldwide, so it's better to be more conservative and less idiomatic in your speech, to ensure you're understood.

Once you know someone well, that's the time when you can get a little more flexible and slangy with your speech, because you have an idea of what they will and won't understand. But only when you're talking just with that person! Because otherwise it would be rude, if others can't understand.

Let's see...the on-line dictionary defines 'cope' as "Kopenhago". There! Problem solved--and we didnt' even have to add words. Let's see, now Kopenhagigxi would be the intransitive form "to cope", FiKopenhagigxi would mean to cope with things in an immoral or corrupt way, and Kopenhagacxi would mean to cope with things badly. This has some real possibilities! A "coping strategy" could be translated as a Kopenhaga strategio--this works!

(Yes, I'm joking....please don't send a lynch mob after me).

Troy

Esperanto does not have a simple equivalent to the meaning of 'cope' as dealing with life in general, and the enquiry preliminary to developing a neologism is not over.

So far the adapted previ from Russian and tajŝi from Japanese appear to be the best ones.

Meanwhile, I welcome equivalents of 'cope' from other languages. It would be good to know whether speakers of German or Arabic have a word that covers these meanings.