nw2394:
I guess I'm just disappointed. The sales pitch for this language is that it is easy. And sure, you can read all sorts of material on the web, as indeed I have done. You can also download all sorts of stuff. And you do the exercises and they are easy.

That sales pitch can be overdone, no question about it. As a general thing, I believe Esperanto is *easier* to learn than any ethnic language that I know about. That doesn't mean you can expect it to be easy for all learners in all particulars. And the truth is, for *any* language, learning to use it productively is harder than acquiring a "reading knowledge."

But then I go to try to form a sentence and realise that, in fact, I haven't grasped it at all and, that, in fact, it is a hell of a lot of work.

Well, you have to keep track of some things that you don't have to keep track of in English, that's true. But the rules are, in general, clear enough. It still takes time to get to where you can apply them in real time.

I know an Austrian lady. I pull her leg about German nouns and their gender. She just says, "mumble duh" (i.e. for der, die, das = the = la), as loads of German speakers routinely get the gender wrong themselves anyway. I don't seem to have a similar get out clause with E-o.

I didn't think gender errors were common in native speakers... At any rate, what makes grammatical gender hard for us to learn is that it has no semantic payoff at all. In most cases, it's unconnected to the meaning of the word, or even contrary to it (das Maedchen). In contrast, the transitivity of Esperanto verbs is *directly* connected to their meaning. It's their meaning that *makes* them transitive or intransitive. What makes that hard for English speakers is not that it's arbitrary but that many of these words are less ambiguous than their English counterparts.

The easiness of eo is kind of like that saying "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." It's easy relative to the difficulty of the natural languages. In school I took German for 4 1/2 years, French for three, and I've flirted with Latin (just a quick wink, though). Learning eo, I surpassed my German skills within the first several months of truly part-time study (maybe 15 minutes to half an hour per day). That does not mean, however, that I just soaked it up with no problems. I still have trouble with the n-ending and I still have trouble with the transitivities. But I also realized that I'm GOING to make mistakes. When I do I try to learn from them, but I don't get all wound up about it. As long as you can be understood, grammatical perfection isn't that important. It's a goal to shoot for, yes, but it's not THE goal. THE goal is to be able to communicate with others and be understood.

nw2394:

But then I go to try to form a sentence and realise that, in fact, I haven't grasped it at all and, that, in fact, it is a hell of a lot of work.

I know an Austrian lady. I pull her leg about German nouns and their gender. She just says, "mumble duh" (i.e. for der, die, das = the = la), as loads of German speakers routinely get the gender wrong themselves anyway. I don't seem to have a similar get out clause with E-o.

There certainly is something to "mumble duh". Esperanto's equivalent to that is "mumble ki-uh" if you're unsure about kio vs kiu

Honestly though, it will just take practice to get you use to the kiun/kion as a question thing. Perhaps it will help you to spend more time practicing writing, in correspondence or online chats, where it is easier to go back and change something you've previously typed than it is to change something you've already said. And even though you can't 'un-say' a word, duh, you're a beginner, anyone at all would forgive you if you said "Kio vi... oops Kion vi..." I feel like you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself to get everything perfect on the first try, and it's stressing you out. Relax. Breathe. Esperanto speakers, with the exception of a very few jerks, are famously forgiving or beginner errors, and helpfully encouraging no matter how much you butcher the sentence you're trying to get out.

I'm sure sometimes you start off an English sentence then realize the you aren't saying quite what you meant to say, and need to go back and revise what you've already said. Since it still happens in English (it certainly happens with me), I think it's safe to say it will always happen to you, at least on occasion, in Esperanto as well. But the more you practice, the easier it will get. I promise.

And by the way - Where is the bathroom? is "Kie estas la necesejo?" It's a pretty straightforward sentence, no kiu/kio/-n at all!

A kiu/kio hint for questions, actually, is whatever verb you will be using. You will get very used to using -n with verbs like "vidi", so it will become second nature to use -n in questions with vidi as well. Likewise with "mangxi", "doni", etc.

And a strategy for dealing with lernu!'s dictionary, which doesn't show transitivity - look up the word in the Esperanto-Esperanto version of the dictionary. Transitivity isn't listed there either, but even with a basic level of Esperanto, you should be able to scan through the definition and tell pretty quickly what the transitivity is. The extra 'bonus' is that you get the straight off Esperanto meaning, which will help you learn when to use the word correctly (such as the now famous boli = to reach a temperature of 100 C)

Le Hibou:Now, if you really are having trouble understanding or using the -n ending (the so-called accusative), then you are not alone.]

My problem with -n is not that it is hard to understand. It is:

a) Interrogrative use of kiu etc is not in my mind a pronoun. E-o regards it as such and I have get used to thinking that way, but I am not accustomed to it - and it is, in fact, superfluous.

b) When that "pronoun" is put before the verb I have to make a forward reference to a verb I haven't even said/written/thought about yet. As such it is, to me, in the same sort of category of the programmers' much hated "goto" statement.

It is just yucky - that's all. It is, at least, better than German noun gender I'll get used to it somehow.

Nick

erinja:The extra 'bonus' is that you get the straight off Esperanto meaning, which will help you learn when to use the word correctly (such as the now famous boli = to reach a temperature of 100 C)

I've noticed from word of the day that the E-o definition of a word is not always exactly what you think it is, just because English has a similar root.

Thanks again Erinja.

Nick

erinja:...And even though you can't 'un-say' a word, duh, you're a beginner, anyone at all would forgive you if you said "Kio vi... oops Kion vi..." I feel like you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself to get everything perfect on the first try, and it's stressing you out. Relax.

OK, bit more time to write now... Had to be in the office today, but its lunch time.

Yes, most people seem to be at least moderately tolerant of someone struggling with language.

This kio/kion thing has, however, really shook my foundations about how I think I am being uderstood, even in English, by other people.

It seems that others regard what/who as a pronoun - which I simply don't. If you think of it as a pronoun, and you have a language that has an accusative case, then I can understand why people want to hear the accusative ending to the word. Completely understandable.

But a simple interrogative sentence in Enlgish, e.g. "Who are you chasing", I conceptualise as: Query about a person, you are chasing [blank], where [blank] is an unstated pronoun refering back to the interrogative.

The fact that even English speakers regard "who" as a pronoun in its own right has really thrown me. Right or wrong, I just find it weird.

It got me doubly annoyed when I found that E-o definitely took this (pronoun interrogrative) view. Without the pronoun interpretation of what exactly a word like "kio" is when used as an interrogative, a language, any language in fact, can function adequately. So it seemed particularly annoying to me.

(English) dictionary writers it seems to me, dont even agree on this. In some, many, you find words such as "why", "who" etc listed as "pronoun", or "interrogrative adverb". Others say "interrog". I've even looked up these up long before this problem came up. The dictionaries that say "pronoun" (or indeed any kind of noun, adjective or adverb) I just threw to one side thinking, "Grammarians, nutters".

It really didn't dawn on me that some real people, other than university linguistic professors, actually think of these words really and truly as a pronoun. It is genuinely quite a shock.

Esperanto speakers, with the exception of a very few jerks, are famously forgiving or beginner errors, and helpfully encouraging no matter how much you butcher the sentence you're trying to get out.
et. I promise.

Frankly that is one of the attractions of this whole group of people. On many forums that I have been a member of, a discussion that got as heated as this one would have resulted in a total flame war. The temperature didn't get as hot here

Nick

nw2394:
It seems that others regard what/who as a pronoun - which I simply don't. If you think of it as a pronoun, and you have a language that has an accusative case, then I can understand why people want to hear the accusative ending to the word. Completely understandable.

But "what" is a pronoun even in English. It substitutes for actual nouns, which is the very definition of a pronoun. That it's an interrogative pronoun simply narrows down what sort of pronoun it is. And of course, "what" and "which" also function as *relative* pronouns!

And I should remind you that English *does* have an accusative case, but only for personal pronouns. "Him I like" instead of "I like him" is acceptable (if slightly ethnic) English.

Remember that "kiu" is strictly speaking an interrogative adjective that modifies a noun either explicitly mentioned or assumed to be a person. It is capable of functioning as a pronoun because, like other Esperanto adjectives, it can be used without its modified noun.

The bad news is, "kies" is also an interrogative adjective that can function as an interrogative pronoun. "Kies vi vidis"=Whose (something or other) did you see? But "kies" accepts no grammatical endings. Compare,

"Kiun libron vi prenis?"
"Kies libron vi prenis?"

There's an example of an Esperanto grammatical irregularity.

The fact that even English speakers regard "who" as a pronoun in its own right has really thrown me. Right or wrong, I just find it weird.

Interrogative pronouns

It really didn't dawn on me that some real people, other than university linguistic professors, actually think of these words really and truly as a pronoun. It is genuinely quite a shock.

There's really no other way to classify them. Mere "interrogative" is too vague.

As you see with "kies", Esperanto has some quirks where the rules break down. And even though *almost* every Esperanto verb is defined in such a way as to be strictly transitive or intransitive, there are a handful of exceptions to that principle too. One noteworthy one is "fumi."

T0dd:There's really no other way to classify them. Mere "interrogative" is too vague.

With respect my friend, I am not sure you're thinking about it as deeply as I have had to. In the case where these words are used in an interrogative fashion, there genuinely is another way of parsing a sentence that does not require one to think of them as pronouns. Please re-read the bit in my previous post about how I conceptualise "Who are you chasing". It is perfectly workable (at least in English), to regard an interrogative as just that and that alone.

(But, I fully accept, if literally eveyone in the E-o world is going to take the pronoun oriented view and have an accusative as well, then it no longer works in that situation).

As you see with "kies", Esperanto has some quirks where the rules break down. And even though *almost* every Esperanto verb is defined in such a way as to be strictly transitive or intransitive, there are a handful of exceptions to that principle too. One noteworthy one is "fumi."

OK, I'll be on the lookout for fumi.

And I am aware that kies = de kiu, but does not quite work in E-o quite like the possesive pronouns (where mia = de mi).

I can deal with that as an exception. While I don't like exceptions, I can respect things if someone says it is an exception. (The kio/kiu question has been such a problem for me because I have a rule that works for me, and others seem to have a different rule).

Thanks

Nick

nw2394:
With respect my friend, I am not sure you're thinking about it as deeply as I have had to. In the case where these words are used in an interrogative fashion, there genuinely is another way of parsing a sentence that does not require one to think of them as pronouns. Please re-read the bit in my previous post about how I conceptualise "Who are you chasing". It is perfectly workable (at least in English), to regard an interrogative as just that and that alone.

You wrote:

But a simple interrogative sentence in Enlgish, e.g. "Who are you chasing", I conceptualise as: Query about a person, you are chasing [blank], where [blank] is an unstated pronoun refering back to the interrogative.

Given a generic query of the form "You are chasing [blank]" if we are told only that [blank] is a pronoun, we don't have enough information to resolve the sentence back to the "Who are you chasing" template.

It could be "You are chasing him?" since him is a pronoun and it's a query. This is why you need an *interrogative pronoun* to make sense of it, and not just the fact that it's a query with an unstated and unclassified pronoun. Put the wrong sort of pronoun in there and you have a different query.

I am sorry. I can't explain it to you further. I am not getting through.

Nick