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.

So don't regard it as a pronoun. Really. Who really cares how other English speakers want to view kiu/kio? They can regard it as the a verb for all I care. I personally just think of it as a "tabelvorto", or as a correlative if I absolutely must think of it using an English word. If it doesn't work out for your own personal understanding to think of it as a pronoun, then at a certain point there's no point in trying to wrap your brain around it. We're all different, and each person needs to work out their own individual system to explain to his or herself how to use a particular point of grammar. The point is - maybe some people call it a pronoun because it helps them understand how to use it, because in some (but not all) aspects kiu/kio acts like a pronoun. Evidently this explanation doesn't work for you. It's all well and good to listen to everyone's explanation for something but at a certain point, if someone's explanation is confusing you more than it's helping, in my opinion, it's time to thank them for their efforts, and pursue another line of explanations.

In any case, the PMEG gives examples of three different ways that the KI- tabelvortoj are used - as 'question words', as correlatives, and as exclamations. In the case of 'question words' (note that I'm not referring to them as interrogatives, because I think 'interrogative' at this point has hurt more than it has helped in your understanding). The PMEG says "A question KI- word represents information that one is looking for"

So just as someone was saying a bunch of messages back - the ki- word substitutes for the information you're looking for, so if the word you're looking for has -n, then the ki- word also has -n. Regarding pronouns - the furthest Bertilo is willing to go in the PMEG is to call words like kio and kiu "pronomecaj" - pronoun-ish. Not definitively pronouns, but in several (but again, not all) respects, behaving somewhat like pronouns. He makes this claim because these words can act to replace not only single nouns (or "O-words", rather than nouns in his text), but also "whole O-word phrases". So it sounds to me like the whole basis for comparing them to pronouns at all, according to Bertilo, is that they can substitute for phrases. I don't think this is what was springing to your mind when people were comparing kiu/kio to pronouns of any sort, further illustrating the dangers of describing Esperanto grammar using English grammatical terminology.

erinja:So don't regard it as a pronoun. Really. Who really cares how other English speakers want to view kiu/kio?

Thanks

Nick

erinja:Regarding pronouns - the furthest Bertilo is willing to go in the PMEG is to call words like kio and kiu "pronomecaj" - pronoun-ish. Not definitively pronouns, but in several (but again, not all) respects, behaving somewhat like pronouns. He makes this claim because these words can act to replace not only single nouns (or "O-words", rather than nouns in his text), but also "whole O-word phrases". So it sounds to me like the whole basis for comparing them to pronouns at all, according to Bertilo, is that they can substitute for phrases.

And of course, this is precisely what pronouns do as well. If I say "I saw him," then "him" can substitute for "the man who shot the intruder" (a phrase) as well as it can substitute for a specific name. I'm not as relativistic about these things. If something functions as a pronoun, then it is one. In this case, failing to see that these words function as pronouns is causing actual confusion.

I don't think this is what was springing to your mind when people were comparing kiu/kio to pronouns of any sort, further illustrating the dangers of describing Esperanto grammar using English grammatical terminology.

The functional category of pronoun is hardly specific to English. I believe you'd be hard pressed to find any language that doesn't have pronouns. Of course, pronouns are handled differently in different languages, just as one would expect.

Well, regardless of who says what about pronouns and pronounish words, I finally woke up this morning with this whole thing straight in my head. So I'm happy.

What does it for me is to think of kiu and kiun as marginally different words. Kiu is not just "who", but "who (causatively)... rest of question" and kiun is also not just "who", but "who is on the receiving end of... rest of question".

Thinking of it that way stops me having to think about a dreaded forward reference to a verb I haven't had to think about yet. Whereas kiun, regarded in the above light, pretty much forces the choice of a transitive verb.

It means I can maintain my sequential line of thought without having to think of too many things at once.

Well, it makes me happy anyway

Also as regards the kio versus kiu question it makes it clearer for me to think of kiu to specifically mean simply "which one (where one can be a person or a thing". As such it can represent an English "who, which or sometimes even what". And if you can't easily phrase what you want to say in English in terms of which *one*, then kio is appropriate instead.

And the pluralisation of some of these words is only equivalent to English saying "that" or "those". It is just that E-o does it with more of these correlative type words than English does.

So thanks to all those who have tried to help me with this. I think I finally got it.

Nick

T0dd:
The functional category of pronoun is hardly specific to English. I believe you'd be hard pressed to find any language that doesn't have pronouns. Of course, pronouns are handled differently in different languages, just as one would expect.

Part of the confusion here may be that the Esperanto community itself can't agree on exactly what to call a pronoun. Below is my translation of vortaro.org's definition of "pronomo"; note that I'm a mechanical engineer and not a linguist, so my terminology is most probably off, and is somewhat reflective of Esperanto's word-building aspects rather than official linguistic usage:

Pronomo:

1. A special word serving to replace a name, that is a noun or adjective pronoun; personal pronouns mi, ĝi, ŝi, ili; possessive pronouns mia, ĝiaj etc, demonstrative pronouns tio, ĉi tiuj, tian, etc are also pronouns.

Note: This interpretation of the notion is classical and was held in the Russian and Eastern European schools. It is partly owing to the fact that in some language (and also in Esperanto) there are words that combine the functions of the adjective- and noun-functioning pronouns: iu, kiu, unu, etc. Zamenhof used the word 'pronomo' thus: "the following nine words (ia, ial, iam, ie, iel, ies, io, iom, iu), we advise that you learn well, because using them you can make for yourself a large series of pronouns and adverbs. " The classical grammars treated the pronouns as a separate manner of speaker - that is a confusing manner of thinking. They tried to rationalize it in two ways: by limiting the concept of the noun-functioning pronouns, that is the manner of the western grammatical schools, of PV, PAG, and PIV (under heading "pronomo"); or the opposite way, to generalize the concept while acknowledging that it has to do with another (pragmatic) dimension, and to extend the concept so that it covers all table words (also the adverbs, and more generally - also the pronoun-related verbs). In the modern science of linguistics, all three schools are represented.

2. A word replacing a noun that is understood.

Note: According to this school (subscribed to by the PV, PIV, and PAG), the "possessive pronouns" are not pronouns, however the term remains there.

3. A word from a closed lexical-semantic group of role words used in speaking situations, receiving their meaning relative to the speakers (personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns), or to the context (referring to something already mentioned: ĝi, tiu, tie), or to the grammatical role in the sentence (sia, mem, kiun), logical quantities

Note: According to this definition, many, but not all, pronouns are tabelvortoj
[all notes by Sergio Pokrovskij; this text was taken from the "pronomo" definition at vortaro.org]

erinja:
2. A word replacing a noun that is understood.

Note: According to this school (subscribed to by the PV, PIV, and PAG), the "possessive pronouns" are not pronouns, however the term remains there.

Yup. That's a perfectly reasonable definition, as long as "noun" is interpreted liberally to include noun phrases. And in the case of interrogative pronouns, they are understood to replace the queried noun or noun phrase.

Moreover, it's true that the so-called "possessive pronouns" are not pronouns at all, but possessive adjectives, or even pronominal adjectives, but what can you do?

Personally I think it's a Good Thing that the study of Esperanto can stimulate reflection on dusty grammatical concepts that one may not really discern very clearly in the native language.

T0dd:Moreover, it's true that the so-called "possessive pronouns" are not pronouns at all, but possessive adjectives, or even pronominal adjectives, but what can you do?

Well E-o, like other languages, has a genitive form of pronouns and then wants to treat them as adjectives at the same time. From what I can see of E-o grammar texts, the genitive nature of its possessive pronouns goes largely unacknowledged (apart from the word "possessive" itself).

But if one wants to have possessive pronouns that are at the same time adjectival in nature, well, small words they may be, but simple they are not.

The pronouns are irregular beasts from the start. If mi (= I), then it ought, theoretically, to be the case that, instead of ni, we had mij (= we). (Except that would require E-o to define how the "ij" diphthong should be pronounced!).

I guess it boils down to the fact that these are familiar short hand ways of saying things borrowed from other languages. Because they are familiar they are used, but it isn't always the case that familiar things are well understood. (How many people, who can drive their car well, would be hopelessly lost in repairing today's engines with their electronic ignition systems etc)?

Personally I think it's a Good Thing that the study of Esperanto can stimulate reflection on dusty grammatical concepts that one may not really discern very clearly in the native language.

Well, I'm not sure how things are in the U.S. these days. I think that, if you went into a shopping centre anywhere in the UK, and asked random passers by the definitions of "noun, adjective, adverb and verb", then you'd find a dismally small percentage of persons who could give all four definitions to a reasonable level of accuracy.

Grammar seems to be a subject that just isn't taught anymore. Most of what I learnt of grammar came from my study of Russian at school. I can only remember 2 lessons by an English teacher on the subject and that was circa 35 years ago in a so called "Grammar" School.

But then, like the car drivers alluded to above, we get by somehow.

Nick

nw2394:
Well E-o, like other languages, has a genitive form of pronouns and then wants to treat them as adjectives at the same time. From what I can see of E-o grammar texts, the genitive nature of its possessive pronouns goes largely unacknowledged (apart from the word "possessive" itself).

This is true. And there is a restricted genitive case in the -ES series of correlatives.

The pronouns are irregular beasts from the start. If mi (= I), then it ought, theoretically, to be the case that, instead of ni, we had mij (= we). (Except that would require E-o to define how the "ij" diphthong should be pronounced!).

I've seen some other constructed language projects that do it this way, although I don't think it's logical, myself. I am one person. There are not several of me to denote by a plural. If I understand the pronoun "I" to mean "the person speaking these words," then unless I am part of a group chanting in unison, it has no plural. But regular formation of the 2nd and 3rd person plural pronouns would be logical.

Well, I'm not sure how things are in the U.S. these days. I think that, if you went into a shopping centre anywhere in the UK, and asked random passers by the definitions of "noun, adjective, adverb and verb", then you'd find a dismally small percentage of persons who could give all four definitions to a reasonable level of accuracy.

The result would be as bad here if you did the experiment on a university campus.

Grammar seems to be a subject that just isn't taught anymore. Most of what I learnt of grammar came from my study of Russian at school. I can only remember 2 lessons by an English teacher on the subject and that was circa 35 years ago in a so called "Grammar" School.

But then, like the car drivers alluded to above, we get by somehow.

We do, although utter ignorance of grammar can be a problem for those who aspire to higher-level positions. There are plenty of people who will begin a sentence with "Me and my colleague were doing X", with no awareness that there's anything wrong. But if they put something like that into a cover letter for a job, they are unlikely to get it, and they'll never know why they didn't. Or if they put it into an inter-office memo...etc.

nw2394:
The pronouns are irregular beasts from the start. If mi (= I), then it ought, theoretically, to be the case that, instead of ni, we had mij (= we). (Except that would require E-o to define how the "ij" diphthong should be pronounced!).

I guess it boils down to the fact that these are familiar short hand ways of saying things borrowed from other languages. Because they are familiar they are used, but it isn't always the case that familiar things are well understood.

I agree with Todd's interpretation that "we" is different than "plural I". But I also agree that to an extent, a short-hand is necessary. I'm sure you remember the other thread on this forum in which someone was suggesting replacing tons of Esperanto roots with more 'derived' forms. At a certain point, it's worth the extra effort to memorize an additional root, just for ease of use and the ability to speak more precisely. In the case of constructed languages, each language has to strike its own balance between small vocabulary to memorize (Toki Pona) and huge vocabulary of millions of words and very great precision (nothing comes to mind but I'm sure someone will jump in here).

There are tons of grammatical concepts that aren't strictly necessary anyway, if you're ok with longer sentences. Verb tenses (Chinese does fine with very limited tenses), use of the plural (also more limited in Chinese), many things that we as native English speakers might consider to be very basic elements of a language can be flat out done without. You could have a language much easier than Esperanto, but Zamenhof struck a balance that seemed ok to him between precision and ease, and I think he did pretty well considering he was only an amateur at the language thing (and even pretty third-rate as an eye doctor, according to "Esperanto sen mitoj", a book I highly recommend)

erinja:There are tons of grammatical concepts that aren't strictly necessary anyway, if you're ok with longer sentences. Verb tenses (Chinese does fine with very limited tenses), use of the plural (also more limited in Chinese), many things that we as native English speakers might consider to be very basic elements of a language can be flat out done without. You could have a language much easier than Esperanto, but Zamenhof struck a balance that seemed ok to him between precision and ease, and I think he did pretty well considering he was only an amateur at the language thing (and even pretty third-rate as an eye doctor, according to "Esperanto sen mitoj", a book I highly recommend)

I haven't read that one, but it sounds interesting.

One of the things that has always struck me about Esperanto is that, despite its "needless" complications, it has a kind of integrity, an internal balance that I associate more with works of art than with theory-driven things. For example, critics of Esperanto often point out that the agreement of adjectives with nouns is a cumbersome requirement that English and many many other languages do well without. That is undoubtedly true. And yet...on more than one occasion, in spoken Esperanto, that agreement has given me a "second chance" to discern the case and number of the noun, so that I can sort the meaning out in my mind. It serves as a kind of "semantic echo", so that in "birdojn bluajn" I hear the 'jn' twice and it underscores that I have a plural accusative. Esperanto, unlike ethnic language, has to function across wider gaps in linguistic custom, and so a bit of extra redundancy is actually helpful. I doubt that Onklo Zam thought of it in this way, but he seemed to have an instinct for these things.

Thus, the "needless" complications may, in the long run, make communication easier. For all the scorn that critics have heaped upon the obligatory accusative, it can be very helpful to use those -n endings to work out complex sentences. In speech, sentences tend to be simpler, with SVO word order, but in writing (as in any language), things are not always so simple.

We all have our pet peeves in Esperanto, where we wonder what Onklo Zam could have been thinking. My own is his penchant for near-homophones, the so-called "paronimoj."

Thus we have "posta" and "poŝta", "stelo" and "ŝtelo", "procedo," "proceso," and "procezo," and so on. Z clearly did this, in most cases, to preserve internationally recognizable forms, without resorting to multiple meanings. In my view, he would have been better off avoiding these and pulling words from other languages. And what was he thinking using 'ekz-' and 'eks-' instead of the very international 'ex-' spellings?