erinja:It seems to me that one important aspect of word building has been left out of the discussion. I think that we as English speakers see words differently than Esperanto speakers see them.

Ha that just about summarised what I was trying to say in about 1000+ words . I think that those who also study chinese, japanese, indonesian or another similar eastern language would have experienced this, for example the definition of a Japanese "word" is quite vague, especially when they don't have "spaces" like European and Semitic languages and korean do.

Also, that definition "seskunigxi kun virino" makes me laugh - to be with six with a woman?? Also, that could be troublesome for a female speaker as well. What I find funniest though is that my group of close friends consists of roughly 6 guys and 1 chick - I guess if I don't want to be ruined for marriage I should now avoid all lunch gatherings when more than 5 people are present.

erinja:It seems to me that one important aspect of word building has been left out of the discussion. I think that we as English speakers see words differently than Esperanto speakers see them.
.
.
.

I think that's definitely true, but only up to a certain point. This breakdown into constituent parts of root and affixes (during actual speech, not lexical analysis) is really something that applies more to the beginner than the fluent speaker. For the most part the mind of the fluent speaker does indeed treat words as unique and whole units, provided they appear regularly and consistently enough. During rapid speech the mind just selects the unit that it has become familiar with through habit, and the particular construction of the word is a secondary matter (and mostly likely an extra burden) that the mind dosn't even pay attention to unless it becomes relevant in those cases where the need to parse an unfamiliar construction arises. This need is most often present in beginners but those who have reached fluency will have heard words like "malbona" and "malsanulejo" so many times that their construction out of whatever root becomes less and less an issue and eventually the word comes to take on the character of a unique whole.

I know when I use the word "malsanulejo" i definitely dont think "un-healthy-person-place" or anything at all to do with the root "health" or places or people in that place. I just have a mental image of a hospital and the word "malsanulejo" associated with it as a result of frequent usage. Its construction is irrelevant to me unless I need to focus on it for some reason; perhaps to utter the constituent parts separately and slowly when talking to a beginner who had never heard that word.

Of course everyone is different so perhaps what I'm saying doesn't apply to a lot of Esperantists, but I think there are studies that show even in the most agglunative languages the mind tends to work this way when fluency is attained. This is why I disagreed with the view that using Esperanto involves "compounding on the go", since Lumturisto was referring specifically to fluency. When you're fluent, you don't need to compound much because the compounded forms have become so familiar that they have accrued their own subconcious status as distinct word-units.

Lumturisto:(You really cant edit, cant you?. Sorry again: I wanted to add: supposing anyone read, dont take too hard anything I say, really forgive me if sometimes I sound rude, I really just want to provoke thought, and I really dont know what I am talking about; I just write because I have noticed it helps me fight depression. If interested, you can look for cognitive approach to linguistics, for example "On fire, women and dangerous things", Lakoff. Thank you)

Yes, it is possible to edit: Click the ‘Redakti’ or ‘Edit’ link at the top of the post, near the Respondi (Reply) and Raporti rubmesaĝon (Report spam) links.

tommjames:For the most part the mind of the fluent speaker does indeed treat words as unique and whole units, provided they appear regularly and consistently enough.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with this completely. I do see "malsanulejo" as a single unit, and instantly an image of a hospital appears in my mind when I hear the word. BUT - this is the point of what I was saying - I would not say that "malsanulejo" is an independent word, in the same way as "bona". And if someone were to tell me something about visiting a "maldikiĝejo" (a weight-loss center, perhaps?), it would not occur to me that this is a "new word". And I would never tell the person that I haven't heard this word before, even though I haven't. It isn't a new word, it's a construction off an existing root, perfectly good Esperanto, perfectly understandable. If a friend were to tell me that they were going to visit a "malzortiĝejo", I would likely say that this is a new word, and ask what zorti means. And for what it's worth I just made up that root "zort/", so please don't ask me what it means.

Zort/ would be a new word. Maldikiĝejo would not be a new word. Maldikiĝejo is a derivation of the existing word dik/, and although it is not a common word that everyone uses, grammatically it's in the same class as "malsanulejo".

tommjames:

henma:

tommjames:... the thing you spoke of about which preposition to use is another example of something that wouldn't even be a question in a natural language, as there would be mass consensus of the kind that isn't readily observed in Esperanto.

I agree with all you said, except something here. That problem with prepositions CAN happen and CAN be a question in a natural language.

When you have a language that has extended over a big part of the world, and been adopted by people who used to speak other languages, this can be a common issue, which doesn't impede good communication.

Yes, good point!

In English it happens; many people use different than or different to instead of the "correct" different from. (In case you're wondering, the correct Esperanto is malsama ol, but you can find Google search results for "malsama el", "malsama de", "malsama al" and "malsama je".)

By the way, I think that Wennergren's big apple (i.e. pomego or PMEG) is simply incredible. (How would I translate that word simply? "Tute"?)

erinja:I would not say that "malsanulejo" is an independent word, in the same way as "bona". And if someone were to tell me something about visiting a "maldikiĝejo" (a weight-loss center, perhaps?), it would not occur to me that this is a "new word". And I would never tell the person that I haven't heard this word before, even though I haven't. It isn't a new word, it's a construction off an existing root, perfectly good Esperanto, perfectly understandable. If a friend were to tell me that they were going to visit a "malzortiĝejo", I would likely say that this is a new word, and ask what zorti means. And for what it's worth I just made up that root "zort/", so please don't ask me what it means.

Ah I see what you mean now.

It's interesting to me how the idea of a "word" is a pretty fuzzy concept in Esperanto, unless of course you're talking strictly about roots. I was talking about this recently with someone who wanted to find out "how many words there are in Esperanto" by analysing the number of entries in dictionaries. Crazy!

jchthys:the correct Esperanto is malsama ol, but you can find Google search results for "malsama el", "malsama de", "malsama al" and "malsama je".)

Indeed, and at least one example of even Bertilo using "malsama al" can be found in PMEG, despite the clarification to be found that "ol" is the correct word, or at any rate, the more usual.

jchthys:By the way, I think that Wennergren's big apple (i.e. pomego or PMEG) is simply incredible. (How would I translate that word simply? "Tute"?)

That's something I wondered about once, whether "simply" can be used in the same way as in English to mean something like "completely", "totally" etc.

I ran a search for "estas simple" in http://tekstaro.com/ (VERY useful resource by the way), and it appears this kind of usage does show up, so I'd be inclined to think simple nekredebla is fine.

tommjames:

jchthys:By the way, I think that Wennergren's big apple (i.e. pomego or PMEG) is simply incredible. (How would I translate that word simply? "Tute"?)

That's something I wondered about once, whether "simply" can be used in the same way as in English to mean something like "completely", "totally" etc.

I ran a search for "estas simple" in http://tekstaro.com/ (VERY useful resource by the way), and it appears this kind of usage does show up, so I'd be inclined to think simple nekredebla is fine.

I think "simple" is usable in this context, but I would not interpret it as "completely" or "totally". For me "simply incredible" means "to put it simple, incredible", and that is what I would understand with "mi pensas tion, ke PMEG estas simple nekredebla".

Amike,

Daniel.

henma:I think "simple" is usable in this context, but I would not interpret it as "completely" or "totally". For me "simply incredible" means "to put it simple, incredible", and that is what I would understand with "mi pensas tion, ke PMEG estas simple nekredebla".

Amike,

Daniel.

Acually in English you can use "simply" to mean something like "totally", the definition here (last item) would seem to confirm that, and as a native English speaker I can say it is definitely used that way sometimes, aswell as in the "to put it simply" manner that you mention.

It is not important, but checked "ekeksedzigxi" in PIV. "Eksedzigxi" is of course there, the normal word for divorce, while "divorco" takes the legal more formal flavor as is usual with synthetic pairs. About "ek" obviously is just a mark of incoative verbal aspect which can be freely attached to any verb, so obviously is not shown combined to any verb, which is not exactly the same matter than other prefixes but I dont feel like discussing that now. Would be as ridiculous as in a Spanish dictionary taking all the "echar a volar" "romper a llorar" etc. If little blanks are a prblm, here u are "ek eksedzigxi" and "echarseallorar". But dont worry, the example can be bad and still the point be good.
"voy pa'ya" "a las tres" is said all the time in Spain believe-me, bt apart normal linguistic variation, (the tiring topic aboout which everybody knows a lot) the point is a concern about standar/usage which coexist and make the language so strong and delicious for foreigners to learn. When a new cheap edition of the normative dict and the panhispanic orthography were out, it was an unprecedented best-seller.

Now more importantly: another aspect is that, people like you and Russ, who only speak English and Esperanto, have a very limited perspective on what is use of languages as a second language. I hate "ad hominen" crap in forums, but since you went to it, you in the Tujmesagxilo reproaching me lack of experience, same way that Russ wrote
>>You seem to be arguing based on theories and stuff you've read, without direct practical experience.>>
and you are again a few posts before attributing to me the kunmetajxoj thing that was taken from propaganda and a very minor point supporting my central one (which by now I know will never penetrate),
I thought in the interested of fairness I would defend myself. Yeah, I speak around 10 languages, have been more than 20 years in the front, am a graduate in linguistics, and my native language is dying away partly due to lack of society consensus on the standard: cant help to be influenced by these circumstances, sorry! but you dont have to patronize me only cz you attend meetings and skype; if others dislike noisy meetings and wants esperanto to read books, chat typing, and reflecting about linguistic matters is their problem, just another legitimate use of the language, you dont have to look down on them just because your approach is different or have been there longer.

You said before "Esperanto works!" as if ever was in dispute that it would; being the only language you ever used as second, must feel like a miracle to you or something; anything works, hundreds of spontaneous pidgings worked throught time. If you would have used many second languages you would have this immediate direct experience of the same issues and feelings poping up all the time, they all feel the same, instead of putting its apparent functionality to a (yes) good deviced apriori morphological system. There are many sets of rules to play the game, but the game is always the same: Language with capital L. You would feel too the enormous amounts of transference you can profit from, not only obvious things such as vocabulary of some languages acting as mnemonic triggers of the one other's vocabulary, or phonological suppleness, but unexpected things such as, first to cross my mind, having no trouble with Polish retroflex sounds just because you already know them from Hindi or Chinese, while most people dont know what retroflex are nor will ever be able to produce them, so condemning themselves to life defective disappointed Polish oral production. Is a psychological effect: many students of a language as second language, no matter which one, have told me repeatedly "oh, I found (another student) from wherever, Finnland or Japan, and we had wonnnnnderful communication", while they have terribly tense dissapointing communication with natives (read: competent) speakers. Thats because their interlinguas click. It is just a psychological effect, believe me. It is great fun, no doubt about it, in fact I would say is greater linguistic pleasure to use one of your get-bys with other person in get-by state, than a strong one, where sometimes you have to face jealousy (my English friends have told me: dont use sooo many words, you come across as terribly intelligent and people is gonna hate you). Theres nothing particular about use of esperanto as second language, I could know that even with no experience at all, as you for some reason assume I completely lack.

Never Esperanto had looked to me so amateurish and fraught with know-it-all syndrome as right now. You are really discouraging me and feeling I better go back to solid stuff. ( just teaching you for free the lesson of never patronizing anyone).