Hi Lumturisto,

I assume your diatribe was addressed to me

Can I make a few points.

Lumturisto: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.>>

Actually I did not make an ad-hominem argument and neither did Russ. What was said was that some of your points are the kind of thing that arise from theoretical analysis as opposed to actual experience of using the language. This was not mentioned in order to logically disprove what you were saying, nor was it an attempt to question your competence with languages generally. Sorry if you feel offended but it is what it is.

Following our initial discussions I contacted you in email and in the Tujmesaĝilo in the spirit of friendliness because I didn't want you to feel like you were being attacked or insulted. I made no attempt to "reproach" you in any way as far as I remember. I expressed genuine interest in your ideas, and it seemed like quite a nice discussion, at least to me. Quite why you're flying off the handle now I find puzzling

Lumturisto:You said before "Esperanto works!" as if ever was in dispute

My point there was that concerning oneself with theoretical non-issues is, for my liking, too much like ignoring the fact that the language, whatever it's flaws and foibles, is perfectly functional in a practical setting. In the context of the discussion, that was a perfectly valid thing to point out in my view. And if you don't dispute this (that Esperanto works), then quite why you're so troubled by the things you mentioned about agglunation is beyond me as they clearly have little effect on Esperanto's usability, as you now appear to be conceding.

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).

There is actually a world of Esperanto beyond some thread on lernu.net. I would hate for you to think that patronizing know-it-alls like me with green stars in their eyes are typical of the esperantistaro in general, or that you should be discouraged by whatever amatuerish things I may have said. For what it's worth, I hope you stick around.

Thanks for the free lesson. Ĝis!

Lumturisto:"voy pa'ya" "a las tres" is said all the time in Spain believe-me

Only two comments:

- I DO believe you, I never said they wouldn't use those forms, I was talking about average. In Spain there are 4 different languages and several regions, so you can hear very different dialects of Spanish (Castilian). You don't need to try to convince me, I have spoken the language for over 30 years, and I have lived in Spain also (see my profile).

- I would use "voy p'allá" to abbreviate the sentence, please don't change that much the orthography, or it is too difficult to recognize it in written form. Remember there are several similar words (allá, haya, halla, aya) and some can sound very similar when spoken in the dialects which drop letters (like Andaluz, or Chilean, my own dialect) in which hallada becomes hallá, para becomes pa or p' and most final s's are dropped (I really thank that Esperanto doesn't use s to mark plural, or chilean esperantists would speak really bad )

Amike,

Daniel.

tommjames: Quite why you're flying off the handle now I find puzzling

First rule of impersonal computer dialogue - never try and assume someone else's experience, knowledge, age, gender, emotional state etc, and be open to any possible variables. That's just a polite reminder from your anal-retentive community member ceigered

(of course, that's not really directed at anyone in particular, just tommjames' comment perked up my ears to what I fear may be an issue. If it isn't, feel free to throw rotten tomatos at me)

Nonetheless I think I get where you are comming from Lumturisto, but I'm too tired and unwell to bother thinking much about it. But what I get at the moment I think are very valid points.

Now, @ lumturisto: what does 'ad-hominem' mean? "to - *something rather*'?

And what's a "diatribe" tommjames?

What ever happened to anglo-saxon rooted English ? My comprehension of the topic in question is despairable if we continue to utilise latin-based vocabulary so frequently

Lumturisto: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.

So if you're allowing that "ek" + (a word in PIV) is also a "standard" PIV-worthy word, then I'm all the more baffled why you were asserting that (a word in PIV) + "isto" is NOT a "standard" PIV-worthy word. "Ek" and "isto" are both standard Esperanto and attachable to other words.

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.

You are making unwarranted assumptions (but I won't accuse you of making "ad hominem" attacks).
(Hint: I live in Poland. I am a trained teacher of English as a second language. I am studying linguistics.)

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.>>

I was not attacking you, and I'm sorry you took it as some sort of attack.

You wrote several comments expressing 2 specific beliefs which I still think are indisputably based in inexperienced theorizing about Esperanto:
1. The belief that PIV is some kind of standard that defines what a legitimate Esperanto word is; that if a word's not in PIV, it's somehow not a real Esperanto word, and conversely.
2. The belief that Esperantists don't construct (and by implication understand) compound words on the fly, as the sum of their parts, and instead Esperantists only use established compounds atomically.

And those are the 2 things I was replying to. I was not attacking or questioning your knowledge of 10 languages, your studies of linguistics, etc. (Indeed, I knew nothing about those other things until you mentioned them later.)

I could only respond to what you had actually written, which (like it or not) showed a lack of experience in Esperanto. Which is not the same as saying you don't know anything about languages or linguistics. If you think it's patronizing to point out to someone that they are misunderstanding something because of their lack of experience or familiarity with it, then I don't know what to say. I guess you get offended a lot.

Analogy: I used to work as a computer programmer. I read a lot about programming in general, and I learned various specific computer languages. But I know that when learning a new computer language, of course I start out inexperienced and my perceptions and knowledge and assumptions can lead me astray. If I say something wrong about how multiple inheritance in Eiffel works, based on multiple inheritance in C++, and someone says "That's a common beginner's confusion - multiple inheritance works differently in Eiffel, it's not like C++", they are not making a patronizing "ad hominem" attack, nor are they questioning my knowledge of programming or other programming languages. They are simply telling me that I'm confused, pointing out my mistake, and telling me that as I learn more and gain more experience, I will better grok how Eiffel works. It would not cross my mind to accuse the person of patronizing or attacking me. It would not cross my mind to object "But I know 10 other programming languages! I've studied computer science! I've got professional experience as a programmer! You must be wrong about how Eiffel works (never mind that you have years of experience with it, while I've just started learning it)!"

If someone knows a subject better than I do, and I'm just beginning with it, well, they probably do know it better than me, so if they give me information that corrects my misunderstanding, why would I get angry at them?

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).

I recommend the lesson that misunderstandings and disagreements are inevitable in every field of life, so if you quit some field because of getting offended at another person in that field, you will end up studying nothing. I've had far more disagreements with English speakers, but I don't let that turn me off speaking English.

ceigered:Now, @ lumturisto: what does 'ad-hominem' mean? "to - *something rather*'?

And what's a "diatribe" tommjames?

What ever happened to anglo-saxon rooted English ? My comprehension of the topic in question is despairable if we continue to utilise latin-based vocabulary so frequently

Ad hominem (to the man) means directed to the person, usually based on prejudice and feelings instead of intelect.

An ad hominem argument can be an argument that uses what the other one said against him/herself.

A diatribe is a violent and offensive speech (or writing) against someone or something.

Anglo-saxon rooted English is safe, don't worry, millions use it on a daily basis .

Amike,

Daniel.

henma:Ad hominem (to the man) means directed to the person, usually based on prejudice and feelings instead of intelect.

An ad hominem argument can be an argument that uses what the other one said against him/herself.

These are good definitions. I would add that an "ad hominem" attack is most often referring to attacking someones personal qualities as a means of disproving their position in an argument. Often the position under discussion and the personal qualities being brought up have nothing to do with one another.

For example, say someone is arguing a particular political point about economics. An "ad hominem" attack against their argument might bring up the fact that the person making the argument had been convicted of drug possession at some point in their past, and THEREFORE their position on economics is invalid.

Ad-hominem attacks are considered logically flawed. But that doesn't stop people from trying to make them.

"He was a terrible person, and he also said that people should take care of their mothers. Therefore, people should not take care of their mothers, because that's the position of terrible people." Real ad-hominem attacks are usually more subtle than that, but are just about equally as valid.

The logical fallacies are good to know. I really wish they'd teach them at school, then perhaps we'd be less likely to be fooled by the crap we often hear in political rhetoric.

This is a good page explaining some of the more common fallacies.

tommjames:The logical fallacies are good to know. I really wish they'd teach them at school, then perhaps we'd be less likely to be fooled by the crap we often hear in political rhetoric.

This is a good page explaining some of the more common fallacies.

Useful page, as for your comment about politicians, most of the time they don't even answer the question, just talk about what they want to.

1Guy1:Useful page, as for your comment about politicians, most of the time they don't even answer the question, just talk about what they want to.

This sort of behavior is hardly limited to politicians. I don't know how many times I've run across this in business meetings - a lot!

A general comment on this thread -- let's be nice, here. We are all learning, whether we are beginners or whether we have spoken fluently for years. I know that we all have the best of intentions, and that we all want to discuss our viewpoints in a friendly and supportive manner. Lernu is used by people from many different cultures, and misunderstandings can arise due to our diverse backgrounds. In cases of doubt, let's try to assume that the other person is being nice, rather than assuming the other person is attacking us. We would like to keep our forums as friendly, respectful, and welcoming as many regular readers know they have always been.

henma:Anglo-saxon rooted English is safe, don't worry, millions use it on a daily basis .

I know, just all the "big words" are confusing - it would be easier for me to understand if it was 'to the man", but at least I think I get some more Latin grammar, I'm guessing hominus is man and hominem is the dative case of it?