Miland:

ceigered:I do agree with nshepperd, andogigi and those of similar opnion too..

I must admit that I've got some sympathy for the idea. I appreciate the argument that many speakers of English don't frequent the Esperanto-speaking forum much, and sometimes Esperantists may want to attract their attention. That's why I suggested posting something like 'Mi havas demandon por angla-parolantoj, bonvolu vidi ĉi tien'. Or 'I have a question for speakers of English, please see here.

Sorry Miland I must have skipped over that message - that is quite a good idea - you can then draw conversation away into a EO forum. Maybe a simple merger of the two ideas (e.g. write "ne angle" in the topic somewhere) and then do what you said (refer to an EO topic - that was what you were saying, jes?).

ceigered:.. you can then draw conversation away into a EO forum. Maybe a simple merger of the two ideas (e.g. write "ne angle" in the topic somewhere) and then do what you said (refer to an EO topic - that was what you were saying, jes?).

Jes, and the 'merger' is not a bad idea; ne angle (or some abbreviation like NA) could alert the reader to a cross-reference, which would break no rules if a translation in English were provided.

We should also consider people who respond in Esperanto to an English-language topic because they can understand English, but whose skills are not sufficient to actually write something in English.

darkweasel:We should also consider people who respond in Esperanto to an English-language topic because they can understand English, but whose skills are not sufficient to actually write something in English.

I have limited sympathy for this reasoning, if only because I have personally spent so much time in the past, carefully composing an answer in a language I don't speak well. In my opinion, if you don't want to spend the time and your skills are poor, you can use an automatic translator to help you, and then edit the automatic translation.

Maybe I am a snob but I consider it rude and somewhat lazy (not to mention against the rules) to reply in a language other than the one that the original comments were made in. Plus it's good practice in a foreign language to compose your response in that language, rather than answering in another language you speak well. By writing in Esperanto only, you are excluding beginners from the conversation, and that negates the whole purpose of the non-Esperanto forums.

However, it's always bone to throw in one or two vortojn in esperanto for style, ĉu ne?

Rogir:However, it's always bone to throw in one or two vortojn in esperanto for style, ĉu ne?

It's not against the forum rules but I don't see a point in doing it. Quite honestly, it strikes me as being pretentious and affected when you randomly throw foreign language words into your speech, unless they are technical terms, or would require lengthy explanation to translate. Even in a forum discussing that language, I feel this way.

So I might speak of applying for a "permesso di soggiorno" in Italy (a specific type of residency permit; but "residency permit" doesn't quite cut it as a translation, since a permesso di soggiorno is just one type of permit). But I wouldn't say that I went to an Italian restaurant and ate carciofi. Because why would I say carciofi when English has the word "artichokes", which is perfectly functional and refers to the same vegetable? It only serves to exclude people who don't know what "carciofi" means, and to make them feel stupid and ignorant.

For the record, there are just a few Esperanto terms that I would use in English, when conversing with Esperanto speakers. They all have fairly specific meanings in the Esperanto movement, and would require some explanation to translate them to "foreigners", or at the very least, they would require a phrase rather than a single word as a translation. "Transpagipova", "denaskulo", "kabei", and "memzorganto" are a few examples. You can say these things in English but as I said, not without some difficulty. And of course it goes without saying that I would never use words of this nature when speaking with non-Esperanto speakers. I would go to the trouble of translating them in the form of a phrase or an explanation.

erinja:Quite honestly, it strikes me as being pretentious and affected when you randomly throw foreign language words into your speech

I think you are missing the point. If I understand Rogir's question correctly (*), the idea is to feel free to use Esperanto words here and there, when they are not in the way of a proper explanation of a grammar or language point. And even though I would perhaps not use them, I see no problem nor degradation in doing so. "ĉu ne" is actually a good example: I think that the average member of this forum either knows about it, can guess its meaning, or would otherwise benefit from getting familiar with it.

So I might speak of applying for a "permesso di soggiorno" in Italy (a specific type of residency permit; but "residency permit" doesn't quite cut it as a translation, since a permesso di soggiorno is just one type of permit).

I am not an expert on the matter but it is pretty much the main, if not the only, residency permit there is. The website for the Italian Police translates it as 'residence permit'. Whether that translation is correct or not, I think that the only confusion that the aforementioned English translation would raise would only be limited to those who are obsessively interested (and/or fluent) in fine points of Italian law regarding foreigners and permits. And I think they do not really fit the demographics of the people one usually talks to...

This is not about being specific (even though that can be useful at times); it's about practicing a language, using it, and discussing it.

But I wouldn't say that I went to an Italian restaurant and ate carciofi.

If you did that within the context of a forum devoted to the Italian language and culture, I wouldn't see a problem (as a matter of fact, if you were talking about a specific dish, it would help to refer to it by its Italian name). Those who don't get it can either look for themselves, ask for a translation, etc. It's not like that has to be the final and last message on the topic.

(*) If I didn't, well, too bad

mnlg:I think you are missing the point. If I understand Rogir's question correctly (*), the idea is to feel free to use Esperanto words here and there, when they are not in the way of a proper explanation of a grammar or language point.

I understood Rogir's question perfectly, and I agree with your interpretation of what he was asking. And my answer remains the same.

This is not about being specific (even though that can be useful at times); it's about practicing a language, using it, and discussing it.

I am all for using and discussing languages. But to my ear it sounds pretentious to throw foreign language words into your speech. Other people can certainly think differently and do what they want to do, but that's my opinion.

But I wouldn't say that I went to an Italian restaurant and ate carciofi.

If you did that within the context of a forum devoted to the Italian language and culture, I wouldn't see a problem (as a matter of fact, if you were talking about a specific dish, it would help to refer to it by its Italian name)

But "carciofi" isn't a technical term, nor is it a specific dish. I already said that in the case of technical terms, I'd use the foreign language term with no problem. So no problem, I'd talk about carciofi alla romana in a culinary forum, since that's a classic Italian dish. Similarly I'd talk about a "croque monsieur", a classic French dish, and not a "crunch mister", which makes no sense in English anyway. But a single ingredient, a single word, nothing fancy, nothing specific to one country's cuisine. A carrot. An artichoke. A tomato. Why would I call those by a foreign name, if I am talking about the ingredients, not about a special dish? When I am speaking English, the ingredients of a croque monsieur are ham, bread, and cheese. NOT jambon, pain, and fromage.

But I digress. The bottom line is that if Rogir wants to mix Esperanto words into his messages, then he can do it if he wants to. But I choose not to, for the reasons I have stated.

I am all for using and discussing languages. But to my ear it sounds pretentious to throw foreign language words into your speech.

As I said, it depends on context. When the context is a media devoted to the discussion, usage and practice of that very same foreign language, I do not see that problem, and I find it hard to imagine someone who would. You are perhaps thinking about throwing foreign language words into your everyday speech, at work or at home, while conversating with people who might have no interest nor will to get familiar with them. On that I would agree. But Rogir's question came from a whole different situation.

A carrot. An artichoke. A tomato. Why would I call those by a foreign name, if I am talking about the ingredients, not about a special dish?

Why not, if one of the reasons for the existence of this whole web site is to help people practice the language? Where is the pretentiousness in helping others getting familiar with terms whose meaning can be easily found anyway?

The bottom line is that if Rogir wants to mix Esperanto words into his messages, then he can do it if he wants to. But I choose not to, for the reasons I have stated.

Your bottom line is perfectly acceptable; as a matter of fact, that's what I do as well. However, the adjectives you have peppered it with in your previous message are another matter entirely. We are here to learn or discuss Esperanto. I was taken aback by seeing how you can correlate the idea of occasionally mentioning Esperanto words in this forum, and being moved by the motive of making others feel stupid or ignorant.

mnlg:Your bottom line is perfectly acceptable; as a matter of fact, that's what I do as well. However, the adjectives you have peppered it with in your previous message are another matter entirely. We are here to learn or discuss Esperanto. I was taken aback by seeing how you can correlate the idea of occasionally mentioning Esperanto words in this forum, and being moved by the motive of making others feel stupid or ignorant.

I fail to understand why anyone needs to be up in arms when all that Erinja's doing is expressing her own personal opinion regarding the use of foreign terms.

Perceptions are not facts. Hence, the words 'right' and 'wrong', in their strictest sense, don't really apply to perceptions.

If I say, "People who speak language X strike me as snobs.", it does not (or rather, need not) mean that they are indeed snobs: I'm merely voicing the way I see things. Understandably, perceptions will differ from person to person, but since there can't be any universal reference point for such things, each is as valid as any other.

mnlg:Where is the pretentiousness in helping others getting familiar with terms whose meaning can be easily found anyway?

Regardless of which dictionary is at my disposal, I (and many others, I reckon) would probably find it quite wearisome to keep referring to it when all I want to do is quickly read and understand the text at hand.