Al la enhavo
Respondi

DIFERENCES BETWEEN ESPERANTO AND ENGLISH1

de Francisko1, 2009-decembro-21

Mesaĝoj: 23

Lingvo: English

Francisko1 (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-21 20:11:32

1) To know verb, noun, adverb and adjective, en Esperanto you need to study one root (klar-ig-i, klar-ajx-o, klar-e, klar-a)but in the english language you need to study often four roots (clarify, clarity, clearly, clear).

Do you know other diferences? Thank you very much.

Getuls Francisko

Roberto12 (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-21 21:56:33

Francisko1:1) To know verb, noun, adverb and adjective, en Esperanto you need to study one root (klar-ig-i, klar-ajx-o, klar-e, klar-a)but in the english language you need to study often four roots (clarify, clarity, clearly, clear).
I can only see two roots there - "clar" and "clear" - which are very similar anyway.

RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 04:18:11

Well... English is quite irregular. Maybe not as much as some languages, but certainly more so than Esperanto. So I don't think you will have any trouble finding striking differences between the two languages.

Just look at the conjugation of "to be". Most of the forms don't even have a "b" or an "e" in them. Esperanto is quite straightforward.

How about the weird variations in stress between related words: photograph, photographer, photographic - to a non-native, does it make sense that the stress is on a different syllable in each word? Again: predictable in Esperanto, maybe not so much in English.

And so on. Those just popped right off the top of my head.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 05:25:50

Pronunciation is highly irregular (ī think that wē shūld gō back t' spēking as wē rīte), so unless it's a fairly new root there's a high chance that there will be irregular forms in the spoken language. Most French/Latin-derived terms also have their own endings which make things confusing (e.g. -y, -ic, and -ique all mean the same thing but only appear for certain words, same with -ish and -esque (although this is normally much freer)).

Verbs are also much more different in English because it's a Germanic language, so there are strong verbs (which are now pretty much all irregular, but most important), regular verbs (the new verbs that were made after strong verbs) and some verbs that just don't belong. Eo doesn't come from any native language so it can just have everything regular as -i ridulo.gif

I blame the speakers of middle English and early modern English for making things so complicated lango.gif

Roberto12 (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 10:08:34

ceigered:Pronunciation is highly irregular (ī think that wē shūld gō back t' spēking as wē rīte)
In this case, we'd need to pick one single dialect and use that, because otherwise, there'd be scores of different versions of written English around the world.

A big advantage of the current English spelling system is that it's the same everywhere.

dukemasuya (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 10:23:00

Roberto12:
ceigered:Pronunciation is highly irregular (ī think that wē shūld gō back t' spēking as wē rīte)
In this case, we'd need to pick one single dialect and use that, because otherwise, there'd be scores of different versions of written English around the world.

A big advantage of the current English spelling system is that it's the same everywhere.
Actually, I might put a word in about the differences between GB English and US English. Spelling of some words is different.

analyse compared with analyze
behaviour compared with behavior
centre compared with center
defence compared with defense
globalisation compared with globalization
realise compared with realize

........ and the list goes on!!

Of course, some people call this off as a minor difference and regularly use the two spellings interchangeably.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 11:30:16

Roberto12:In this case, we'd need to pick one single dialect and use that, because otherwise, there'd be scores of different versions of written English around the world.

A big advantage of the current English spelling system is that it's the same everywhere.
Well we don't necessarily need to pick a dialect, we just pronounce it like in general middle english (ee think thaht wuld wohrk well, dawn't you think saw? Ee mehn, al English spehkers 'naw hu wohrdz ar spelt, saw al thaht wuld nehd t' beh tught* wuld beh ahn older pronunciahshin, with older vuul suundz (vowel sounds) and then weh cahn just lehv mawst ov the consonants az iz (except mybeh "gh")) lango.gif And yes I had fun writing that! I'll even do an audio recording if people want me to!

But as you said, the written English language is what bridges the multitude of dialects and prevents (or at least slows down the process) them from splitting into various different languages. And as Dukemasuya said there are some differences in regional spellings but everything's pretty close.

*EDIT: Some observant people might have noticed I wrote "tught" for "taught", even though there is no long-u sound. It should be "tawght" or "tahwght".
EDIT2: Sound file coz I'm bored. Note it still has the "tught" error.

platypus01au (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 11:34:55

dukemasuya:
Actually, I might put a word in about the differences between GB English and US English. Spelling of some words is different.
Most of the differences can be put down to Webster and other spelling reform movements in the US.

Webster wanted to revolutionise spelling in the US. He was concerned about teaching idiosyncratic spelling and pronunciation to children and new-comers. He wanted teachers to use American resources, not English. He wanted the spelling to match the pronunciation, so in the US people tend to sound out all the vowels, while UK pronunciation doesn't. Rather like Esperanto really!

Take medicine. The UC pronunciation is "med-sin" while in the US it is "med-i-sin". Secretary in UC is "Sec-re-try". while in the US they pronounce the "a" between the t and the r. And with the enormous amount of US TV we get here in Australia, many young people are speaking like Americans. Not so much the accent, but certainly the pronunciation.

Some of the major problems with using English are cultural/historical issues, not just spelling. I had an experience with it on monday. I'd asked someone a question, and this person replied "Roger". It had been cc'd to an Indian staff member of mine, and I ended up spending 10 minutes with her explaining why "Roger" meant "Yes".

Ĝis,
John

Rogir (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 11:55:52

Did someone call me?

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 12:31:38

platypus01au:He wanted the spelling to match the pronunciation, so in the US people tend to sound out all the vowels, while UK pronunciation doesn't. Rather like Esperanto really!
While I agree about the reason there are differences are due to spelling reforms etc (although I think US spelling is actually more conservative than UK spelling), what I've quoted can be a bit misleading for some - in UK English, just like Irish Gaelic, most non-stressed vowels are effectively reduced to schwas (thus why we get "Secretry"). In US English, most vowels tend to be a bit stronger or there are different stress patterns (e.g. "Secretary" in US English appears to have two points where it is stressed, "Sec" and "tar"). So rather than being "matching the pronunciation", it's more about where words are stressed, which vowels get drawn out, etc.

Rogir:Did someone call me?
Roger Rogir, whoops I mean, Negative Roger, oh darn, ah, Negative Rogir lango.gif

Reen al la supro