Съобщения: 25
Език: English
qwertz (Покажи профила) 16 февруари 2010, 19:50:23
Reteos: 93233-437e23-676.jpg (24)Hhm. "Wasteland". Sounds not very nice.
darkweasel (Покажи профила) 16 февруари 2010, 19:53:27
Rogir:And the better choice is -uj.
Hispanlando -> Hispanujo/Hispanio
Italio -> Italujo/Italio
Grekiosudo -> Sudgrekujo/Sudgrekio
(make a consistent choice of one of them)
My blog article about the problems of -i
LyzTyphone (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 02:55:45
Rogir:Verdostelo -> VerdasteloAccording to what I heard, a combine word can't have anything but the "-o" ending. "Partonpreni" was one of some early Zamenhofian exceptions. But an "-a" ending IMHO is not seen permitted.
So in that case Verda-Stelo will be prefered.
darkweasel (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 06:27:25
LyzTyphone:I am a uj-ist too~In this case I'd just say verda stelo.
Rogir:Verdostelo -> VerdasteloAccording to what I heard, a combine word can't have anything but the "-o" ending. "Partonpreni" was one of some early Zamenhofian exceptions. But an "-a" ending IMHO is not seen permitted.
So in that case Verda-Stelo will be prefered.
ceigered (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 16:45:04
jan aleksan:Can you tell when Great Britain will invade, such that you get prepared in FranceI heard that the British parliament did try to plan for "The 100 Years War 2: Return of the English", however after realising that the running costs for production would mean the sequel would not break-even at the box-office, the movie plans were scrapped. Sarkozy's insistence that the movie would have to be heavily modified to show the French invading instead in order to meet French film industry standards also would have made the impact of invading France a fair bit pointless.
I'm actually AGAINST ujismo (Ujo-ism). I think -ejo is a much better choice. Sure, it sounds like a very, VERY broad Australian way of saying -io, but it seems more logical to me. After all, "Francejo" means "place of the french-dude", where as "Francujo" means "container of the french-dude". Thus, the ujo forms could heavily confused invading Martians when they start collecting humans like in "War of the Worlds".
Please people. Think of the peace loving Martians.
(But it would have been better if you had the name for the country (e.g. "Franco") and then we could fight over the suffix for people from certain places instead.
The problem is making the name of the country the base root enforces sovereignty over a piece of land (which makes the Taiwan-China issue all the more complex), where as making the name of the people of a country the base root enforces race stereotypes (e.g. "tiu cxi persono ne estas homo, tiu cxi estas anglo"))
Reteos (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 17:40:42
i accidentaly deleted the document, but luckily it was all backed up on here Phew,
darkweasel (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 17:43:05
ceigered:I'd translate Francejo as "French ghetto", not as "France".
I'm actually AGAINST ujismo (Ujo-ism). I think -ejo is a much better choice. Sure, it sounds like a very, VERY broad Australian way of saying -io, but it seems more logical to me. After all, "Francejo" means "place of the french-dude", where as "Francujo" means "container of the french-dude". Thus, the ujo forms could heavily confused invading Martians when they start collecting humans like in "War of the Worlds".
Any attempts to establish -ej as a country suffix are reforms, and Esperanto is not more reformable than any other living language.
tommjames (Покажи профила) 17 февруари 2010, 17:55:20
ceigered:After all, "Francejo" means "place of the french-dudeActually no. The suffix ej does not show a mere "of" relationship, but one of being purposed for the thing described by the root. Francejo then is not "place of French people" but "place for French people". I would go with Darkweasel's "ghetto" translation. It accords with judejo.
ceigered (Покажи профила) 18 февруари 2010, 15:53:55
(And how is changing a country name in a language using existing roots a major reform, let alone even one? Unless everyone here refers to where I currently am as "terra australis incognita" or New Holland, because "Australia" was clearly a "reform" made by Matthew Flinders... The damn Idist!
)- I originally said something about using io based on age of the suffix, then realised that I am not sure how old io really is, but I still prefer io to ujo, and ejo to both of them. The thinking of a "place for" equalling "ghetto" seems like an old war and poverty mindset to me, who inversely feels as that "place for" sounds a lot more like "home". "Ghettos" can be "geto"s, not "ejo"s, as far as I'm concerned. If I ever saw "Francejo" I'd automatically think "A place for those who call themselves French (probably made by the French of old themselves)" or "a place to be French". Associating "ejo" with ghettos is like saying "Pollando is the place where polish people MUST be (and not anywhere else" which feels like reading into the meaning too much (I mean, my friend is part Polish, and he hasn't caused the universe and all logic to collapse on itself by not being partly in Poland). Anyway, just things to think 'bout. -
tommjames (Покажи профила) 18 февруари 2010, 17:36:54
ceigered:how is using -ejo for country names any more reformist than using ujoBecause ujo has been used in country names since the days of Zamenhof.
And how is changing a country name in a language using existing roots a major reformNobody said it was. darkweasel described it as "reformist". I agree with him; it is.
ceigered:let alone even one?Ej has never been used this way. To start using it this way would constitute a re-forming of the language, as far as I understand the meaning of that word.
Going back to "ghetto", I don't agree that this translation indicates a poverty mindset, or for that matter any mindset at all. Historically the idea of a "place for a certain people" has been associated with places of suppression, ghettos, reservations and the like. I don't see any problem in translating "francejo" accordingly.