darkweasel:I think you're overcomplicating the issue.

Prava and ĝusta both mean "right" or "correct". Prava refers to both people and statements/opinions, ĝusta can refer only to statements/opinions.

Just a clarification here, I would say that "prava" applies mainly to people, and that "ĝusta" applies to statements.

If I make a statement, "Londono estas la ĉefurbo de Britio" (London is the capital of Great Britain), this statement is "ĝusta" (factually correct). This statement is not "prava". Rather, a person who made this statement is "prava". "Prava" is a thing that a person is. You are "prava" when what you say is "ĝusta" (or, if what you say is "vera", or, if what you say is "justa")

So if I say a thing that is true (vera), then my statement is correct (ĝusta) and I am right (prava) (and if I am very honorable and moral and virtuous in doing it, then I am "justa")

erinja:

darkweasel:I think you're overcomplicating the issue.

Prava and ĝusta both mean "right" or "correct". Prava refers to both people and statements/opinions, ĝusta can refer only to statements/opinions.

Just a clarification here, I would say that "prava" applies mainly to people, and that "ĝusta" applies to statements.

If I make a statement, "Londono estas la ĉefurbo de Britio" (London is the capital of Great Britain), this statement is "ĝusta" (factually correct). This statement is not "prava". Rather, a person who made this statement is "prava". "Prava" is a thing that a person is. You are "prava" when what you say is "ĝusta" (or, if what you say is "vera", or, if what you say is "justa")

So if I say a thing that is true (vera), then my statement is correct (ĝusta) and I am right (prava) (and if I am very honorable and moral and virtuous in doing it, then I am "justa")

Well I have a few times seen prava used for statements, and ReVo also has this meaning ("Havanta opinion aŭ konduton konforman al vero kaj justo: ne tiu, kiu plej laŭte krias, estas pravaZ; li estas prava en sia procesoZ; kolero pravecon ne donas [1]; pravuloZ.").

darkweasel:Well I have a few times seen prava used for statements, and ReVo also has this meaning ("Havanta opinion aŭ konduton konforman al vero kaj justo: ne tiu, kiu plej laŭte krias, estas pravaZ; li estas prava en sia procesoZ; kolero pravecon ne donas [1]; pravuloZ.").

All of those example phrases refer to people being "prava".

Because only people can have opinions or conduct, right?

It is not the statements that are "prava", but the people making them.

Statements are not angry. Rather, people who are angry make statements. Just because someone is angry, doesn't make the person right. The one who is crying out loudly - this is presumably a person as well.

erinja:

darkweasel:Well I have a few times seen prava used for statements, and ReVo also has this meaning ("Havanta opinion aŭ konduton konforman al vero kaj justo: ne tiu, kiu plej laŭte krias, estas pravaZ; li estas prava en sia procesoZ; kolero pravecon ne donas [1]; pravuloZ.").

All of those example phrases refer to people being "prava".

Because only people can have opinions or conduct, right?

It is not the statements that are "prava", but the people making them.

Statements are not angry. Rather, people who are angry make statements. Just because someone is angry, doesn't make the person right. The one who is crying out loudly - this is presumably a person as well.

Ahh sorry, I copied the wrong definition from ReVo.
I meant this one:
" Konforma al vero kaj justo, pp opinio: li senkulpigis sin per la plej pravaj motivoj; nek la antikveco nek la disvastiĝo de ia ajn opinio pruvas ĝian praveconB; ofte potenco estas praveco. "

I've seen prava used for pieces of information on Bertilo's website: Landoj kaj lingvoj de la mondo - Enkonduko has Ĉu la informoj pravas?

Since both Bertilo and ReVo seem to have the opinion that you can use prava to refer to statements, I don't think that it's wrong.

I would say that even though prava may be used to describe things like opinions, motives, rationales etc the word still links back logically to a person because it usually takes a person to have a prava opinion or motive or rationale. I guess you could argue that an inanimate object can be prava, for example you might say "la komputilo pravis" or some such, but in those cases you could say that the object is imbued with the essence of a person in that it's capable of expressing something as a result of it's own "thought", if even in a slightly figurative way.

To me "li pravis" and "li havis pravan opinion" are both valid ways of saying essentially the same thing. Whether we choose to describe the person or the person's opinion/statement as prava seems to me merely a grammatical distinction and has relatively little bearing on the underlying logic.

darkweasel, you used a quote from Bertilo's website, "Ĉu la informoj pravas?", that struck me as odd. English speakers would use the word "information" in a collective sense. Esperanto (and possibly other languages) appear to use it interchangably. As I said, it looks a bit odd to me as an English only speaker. If I were trying to translate something, I'm uncertain which form I would use: information (collective), a piece of information, or pieces of information. I went to the Reta Vortaro and, under "informo", I found that it follows the same usage patterns:

Io, pri kio oni informas:
elserĉu al mi virinon, kiu povoscias aŭguri, por ke mi iru al ŝi kaj ricevu de ŝi informojn [8];
doni, liveri al iu informojn pri io; preni informonZ;
vi devos komuniki la informon al la tuta mondo, tiel ke la tuta mondo sciu [9];
ĉu vi havas informojn pri Ana ? [10];
(arkaismo) Marta iris sur la straton Dluga kaj vizitis la oficejon de informoj (informan oficejon) [11];
tiu tuketo finfine rezultigis ion, ĝi ja estis informporta [12].

The Esperanto words "novaĵo" and "novaĵoj" appear to work in the same way. I've always been a bit uncertain which form of the word to use. Have any advice for an English only speaker?

I'd generally stick with using "informo" when there is only one bit of information in the mind of the speaker, e.g. "Is the (intelligence report you gave me yesterday) informo correct?", and "informoj" when the speaker reckons there's multiple pieces of information - which probably could refer to the same thing, only this time I guess there'd be more emphasis on the various bits and pieces of information that make up the entire intelligence report (using the same example).

In my mind at least though, information is special because it's generally made up of other information. So, a piece of information using that rationale could be a single entity, or many combined entities. It ultimately depends on the nuance you want I guess. As for how that holds up in Esperanto, I'll let darkweasel and/or the rest of the high-level Esperantists confirm/deny, but that's the way I've always thought of the distinction (that is, when I'm not just copying what the other people are saying ).

http://www.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=30...

Another one of Arpee's so-called "good languages". I doubt it will be as international as Esperanto. This is what I wrote to him:

"Aren't you going too far with the "minilangs"?

Someone on lernu said the "best" conlang depends on who's going to use it. For a goup of toddlers who are from different cultures and want to learn a language to be able to play with each other, pua ni kau is the "best" conlang for them to learn. But for the 21st century world full of science, technology, ICT, communication and arts, Esperanto seems like "the best" conlanguage. Esperanto's a living language and you can easily express yourself with it. "pua ni kau" lacks, like, a countless number of ideas and expressions. Just ask someone from lernu."

This is a bit off-topic in this thread, k1attack. Arpee is more than welcome to think whatever he wants to think; this thread is discussing the differences in meaning between three Esperanto words.

lavagulo:darkweasel, you used a quote from Bertilo's website, "Ĉu la informoj pravas?", that struck me as odd. English speakers would use the word "information" in a collective sense.

In German eine Information does indeed mean "a piece of information" (I'm sure I already made errors in English about this, speaking of "informations"), and Esperanto mirrors this usage. You can also use informaĵo instead of informo, but in any case it is not a collective noun.

I think ceigered summed up the correct usage very correctly.