sudanglo:
With a national language only the demented would not instantly know the right word.

Not really, because people don't actually think in any human language. Even in your first language you sometimes don't find the right words for expressing what you want to express.

You are quite right Erinja with regard to differences between American and British English. But I don't think that undermines my point.

Each population would have its own certainties, with not much disagreement within the population.

But you can't permit in Esperanto that an Italian esperantist should have a different interpretation of what counts as a 'skatolo' to a British Esperantist, and that that should be different to the understanding of a Russian Esperantist. Esperanto is supposed to be an International language.

But what I would expect from the results of the naming experiment is that there is uncertainty among Esperantists with the same mother tongue.

Shifting from tins/cans/boxes for the moment, I did once at a British congress go round asking what people said for Supermarket. The lack of agreement was staggering.

But not so surprising, given the extent to which Esperanto is not used for everyday living.

My personal opinion on that - Superbazaro is wrong.

That's a shopping mall, or out-of town shopping complex. Supervendejo is better than Supermarkto and Ĉiovendejo could be a general store. Vendejego and Magazeno and Butikego might be something like Harrod's or a specialist store of unusual size.

The essential notion in 'bazaro', incidentally is that ones individual purchases are paid separately, There is no single check-out. It's a conglomeration of traders.

sudanglo:Superbazaro is wrong..

Your argument is logical, though it may be that the coiners of the word had a variety of goods rather than traders in mind. But since superbazaro is in both PIV 2005 and Wells, I suspect that we may be stuck with it. Supervendejo looks all right, though.

erinja: Which is more than I can say for some American who goes to the UK and asks for a bag of chips, expecting to receive a packet of crisps.

This happened to me once. I was in a youth hostel in Europe and I said I was going out for a bag of chips, asked if anyone wanted one. Yes, came the answer. Then, a look of disappointment on his face as I strolled back in with a bag of crisps. Luckily potato chips are always pretty good, regardless of hotness and crispiness, so his disappointment was temporary.

In Australia we say 'chips' for both, and usually we seem to work it out from context. 'Hot chips' clears it up if necessary! Speaking of other ujoj, we also confusingly have different names for same-sized glasses of beer depending on which state you're in. Some pubs in my own home state serve a schmiddy when I ask for a middy nowadays, which is just plain wrong. The names of baby-carriages also vary from state to state, I believe. And Americans often think it's funny that we have a kind of shoe called a 'thong'. So it goes!

Don't tell me that in Australian, 3rdBlade, you say 'these hot chips are cold' when complaining about their temperature. How strange.

Australia's a pretty big country, and I suppose the various states were at one time fairly isolated from each other, so different terms in different parts of the country could evolve.

But there's no lesson to be learnt from dialectal variations in national languages for Esperanto.

Embracing regional variation would be handing the opposition a weapon on a plate.

And where does it end? Are you going to start intoducing irregularities into Esperanto just because the 'natural' languages have them.

Allow 'Fritoj' - or whatever the Esperanto is for chips (English not American) - to mean different things in different countries and the end is nigh.

sudanglo:Don't tell me that in Australian, 3rdBlade, you say 'these hot chips are cold' when complaining about their temperature. How strange.

No, we usually use 'chips' for both. The only time we need to use 'hot chips' is if it's not imediately clear from context. So if you're going to a milk bar which sells both kinds, and you want to offer to buy hot chips (pommes frites), you'd say to your friends, 'anybody want some hot chips?' but say you're in a fish and chips shop, you'd say 'a small chips, thanks,' meaning hot chips. In the situation you mentioned you'd just say 'These chips are cold,' because in that case it's clear from context which kind you're talking about. In the hostel situation I described, looking back, I could have been clearer!

Certain words will elicit a wide range of answers, when you ask the word for it (like your supermarket example). Yet I've never had confusion over the terms. Most of the terms on your list were pretty self-explanatory to me. If someone asked me if I'd like to come with them to the food shop, I'd know they were talking about a supermarket, even if the term was one I hadn't heard before.

And it's definitely true with the shopping carts as well, for an English-language example of something with many different regional names. It could be a trolley, a carriage, all kinds of things, depending on where you are.

You noted that these were all British Esperantists giving these responses; their terminology for supermarket seems pretty consistent with what I've heard being used internationally. Even Esperanto speakers who have never left their own country tend to be fairly well plugged-in internationally. I've noticed very, very little in the way of regional variations in vocabulary in Esperanto. Grammatical forms that people are used to in their native language seem to exert more of a pull than vocabulary, in my experience. I wouldn't say that there is an "American" dialect of Esperanto, and a different "French" dialect, and a different "Japanese" dialect.

This sounds to me like a case of making things harder than they need to be. I've spoken Esperanto for some time and honestly I've had more problems dealing with native English speakers in English, than dealing with foreign Esperanto speakers, as far as comprehension goes.

Miland, I had a look in PIV2005 to refresh my memory.

The lengthy definition given there under superbazaro actually corresponds to 'hypermarket' and is not congruent with all the other entries under bazaro.

The idea of a multiplicity of traders is common to all the definitions and examples, except 'superbazaro'. So I stand my ground, and am glad you agree.

Although the normative influence of PIV has to be recognized, it is not infallible.

The 1970's edition boldly maintained with a most detailed definition that 'komputero' was the word for computer.

3rdBlade - just pulling your leg.

Erinja, sorry to hear you had problems using English with the natives. Not our fault you Yankees turned your back on the English Crown.

There are of course two schools of thought among the Esperantists. The Raŭmistoj and the Finvenkistoj.

For the former just making yourself understood is enough. For the latter having the language precise enough to be used in legal contracts and for other serious purposes is important.

The Finvenkista motivation has been of great historical significance for Esperanto. Without it, would Waringhien and others have had the enormous dedication to
produce something like PIV series or the Plena Gramatiko?

Personally I'm opposed to Raŭmismo which I think is both insular and parasitic.

On the other hand because I have Finvenkista leanings I think it is vitally important to encourage all Esperantists whatever their interest in the language, since the major problem that Esperanto faces still, is paucity of speakers.

Anyway, the fact (even if interesting) that English, the major 'lingua franca' of our time, may be subject to not inconsiderable variations (is it true that Americans no longer distinguish between I will and I shall) is a red herring in the discussions of the definitions of certain terms in Esperanto.

sudanglo:Miland, I had a look in PIV2005 to refresh my memory .. and am glad you agree.

Actually, superbazaro is fine by me. The definition in PIV 2005 could fit my local supermarket with its car park well enough.

sudanglo:(is it true that Americans no longer distinguish between I will and I shall) is a red herring in the discussions of the definitions of certain terms in Esperanto.

Australians don't either, although in a lecture last semester our teacher did run it by us, telling us that it's quite useful to remember but ultimately useless in modern conversational practice. If I remember correctly, I shall has more impact than I will, and for all other persons the reverse is true, although apparently it was reverse in Ireland back in years long past (although that may have been purely intended for a joke the same teacher told us).

As for language evolution, I reckon that however little degrees the US "turned it's back" on the British had no bearing on the language evolution anyway as it's all more a gradual process dictated by popular habit . In fact, I think AU English has evolved at a stupidly high speed since the 50's, and last time I checked the back of a coin the true ruler of this country was Queen Elizabeth II. Thus all fault goes back to the motherland for colonising such far out places .

Also, regarding precision, it only comes based on common practice and popular acceptance, thus why the English language is not either all Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon, because a mixture ended up being the most popular method of communication in Britannia. So any legal discussion in EO will only be done based on what's most commonly said in that area. EO, being a new slate, does not have a history of over-complicated garbage that English has when it uses stupidly simple words to describe legal terms with the impression that because it's derived from AN-French it's therefore more precise - I mean I love French words, but when we get anal about how some words are apparently better simply because of their French origins and disregard the rest, it feels somewhat illogical.

(I've had some fun times talking to business and law students about how Liberty and Freedom mean the same thing, and how Collaborative Differentiation means just "work together to make a difference" and not to work as a group to split the same group up oxymoronically since there's no sense of a reflexive action described in the phrase. It's clear that a lot of them are expecting everything to have a double meaning, which is good in moderation but for some I can see it becoming a problem which prevents them from seeing fact for what it is).

Anyway, my digression aside: language just works itself out, forcing things only works to a certain degree and then it's an uphill battle, with English spelling reform, attempts to simplify Chinese writing and early Japanese attempts to adapt Roman letters to their language serving as examples, and a local example being the attempts early on to keep AU English as british as possible until god knows what happened. As can probably be seen, I am neither finalvenkisto nor raŭmisto. Is there a term for someone who regards EO with a laissez-faire manner?