Epikuro57:
As an international language, Esperanto has to be able to express anything that can be expressed in other languages, including English.

... just that not even all national languages can express everything that's possible in another one.

(For example, German has a lot of little adverbs that actually mean nothing but add a certain nuance to the sentence. I miss these when I speak or write either Esperanto or English, but I'm not going to create equivalents for them.)

Epikuro57:
I agree with him totally about most of the mal- words. Those are only needed when they correspond directly to a comparable word in a historical language, such as disappear, unhappy, inappropriate etc. All other mal- words frankly sound Orwellian and conjure up images of 1984 and Big Brother. Therefore I reject them and refuse ever to say or write them. Where alternatives don't exist I'll create my own.

As an international language, Esperanto has to be able to express anything that can be expressed in other languages, including English.

What makes the words "unhappy" and "disappear" not Orwellian then?

Does it matter that Orwell's 1984 was published in 1949, when Esperanto's MAL- words were already over 60 years old? You are of course free to make up any words you want, in Esperanto, English, or any other language. There's no reason at all, however, to expect that others will know what they mean, or start using them because you prefer them.

"Unhappy" is an English word; "ungood" is not. MALĜOJA and MALBONA are both Esperanto words, and that's the end of it. The neologisms TRISTA and MAVA have been proposed, and used by some, but not by enough to be as reliably understood as the MAL- words.

T0dd:What makes the words "unhappy" and "disappear" not Orwellian then?

The fact that they are words that are part of the English language, not tools of Big Brother like "ungood" certainly is.

T0dd:Does it matter that Orwell's 1984 was published in 1949, when Esperanto's MAL- words were already over 60 years old? You are of course free to make up any words you want, in Esperanto, English, or any other language. There's no reason at all, however, to expect that others will know what they mean, or start using them because you prefer them.

No it doesn't, and I suspect it won't to many others who find Orwell's depiction of the ultimate dictatorship appalling. Most of the mal- words are in effect a millstone around Esperanto's neck, an extra reason for people to reject it. The language would be well rid of most of them.

T0dd:"Unhappy" is an English word; "ungood" is not. MALĜOJA and MALBONA are both Esperanto words, and that's the end of it. The neologisms TRISTA and MAVA have been proposed, and used by some, but not by enough to be as reliably understood as the MAL- words.

It may be an end of it to you but not to me, nor I suspect to many others in the Anglosphere. The presence of mal- words in place of better alternatives like mava, trista, sinistra, aperti, etc. is disturbing to me, plain and simple. I will always use the neologisms as you call them.

Why do so many people feel they need to defend Esperanto every time some new learner pops up with a bunch of 'improvements'?!

Why spend so much time writing huge responses?! And then the person with 'improvements' often gets more entrenched in their views anyway. Or they just disappear, never to learn Esperanto again. So, generally a waste of effort.

We should focus our energy on helping those who are willing to accept Esperanto for what it is. That's energy well-spent.

Chainy:Why do so many people feel they need to defend Esperanto every time some new learner pops up with a bunch of 'improvements'?!

Why spend so much time writing huge responses?! And then the person with 'improvements' often gets more entrenched in their views anyway. Or they just disappear, never to learn Esperanto again. So, generally a waste of effort.

You ask a good question, I would ask why are they so defensive when improvements are put forward? Esperanto has already grown by leaps and bounds from Zamenhof's original invention.

Chainy:We should focus our energy on helping those who are willing to accept Esperanto for what it is. That's energy well-spent.

I'm quite willing to accept Esperanto, I think the regularity of its' spelling and grammar are awesome. That doesn't mean it can't be improved though. The changes I suggest are aimed at making it acceptable to more people, in particular a very large group in the world comprised of hundreds of millions or people who mostly think they have no need of a second language: English-speakers.

Epikuro57:The presence of mal- words .. is disturbing to me..

The system of affixes (like mal) is a very important part of the design of the language by Zamenhof. Their purpose was to make the acquisition of vocabulary easier.

Study what Zamenhof himself said in later life about how he came to design this important aspect of his language. It will be good reading practice for you:

.. la grandegulaj vortaroj ĉiam ankoraŭ ne lasadis min trankvila.
Unu fojon, mi okaze turnis la atenton al la surskribo "Ŝvejcarskaja" (pordistejo) kaj poste al la elpendaĵo "Konditorskaja" (sukeraĵejo). Tiu ĉi "skaja" ekinteresis min kaj montris al mi, ke la sufiksoj donas la eblon el unu vorto fari aliajn vortojn, kiujn oni ne devas aparte ellernadi. Tiu ĉi penso ekposedis min tute, kaj mi subite eksentis la teron sub la piedoj. Sur la terurajn grandegulajn vortarojn falis radio de lumo, kaj ili komencis rapide malgrandiĝadi antaŭ miaj okuloj.

It is better for you to learn the language as it is, rather than what you imagine it ought to be. The feeling that you refer to should pass as you become accustomed to the language. The neologismoj have a place in poetry, but not in ordinary usage.

@Epikuro57: Good luck.

Epikuro57:

T0dd:What makes the words "unhappy" and "disappear" not Orwellian then?

The fact that they are words that are part of the English language, not tools of Big Brother like "ungood" certainly is.

Malbona isn't "ungood"; it's "opposite of good".

I hope that you also come up with English neologisms for new un- words in English, since you feel that un- words that haven't been around for 1000 years are Orwellian. How do you unfriend someone on Facebook without un-?

De-friend? Or is that Orwellian too? How about "enemyize"? Or we can go back to Latin, "inimicate".

"Susie insulted me one time too many, so I had to inimicate her on Facebook!"

Yep, everyone will totally understand me if I say that!

Miland:

Epikuro57:The presence of mal- words .. is disturbing to me..

The system of affixes (like mal) is a very important part of the design of the language by Zamenhof. Their purpose was to make the acquisition of vocabulary easier.

Study what Zamenhof himself said in later life about how he came to design this important aspect of his language.

It is better for you to learn the language as it is, rather than what you imagine it ought to be. The feeling that you refer to should pass as you become accustomed to the language. The neologismoj have a place in poetry, but not in ordinary usage.

I thank you for that link, Zamenhoff's text reinforces my view rather than changes it. He says there, "Germanan kaj francan lingvojn mi ellernadis en infaneco." Ellernadi was hitherto unknown to me, from the context it means learn but none of the online Esperanto-English dictionaries I've consulted have it. Clearly it's been replaced by the verb lerni, which would seem to be a direct importation of the English verb learn in place of one of Zamenhof's creations. The "neoligisms" are just another example of this continuing enrichment of Esperanto. I intend nothing less than to learn the language as it is, indeed I see great potential in it and want to become fluent in it. I also want to be able to express anything I could in English in Esperanto and the "neoligisms" are necessary for that.

In the last 60 years English has exploded internationally. The idea that the language challenge -- a challenge that exists right here in my own country with potentially very serious consequences -- can be solved with a language less rich than English is simply naive.

Things about moral implications eg good bad holy evil etc i think shouls always have seperate forms - bad is not the opposite of good, one could argue.

But thats rwally it. Only extremely common opposites really need to be differentiated. That said, until all of humanity is walking around with open minds comparable to the italian PM's fly, might as well use what others are using ehixh is malbona when you simply mean somethings bad. If you want to discuss whether a person is bad, evil, etc, then more complex vocab is needed but for most languages thats a given.

Sorry for typing, snt on iphone