erinja:我 אוהב мояを ขาวを ძროხაを

Haha, take that Klingon! Who's the unnecessarily hard to pronounce/read alien language now! But I can imagine computer input would be horrible with the hebrew characters changing the writing direction - hang on, THERE'S NO ARABIC! AND THAT COW IS [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ขาว]WHITE[/url]! The language imperalism lingers no matter what we do! . (I do hope no one is taking this seriously )

And Darkweasel, that image is great.

Pinto:es-tin-g-ka-mi-o-no turns into either es-tin-guh-kah or es-tin-ka when I try to say it.

Feel free to say something like "estingokamiono".

Same with lingvoscienco etc. (probably best to stick with -o- as the joining letter over the more adjectival -a- so things don't get complicated).

Just pretend you're a German speaker (sorry Horsto, Darkweasel, Qwertz) with a heavy accent and can only say "v" instead of "w". Unless you come to "ŭ", which is a "w" sound

ceigered:
Just pretend you're a German speaker (sorry Horsto, Darkweasel, Qwertz) with a heavy accent and can only say "v" instead of "w". Unless you come to "ŭ", which is a "w" sound

Great idea!

ceigered:Same with lingvoscienco etc. (probably best to stick with -o- as the joining letter over the more adjectival -a- so things don't get complicated).

The joining letter is always -o or nothing. It's never -a. Because if it were -a, then why would we make a compound word in the first place? There would be no difference between blankabovo and blanka bovo.

erinja:

ceigered:Same with lingvoscienco etc. (probably best to stick with -o- as the joining letter over the more adjectival -a- so things don't get complicated).

The joining letter is always -o or nothing. It's never -a. Because if it were -a, then why would we make a compound word in the first place? There would be no difference between blankabovo and blanka bovo.

It can be -a, -e or -i as well, see: Vortigo de frazetoj

For example: anglalingva, artefarita, mortivola.

However, in ordinary compounds, it is indeed always -o.

erinja:

ceigered:Same with lingvoscienco etc. (probably best to stick with -o- as the joining letter over the more adjectival -a- so things don't get complicated).

The joining letter is always -o or nothing. It's never -a. Because if it were -a, then why would we make a compound word in the first place? There would be no difference between blankabovo and blanka bovo.

But "blankobovo" would have the same effect as "blanko bovo" in just the same manner. Unless the joining vowel is completely gone, compound words are more a written thing I feel, so that one isn't inundated with 2000 words in the same phrase. Then again, I'm certainly less experienced, but Darkweasel's PMEG link is what I had in mind.

Can't remember where I heard it or whether I just assumed it was the case, but -o- kunmetaĵoj (e.g. lingvo scienco) has a "of" effect (scienco de lingvoj), where as "a" kunmetaĵoj has a more specific describing effect, thus "anglalingva".

Of course, because "de" and "-a" have very similar meanings, I don't think it matters too much. But I'd rather say, for example, "anglalingva" over "anglolingva", and "estingokamiono" over "estingakamiono". Hard to describe.

That's my thoughts on it anyway.

You can't say blanko bovo because a noun can't describe a noun in Esperanto.

There is a fundamental difference in meaning between a compound form in Esperanto, and a non-compound form. The compound form is indicating that the root is defined by the word added to it in a really fundamental way, deeper than simply adding an adjective.

So a blanka bovo is a cow that is white. A "blankobovo" is a cow that is defined by "white". Perhaps it is the name of a special breed of cow that is always white. Perhaps it is the name of a special breed of cow that comes from a country or region that is named "White". But a blanka bovo is just any old cow that happens to be white. No special breed, no special anything.

"estinga kamiono" is any old truck that happens to be able to put out fires. It could be a pickup truck with a guy standing in the back holding a bucket of water. An "estingokamiono" is a truck that was specifically designed for putting out fires, with all of the special equipment that that entails.

On the anglalingva issue, I think the difference it the adjective versus the noun.

An anglalingva libro is a book that is written in the English language. The book could be written about any topic. It is not an angla lingva libro (an English book about language, perhaps? about any language, it could be an English book about Spanish).

So by compounding adjectives we make a combined adjective that has a different meaning than either of the components taken separately.

erinja:You can't say blanko bovo because a noun can't describe a noun in Esperanto.

There is a fundamental difference in meaning between a compound form in Esperanto, and a non-compound form. The compound form is indicating that the root is defined by the word added to it in a really fundamental way, deeper than simply adding an adjective.

So a blanka bovo is a cow that is white. A "blankobovo" is a cow that is defined by "white". Perhaps it is the name of a special breed of cow that is always white. Perhaps it is the name of a special breed of cow that comes from a country or region that is named "White". But a blanka bovo is just any old cow that happens to be white. No special breed, no special anything.

"estinga kamiono" is any old truck that happens to be able to put out fires. It could be a pickup truck with a guy standing in the back holding a bucket of water. An "estingokamiono" is a truck that was specifically designed for putting out fires, with all of the special equipment that that entails.

Thank you for clearing that up, I was just about to ask!

On the anglalingva issue, I think the difference it the adjective versus the noun.

An anglalingva libro is a book that is written in the English language. The book could be written about any topic. It is not an angla lingva libro (an English book about language, perhaps? about any language, it could be an English book about Spanish).

So by compounding adjectives we make a combined adjective that has a different meaning than either of the components taken separately.

Quick question: is it common to use a hyphen in this case? It seems like it makes more sense, given that the two words are joined only to demonstrate that they together modify another word, and not because they form a compound. (Example: Mia-opinie)

You can use a hyphen but most people use hyphens only when the meaning is not clear. For common compounds (including miaopinie) you will seldom see hyphens.

erinja:You can't say blanko bovo because a noun can't describe a noun in Esperanto.

Well of course. But it doesn't stop it from being misunderstood as a mistake, at least as much as "anglalingva". And while that's a full adjective, what about "anglalinvoscienco"? Sort of stuffs things up a bit.

From a teaching pont of view the best formulation of the rule is not one letter one sound/one sound one letter, because this might be misinterpreted.

Rather the rule should be that each letter is pronounced - and here are the sounds of the individual letters.

Any allophonic variation of the sounds of the letters in particular environments doesn't need to be taught.

If such variation is natural from the exigencies of articulation then the student will do it naturally.