До змісту
Відповісти

Beating a dead horse - helpful changes to Eo

від chicago1, 13 травня 2011 р.

Повідомлення: 88

Мова: English

erinja (Переглянути профіль) 17 травня 2011 р. 12:51:28

I would be glad if people who wanted to talk about their "collegiate" theories took it to private messages, because it isn't really relevant to the study of Esperanto (which is the underlying topic of the lernu forums).

I really get tired of reading long off-topic messages about psychology. Long messages about Esperanto -- fine. Long messages about other languages -- if you can tie it back to Esperanto somehow, then that's fine too. But long messages about people's viewpoints about the psychology of other people -- That seems appropriate for private messages, because I think it is interesting to very few people here.

Mustelvulpo (Переглянути профіль) 17 травня 2011 р. 13:02:35

erinja:I really get tired of reading long off-topic messages about psychology. Long messages about Esperanto -- fine. Long messages about other languages -- if you can tie it back to Esperanto somehow, then that's fine too. But long messages about people's viewpoints about the psychology of other people -- That seems appropriate for private messages, because I think it is interesting to very few people here.
It seems like any post suggesting that Esperanto be abruptly changed inevitably leads down a path to such comments. Lack of respect leads to discussions on lack of respect.

henma (Переглянути профіль) 17 травня 2011 р. 14:35:19

Mustelvulpo:It seems like any post suggesting that Esperanto be abruptly changed inevitably leads down a path to such comments. Lack of respect leads to discussions on lack of respect.
I don't agree with the lack of respect that much. This very document had the opportunity to be posted and discussed in a very long thread... As somebody already said, why would posting the same again would result in a different outcome? At least, no moderator has deleted this thread, and it was given a second chance.

Maybe the irony about what was on topic and what not was a bit irrespective (and I take my part of the blame, as I started with that), but keep in mind that on the same day this post started, just a few hours before, chicago had attempted to discuss this document in an unrelated thread. Then, you can see in the title of this one, that he knew that he was posting this just because of stubbornness.

What Erinja is asking to be discussed out of the forum is not the document or the changes, but all the psychological/sociological discussion on "being tagged a troll". Also, the discussion about what Targanook said or not in other not related thread and how some people interpreted his sayings is completely off topic.

The discussion we were having about the complexity/simplicity of correlatives is (laŭ mi) completely on topic, and I don't see any attempt to stop us discussing it.

By the way, I agree with the opinion that somebody gave about the responsibility of the teacher for a good understanding the correlatives, and that teaching them in the right or wrong way can make it very simple or very complex for the students.

Amike,

Daniel.

orthohawk (Переглянути профіль) 18 травня 2011 р. 18:14:40

ceigered:
orthohawk:
chicago1:
The friends that were convinced you were wrong, honestly, it sounds like they need to get outside their bubble, or they had the wrong impression of EO. Not to mention it's rather rude for them to consider you wrong unless you gave them the wrong impression. Anyway, in practice something like correlatives I'd leave well to later, or at least introduce them one at a time slowly and separately - in any language too.
Oh, I'm not talking about the correlative equivalents; I mean the verbs! To whit: hablo, hablas, habla, hablamos, hablais, hablan; hablé, hablaste, habló, hablamos, hablasteis, hablaronñ hablaba, hablabas, hablaba hablábamos, hablábais, hablaban etc. All those words look So. Much. Alike!!
/tongue removed from cheek.

ceigered (Переглянути профіль) 19 травня 2011 р. 02:35:28

Ah haha yeah those adjectives are a hard one. That said, to be perfectly honest, I'd have to say that they're equally as difficult in the scheme of things, just that Esperanto needs less time, where as things like Spanish need more time and also have the additional problem of irregularities.

(whether time = difficulty, not sure...)

chicago1 (Переглянути профіль) 21 травня 2011 р. 03:59:28

As the original poster of this thread, I will say this: I am not "trolling" nor just trying to incite. The person that shared the suggested modifications to Eo was the first person to expose me to this language, this wonderful project with which I find myself obsessed. I agree with many of his points, but not all. But I find the reactions here very telling. Do I strike you as someone just trying to incite?

I only have this left to say:

"Oni tiu rifuzas sxangxo estas la akitekton da putrigxo. La nur homa institucio tiu rifuzas progreson estas la tombejo."

"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery."

Harold Wilson

razlem (Переглянути профіль) 21 травня 2011 р. 04:21:17

There's a difference between accepting change and drastically altering the way things are done. What your teacher has written is more the latter.

Esperanto does change, albeit much more slowly than natural languages. But like someone said earlier, instead of proposing changes to Esperanto, make your own language with the concepts you feel are the most efficient/logical.

chicago1 (Переглянути профіль) 21 травня 2011 р. 04:29:27

Yes, I saw that post And found it a little disappointing. (Let's all go off on our own islands and create our own little languages that only we (and maybe 2 or 3 of our very patient friends) will ever speak...) No. Esperanto is the core conlang, the only real project with a chance of success.

I agree with my teacher that with only a few minor tweaks here and there, if the doctrinaire among us can stomach it, we would be close to breaking through to the mainstream. Maybe not all his suggestions, but a few. (Have to vehemently agree on his comment on some of the correlatives, for instance (tho only the "k" terms), as I've seen many others commenting the same.)

razlem (Переглянути профіль) 21 травня 2011 р. 04:53:45

In my opinion, even if the changes were adopted by the mainstream EO community, there would still be many flaws. More fundamental, but flaws nonetheless.

My point being it's useless to try and 'fix' Esperanto. I knew this from the beginning so I made my own language, and it grew to be something totally different and unique. It's not even finished yet and I have a fair amount of people who are eager to learn it. Take my advice and make something new and innovative instead of 'beating the dead horse' as it were.

ceigered (Переглянути профіль) 21 травня 2011 р. 06:49:03

In the end, whatever changes you make are only making it easier for one fellow and harder for another. Esperanto's only requirement to avoid decay is to either:
a) change with the times so that it can be used to express new ideas
or b) suck up to whatever's useful for whoever's got the money.

The latter is impossible because it'll never be good enough, and the former is practical but it's still vulnerable from dying by being pushed out of public interest by any other language, which is an unchangeable fact of life.

So, the best we can do is try and grow EO culture and language use without causing any major hickups (without "overdosing" on change), and hope that history favours EO.

--

RE Correlatives, there's nothing wrong with them as is. Change them and you'll bring irregularity into the picture, and then the attraction of EO to non-native European speakers will be diminished.

If you're worried that someone might confuse "kia" with "kie", I wouldn't be. Heck, correlatives aren't even really that necessary. There are languages that get away with only one correlative. That additional information in the a/e part is really just a bonus if you manage to differentiate it correctly, it's not the important part.

The ki/ti/ĉi/neni part is what's ultimately important since we can guess the meaning by context as long as we hear that.

One way to avoid confusion, rather than changing the correlatives, is to encourage the use of more context.

E.g. instead of "mi vidis katon kiel la blua kato de mia patrino", have "Mi vidis katon kiu aperas kiel la blua kato de mia patrino"

Additionally, some words sound the same because the meaning is similar enough.
Kiam = when = how much time
kiom = how much.

Kia = which (sort of)
Kiu = which (in general)

etc.

Назад до початку