Arrrrggghh! When I first started learning Esperanto, I learned that "hospital" was "malsanulejo"--which makes perfect sense. I also learned that "old" was "malnova" (the opposite of new---again, perfect). However, the longer I am involved in the movement and reading contemporary Esperanto, the LONGER the list of new words gets--even when perfectly good words already exist.

I realize that all languages evolve and develop over time. I can see the need for a language to adapt to new concepts. Slang "chic" expressions are a part of any living language, and I have no problem with that. But I was just reading an article in which "hospitalo" was used for hospital---uh, I thought we already HAD a word for that. AND WHAT'S WITH "OLDA"?!?!?!?!?! Even if they didn't like the words "malnova" or "maljuna", OLDA? If they want to speak English, then they should speak English--not tweak Esperanto to MAKE it English...

Okay, I'll get off my rant, now, but can anybody explain what's going on here? When did it become acceptable to just disregard what's already established in the language and just throw in whatever you want?

That's how language works. Even in Esperanto, words change and become obsolete with time.

The words you mentioned are also shorter in regards to the amount of syllables, making them quicker to say: "hospitalo" (4) vs. "malsanulejo" (5); "olda" (2) vs "malnova" (3).

razlem:That's how language works. Even in Esperanto, words change and become obsolete with time.

The words you mentioned are also shorter in regards to the amount of syllables, making them quicker to say: "hospitalo" (4) vs. "malsanulejo" (5); "olda" (2) vs "malnova" (3).

Maybe some new words are worth enough to be included in the language... but I completely disagree with a lot of new words added just to avoid the prefix mal-.

olda/trista/leva liva/kurta ... I don't see a great advantage... on the contrary, we are just making it more complex for komencantoj... We are just adding exceptions to a language, which is good because it doesn't have exceptions (at least, not obvious ones).

Why varma/malvarma, luma/malluma, aktiva/malaktiva, sana/malsana, but nova/olda, dekstra/liva leva, etc.?

To make it regular again, we should create a new adjective for all those which can receive the prefix mal-, so we have a regular structure.

Also, if I accept those new adjectives... but I keep the prefix... I would have also maltrista, malolda, malleva malliva, malkurta...

By the way... what would malolda mean? juna au nova? what about maltrista?

Once I read a very good article about this in 'la revuo Esperanto'... it was writen by Anna Löwenstein, if I remember well... She wrote that lots of writers and poets were inserting those words in order to make their texts to look more 'beautiful'... But they are only making a language that is supposed to be simple, more complex.

Just my two cents.

Amike,

Daniel.

henma:

Once I read a very good article about this in 'la revuo Esperanto'... it was writen by Anna Löwenstein, if I remember well... She wrote that lots of writers and poets were inserting those words in order to make their texts to look more 'beautiful'... But they are only making a language that is supposed to be simple, more complex.

I remember reading that same article, Daniel, and I believe she called it (in Esperanto) Poets Are Destroying Our Language--or something to that effect. Obviously an accomplished Esperantist, she gave examples of words that had been coined because they seemed prettier or handier (to someone who speaks a Romance language), but could have been expressed with already-existing, standard Esperanto. She pointed out that this was unnecessarily cluttering the language, and that real poetic talent is shown in finding innovative ways to use what's already there.

What concerns me is that these newly coined, unnecessary words are not limiting themselves to poetry or higher levels of discourse, but are coming out in everyday usage. Believe me, I'm NOT one of these fanatical purists who can't stand to see anything new developed, particularly if it enables people to express a thought concisely and precisely without a lot of circumlocution. But "maljuna" is neither awkward nor too long, and it's not ugly to pronounce. "Olda", on the other hand, is just an English word with an Esperanto ending.

Make any perfect thing, give it to people and they will spoil it. That is the rule. And that's why Zamenhof created "Fundamento".

Hospitalo appeared when some users of esperanto claimed that malsanulejo (sanigejo) was not recognized internationally. I think, that you are not obliged to use such words if you do not like them. Treat them as kind of alternatives that sometimes get handy:
olda - oldgreka - malnovgreka
stalo - ĉevalejo (-ejo is better because I can almost immediately create porkejo, bovinejo, kokejo, hundejo, krokodilejo, simiejo, birdejo... - with dedicated words I am lost, I have to learn them by heart).

Polaris:... "Olda", on the other hand, is just an English word with anEsperanto ending.

Each esperanto root belongs to some language. You can not complain about that. There is a rule that says: if a word becomes internationally recognized, it is the esperanto word. I don't know if this "olda" is international (as a child I read Karol May's Winetou and Old-Shatterhand) so I happen to know the word. In other languages it has many different forms:

Polish: stary
Spanish: viejo
German: alt
English: old

Perhaps there are people who think every English word is internationally recognizable - well, they are wrong. If I say "hello, old" to my mother-in-law she answers nothing, which is not strange at all, because she usually answers nothing when I am talking to her in any language I know.

I don't know the context where you saw olda but I haven't ever it used as a synonym for "malnova".

I have heard it used very occasionally as a synonym for "maljuna", with a pejorative connotation that implies being behind the times and out of date. I would consider that a slang usage. In that usage, a "maljunulo" is a person who is old, but an "oldulo" is an old person who is resistant to change and difficult to deal with.

I do hear "hospitalo" in use by some experienced Esperantists. I say "malsanulejo" myself. Some people perhaps don't like malsanulejo because of the connotation of being sick, and you are not necessarily sick, exactly, when going to a hospital (you may be going for preventative care, or to give birth). But in fact I have never asked anyone who regularly used "hospitalo" about the reasons for their choice.

It may give you some comfort to know that things sometimes go in the opposite direction. Years back, the Academy of Esperanto recommended the word "komputero" to mean "computer". Today, only old people tend to use this word. Most people say "komputilo", a word formed from existing Esperanto roots.

Technically this word already had the meaning of being some kind of a meter, like a gas meter, but the meaning shifted. I suppose that you talk about computers and gas meters in very different contexts, so you could still use it for both and context would make your meaning clear.

The neologisms in Esperanto certainly have their place - a modern language needs to evolve with the modern world. I'm fine, for example, with "tviti" for "to tweet", as "pepi" is the tweeting of birds, not the clicking of keys. One word, one meaning was one of the fundamental principles of the language, wasn't it? Likewise, when a neologism reflects the most international form of a word, that seems fair enough. "Fritoj" has gone a long way to replacing "terpomfingroj", which, given the potential frequency of its use also seems fair enough. Maybe there's a case for hospitalo. Who's for "ĉipoj" for chips/crisps, by the way?

Where it becomes a problem for me is when timeless concepts get revised into a more (lazy) English form, like "olda". How ugly is that? Also, as razlem pointed out, "malolda" really starts to muddy the waters.

"Mal" is a wonderful gift - in what other language can you virtually double your vocabulary with a single syllable? Maybe "hospitalo" makes sense to some extent, but if you can't at least understand "malsanulejo" you have a long way to go with Esperanto and have no business adopting neologisms.

henma:olda/trista/leva/kurta ... I don't see a great advantage... on the contrary, we are just making it more complex for komencantoj... We are just adding exceptions to a language, which is good because it doesn't have exceptions (at least, not obvious ones).

Why varma/malvarma, luma/malluma, aktiva/malaktiva, sana/malsana, but nova/olda, dekstra/leva, etc.?

I disagree greatly.
For example, what is the opposite of malgaja gaja (thanks 3rdblade!)?
Sad? Angry? Or just "upset"? Thus, trista can be quite useful, for those who want to accurately describe their feelings. If I'm angry it's different to being sad, if I'm sad, it's different to more precise feelings like feeling loss or frustration.

And we've already discussed liva vs. maldekstra a lot, but basically my point boils down to why it's "maldekstra" for left, as opposed to "malliva" for right? Left isn't a true opposite of right, it's just another direction (or another way to think of it is if left is the opposite of right, then right is the opposite of left, but that's impossible with one root isn't it? Malmaldekstra? ).

Olda I don't get the point of though, and on PMEG it does explain that this one isn't necessarily as useful if I remember it correctly. As Erinja said, it seems colloquial in use.

As for malvarma, well, the cold is technically the absence of warmth. So is darkness to light, and I'd argue new to old too. That said, some of the "useless" opposite pairs have been used deceptively within the language alot, like "fridujo" (frida), and there was another one which I forgot.

As for "kurta", it's probably not as useful, but I have a soft spot for it anyway, perhaps because "kurta" appeals to my minimalistic tendencies somehow . I think terms like these are also used in technical writing.

Polaris:However, the longer I am involved in the movement and reading contemporary Esperanto, the LONGER the list of new words gets--even when perfectly good words already exist.

On the contrary, wouldn't those words have already existed before you started learning, and you just discovered them later? (sorry, I couldn't help but make an annoying comment like that... too much chocolate cake makes me think too much!)

...

Anyway, I think it's worth mentioning that less roots does not really equal simplicity. After all, you HAVE to make a new "word" eventually, whether through the mal- system or not, so in the end the learner still has to learn which words "don't exist" because you only make them through a mal- construction.

For things like sadness, left, etc, it doesn't entirely make sense to use the mal- system, other than the fact they're most used.

For that reason, "liva", "trista", laŭ mi are very useful, and I simply hold a soft spot for other pairs for reasons of clarity (basically kurta and frida). I think the prevalent use of "mal-" is double-edged and dangerous for that reason, and I don't really like it. Simplifies and sullies the true meaning of words IMHO.

That last sentence of mine though is more opinion than intelligent discussion though, so feel free to mallegi it
=====

EDIT: And the final bit of verbal diarrhoea - computers do perfectly well with two roots - 0 and 1. Very simple, beautiful system.

011000100111010101
110100001000000110100101110011001000000110100
101110100001000000111001001100101011000010110
110001101100011110010010000001110100011010000
110000101110100001000000111000001110010011000
010110001101110100011010010110001101100001011
011000010000001100110011011110111001000100000
011010000111010101101101011000010110111001110
01100111111

ceigered:I disagree greatly.
For example, what is the opposite of malgaja?

... Is it 'gaja'?

Ah, I'm just crankin' ya!