У садржају
Одговорити

Globish wordlist

од ceigered, 17. јул 2011.

Поруке: 15

Језик: English

ceigered (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 10.36.48

I wanted to split this off from "Did you do any effort" since it's sort of offtopic.

Anyway, this is apparently a wordlist for Globish (1500 or so words).

Globish word list. (Note: it's in two parts, A-M and N-Z)

Two things - anyone think an Esperanto translation/equivalent is worth it? And if so, anyone got a flat list of those words in say .txt format?

Or has anyone done a similar thing with Esperanto?

While not entirely empirical-looking, it does seem to have a useful mentality behind it, focussing on what many English learners might find most useful. (More information at the bottom of this page - now if only I could find sites that didn't look like advertising).

darkweasel (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 11.36.56

ceigered:
Or has anyone done a similar thing with Esperanto?
Yes, it's called Baza Radikaro Oficiala.

ceigered (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 12.44.43

darkweasel:
ceigered:
Or has anyone done a similar thing with Esperanto?
Yes, it's called Baza Radikaro Oficiala.
Crap, looks like I accidentally deleted the bit that said "not necessarily roots, but words as well"...

But thanks anyway okulumo.gif

(Are all the roots in the BRO of the same scope as things like Globish?)

erinja (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 14.26.54

Roots and words are the same thing in Esperanto. How can you distinguish? Should you write separate entries for komb/i, komb/il/o, and komb/ad/o?

If you know the definition of the root komb/, then you can make all of these words. Therefore a list of roots would be the most logical way to prepare such a list in Esperanto.

sudanglo (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 14.32.35

May I just point out that 'Did you do any effort' is Globish for 'Have you done anything (Have you made any effort)'.

One error of tense and one failure to understand the difference between 'do' and 'make'. Two fundamental mistakes in 5 words - that's about par for Globish.

ceigered (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 16.43.41

@ Erinja: No probs then, just that sometimes you get some useful things that are hard to think of at the time. And sometimes not having a translation into a full word complete with multiple roots and affixes etc can lead people to try and make a word that doesn't have the right meaning, is too vague, or doesn't make sense. But if you reckon there's none that are worth pointing out, then I guess that's OK.

(I just like catering to those who like to dissect words as much as they like to construct them haha)

---

@ Sudanglo.
"Have you done anything" is perfect Nerrière's Globish.*

The second link is also an entire text using the recommendations given by Nerrière, which I guess you could call "perfect English" (Nerrière would prefer the name "Globish" though).

What you're referring to it being on par with is broken English, which in this case would also be broken Globish (actually, correct Globish cannot be broken English, from what I've seen).

For actual deficiencies in the Globish strategy, you could make the argument that some overzealous users might consider more technical vocabulary (like preserve/conserve, DNA (in full)) not part of the language, but then again, what we consider technical vocab in English generally isn't really English either, so too hard to argue about.

I digress though.

*(The list here isn't perfectly comprehensive, but "any", "thing", and all forms of the verb "do" are included in the recommendations for Globish. Globish however is a nickname for Global English, but I think it's unfair to call broken English global English. I don't call people in the UK who speak like "oi ma'e, wajja doen da" while intoxicated representative of perfect English, do I?)

ceigered (Погледати профил) 17. јул 2011. 16.54.06

Actually, to put this as simple as possible in an effort to clear up misunderstandings with you and others Sudanglo, Globish is really just a set of recommendations and a fancy name, that is essentially Simple/Simplified English with more words allowed.

That's it. Broken English is broken Globish. Broken Globish is broken English. Link explains more.

Ergo Broken English is merely Broken English...

geo63 (Погледати профил) 21. јул 2011. 19.34.13

Globish is the present and the future of English as the international language before it will be replaced by next-to-come superpower's means of international communication. In fact most foreigners are using Globish, even without konowing that fact. Using English would require to become an Englishman - unrealistic and total waste of time since Globish is doing its job well enough... rido.gif

sudanglo (Погледати профил) 21. јул 2011. 22.28.17

Problem is Geo, if Globish works well enough, then why do we need Esperanto?

I think you are quite right in supposing that most foreigners are using Globish without being aware how different that is to the English of a native speaker.

You might argue, somewhat paradoxically, that it is the English native speakers who have most need of Esperanto as an international language, as it is for this group that Globish is most unsatisfactory.

geo63 (Погледати профил) 22. јул 2011. 06.50.28

sudanglo:Problem is Geo, if Globish works well enough, then why do we need Esperanto?
The answer is very simple - if we stick to English, it will be Globish - a primitive language, capable of expresing only basic ideas (asking way, direction, booking tickets, shopping). If we choose Esperanto, we will have a full language with no limitations Globish brings. Of course this is not going to happen... at least not in hundred years.

Вратите се горе