For example, there is often looting after a natural disaster, which can often be a case of people calmly walking into buildings to take what they want

Absolutely, Chainy, and this well illustrates the gap between pillaging and looting.

Lots of questions, tricky to find any clear answers...

Ain't that the truth!

And this brings us back to the starting point of this thread.

I think that the ultimate solution is to get rid of this idea of Esperanto as a mature language, ready and poised, just waiting in the wings to take on its destined lingua franca role.

Instead, we need to view it as a work in progress (as certainly the early adherents did), and stop making extravagant claims for it.

This attitude will clear the way for plugging the gaps and innovating more aggressively.

Whether the story in the news is riots in English towns, or gyrations on the world stock exchanges, or whatever the topic, we need the appropriate vocabulary.

Miland:
Exchange the sounds in bold, in the successive pairs. Get it now?

Dis reviĝo!

ah, ok, now i get it.

Esperanto's lexical strengths are, I suppose, a reflection of the interests of the Esperanto speaking community.

A lot of Esperantists are into computers - the language seems to attract system thinkers - and here the root stock and the determination of meanings of compound words through usage seem well developed.

The linguists and language enthusiasts are also thick on the ground and have a rich vocabulary.

On the other hand, those interested in financial and commercial transactions are less well represented and in this field the lexical development seems distinctly patchy.

I guess that Zamenhof wasn't into discussing his share portfolio, and neither have been his successors.

So when it comes to expressing the ideas of 'trade' 'deal' 'bargain' 'spread' 'volatility' 'ETF's' 'Unit Trusts' 'Funds' etc.' the resources seem limited - unless I am mistaken.

In such areas, it becomes exasperating, after a while, trying to use Esperanto's wordbuilding features, straitjacketing these notions into the confines of a too limited root stock.

We are dealing not so much with a problem in principle here. The solution is obvious. But it does require a recognition of the deficiency in order to deal with it.

I would be nice to see a serious attempt to compile all the lame compound translations in dictionaries like Benson and Wells and identify the areas where extra terms need to be created from which more 'trafaj tradukoj' could be created.

This is, of course, no criticism of these notable lexicogaphers whose contributions are to be respected. But there are limits to Esperanto's wordbuilding system - it can be stretched only so far.

sudanglo:Instead, we need to view it as a work in progress (as certainly the early adherents did), and stop making extravagant claims for it.

A language is hardly incomplete just because we can't translate "looting" 100%.

Japanese uses "1st" instead of "best", I guess that's a work in progress too . (Train in Indonesian is made from "kereta" (cart/car) and "api" (fire) in a noun-adjective combination, rather than a single word too).

I mean, we can still express the concept of looting as "anarkia grupŝtelado" (or amaseŝtelado or something like that). Or even just "anarkia ŝtelado". Actually, looting is stealing in times of war, rioting, group violence or in the wake of a natural disaster, ergo we could have under "anarkia ŝtelado":
turmultŝtelado (riot-stealing)
militŝtelado (war-stealing)
ĥaosaŝtelado/kaosaŝtelado (chaos-stealing)

etc

But I'll agree that Esperanto is not set in concrete, but I don't think there are any who treat it as such.

sudanglo:I would be nice to see a serious attempt to compile all the lame compound translations in dictionaries like Benson and Wells...

I think one of the major criticisms of Benson is that he gives too MANY neologisms, not too few.

Ceiger, I have no doubt that if you search the worlds languages, you may find any number of odd compound words, that usage has determined specific meanings for, and which are not too obvious from the meanings of the components.

But if you allow that sort of thing on a conparable scale in Esperanto, you end up undermining the advantages of Esperanto's word-building system.

There's little benefit, if you have you learn the specific meanings of compounds, and can't readily interpret them in context - or create them on the fly.

That imposes a learning load not much different for having to learn a neologismo.

Your 'amata ĉevaleto' is to see Esperanto as just like a natural language. It isn't, and must necessarily be different.

The problems with translating 'to loot', as discussed here, are merely illustrative of a general problem.

sudanglo:Ceiger, I have no doubt that if you search the worlds languages, you may find any number of odd compound words, that usage has determined specific meanings for, and which are not too obvious from the meanings of the components.

But if you allow that sort of thing on a conparable scale in Esperanto, you end up undermining the advantages of Esperanto's word-building system.

There's little benefit, if you have you learn the specific meanings of compounds, and can't readily interpret them in context - or create them on the fly.

That imposes a learning load not much different for having to learn a neologismo.

[..]

The problems with translating 'to loot', as discussed here, are merely illustrative of a general problem.

I'm pretty sure you're seeing overblown problems. We don't need to cause compounds to have their meanings diverged from their actual forms, since we can express enough as is, perhaps with just a little few neologisms, but there's no serious demand or lack we should be worried about.

You yourself should know not everything is 100% translateable in the same form (e.g. 1 word, 1 verb etc) as the original. Additionally, you haven't shown anything that's impossible to translate. I've already demonstrated ways you can describe the concept of looting, while still using words with their original meanings in a perfectly understandable and matter-of-fact form.

So, please give a list of things that you think are untranslatable, and I'm sure using the system we have now we can translate them as much as humanly possible.

Your 'amata ĉevaleto' is to see Esperanto as just like a natural language. It isn't, and must necessarily be different.

It's evolved like a natural language, is used like a natural language, has the form of a natural language, and ultimately apart from its initial origins is a natural language now.

The problem is that you see natural languages as being inherently bad or chaotic or having problems that Esperanto solves. I hate to burst your bubble, but that's not how all natural languages have to be, and Esperanto's not so free of your perceived imperfections. You want that, you've got Lojban, which currently stands as the language with the best ability to be perfectly clear and free of uncontrollable evolution in all of human history

(not to mention bare few want to learn a language that's treated or maintained to be perfectly artificial, which is why despite being usable as you'd use a natural language, Lojban has barely any speakers despite many people going "that's a neat idea")

I see that we are unlikely to agree on this Ceiger.

Let me just say that there is litle point to Esperanto if it is just going to be another natural language, prone to all the vagaries of accumulation of historical baggage that natural languages cannot escape from (la 'blinda evoluo').

My viewpoint is, of course, here the same as that expounded by Zamenhof on the advantages of an artificial language. And agreeing with Zamenhof doesn't imply the non sequitur of me fancying Lojban. Not all artificial languages are equal.

The issue about 'looting' is not that this action cannot be explained with a sentence in Esperanto, but the uncertainty in expressing this idea economically

Who is to say whether 'oportun-ŝteli' or 'disrabi' or 'ĥaos-ŝteli' are good translations in the absence of compelling usage, or authoritative definition.

On the other hand 'stelfiguro' is sufficiently descriptive to be self-explanatory.

A compilation of concepts that are currently difficult to express precisely and briefly is an excellent idea.

sudanglo:I see that we are unlikely to agree on this Ceiger.

Probably

Let me just say that there is litle point to Esperanto if it is just going to be another natural language, prone to all the vagaries of accumulation of historical baggage that natural languages cannot escape from (la 'blinda evoluo').

Well, that's your fault, not mine, that you wouldn't be able to like it if it evolved in a way you seem to be repulsed by. And a natural langauge doesn't have to develop irregularities etc. The community just has to do its part to trim the language and keep it clean (aka "keep literacy rates at 100% percent"). Like I've said before, that's incredibly hard if the dedicated users are outnumbered too much.

Not all artificial languages are equal.

I honestly don't know what you really think about artificial langauges. You seem to just like Esperanto, and then claim it's a perfect artificial language so you don't have to have a conflict of interests. Wouldn't it just be easier to come to terms with whatever you're "afraid of admitting" about Esperanto?

Because, if we're talking about no equality, then Esperanto's surely not that superior to anything. I'd jump ship to Ido if I was worried about the language remaining artificial. Sure, the community size and development is playing catchup to Esperanto, but you either have gotta accept Esperanto for what it is realistically. Your viewpoints about how it shouldn't be just "another language" go contrary to how many treat and use the language.

The issue about 'looting' is not that this action cannot be explained with a sentence in Esperanto, but the uncertainty in expressing this idea economically

Who is to say whether 'oportun-ŝteli' or 'disrabi' or 'ĥaos-ŝteli' are good translations in the absence of compelling usage, or authoritative definition.

Common-sense states it. One bad thing about modernity is that we think a word sucks or doesn't work if it's rare, even if it's logical and makes sense. But that's obviously just a temporary attitude, otherwise there'd be no words in the English language.

I mean, someone had to come up for a word for the telephone, and then it caught on, even though it's ambiguous for a word.

This argument's been said before though to some of the chaps who've come around with XYZ improvements for Esperanto. The principal is the same. You don't know if a word is perfect? Put it out there and see what others say. Otherwise, you're merely a puppet to your own conservative choices in grabbing words from the dictionary. Being criticised for a bad choice of wording isn't that bad is it?

And a natural language doesn't have to develop irregularities etc.

But this is highly characteristic of natural languages.

The chances of English developing a rational orthography or French getting rid of its irregular verbs is just about zero.

Historical continuity is the over-riding factor, and there is no basis for resolving any conflict between that and a more rational development.

Of course, historical continuity is important also in Esperanto but in the lexical field there is a basis for such resolution.

In the Darwinian evolution of 'suck it and see' proposals, citeria are applied consistent with the essential structural features and the raison d'être of Esperanto.

Zamenhof saw quite clearly that you cannot rationalise the natural languages. You have to start from scratch with a new language with consistency built into its very foundations.

You cannot use the Humpty-Dumpty approach to the meaning of Esperanto compound words.

Esperanto will forever be distinguished from the natural languages, or lose its defining characteristics in degenerating to 'la blinda evoluo' of the natural languages - in which case it also loses its raison d'être, and in which case there's not much point to it.

It must remain essentially 'artificial' and its superiority over other artifical languages whilst owing much to its structural features comes in no small part from the destructive testing in an international setting to the point that much meaning can be expressed with certainty.

That doesn't mean however that the job is finished.