Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.politics.ec
From: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: One point against Esperanto
References: <D4s7G6.Foo@indirect.com>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 32
X-Posting-Host: office.demon.net
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 03:27:01 +0000
Message-ID: <794201221snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <D4s7G6.Foo@indirect.com>
           stevemac@bud.indirect.com "Stefano MacGregor" writes:
> Lastatempe skribis philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk jene
>   [parolante pri supozaj "plibonig`oj" je Esperanto]:
> >While they're at it they could also abolish the -n accusative ending,
> >and adjective agreement using -j.
> 
>   Yes, they =could=, but what would the reason be?  What would be 
> =gained= by these losses?

Objectively: it would make the language easier to learn, because
there would be less complexity (less endings to learn). Many people 
learning E-o already know a European language which has lots of similar
words to E-o. It would be help these people to stop the connection 
between the E-o word and the corresponding word in their native language,
if the E-o word didn't have extraneous endings. Example:

   Esperanto:     vasta
   Inflected:     vastajn     (Plural+Object)
   English:       vast

"vasta" looks a lot like "vast". "vastajn" looks less like "vast".


Subjectively: I personally don't like the -n ending. Its only benefit
is that it allows one to put the object before the subject. However
E-o has other ways of doing that (passive verb constructions), so it is
superfluous. Adjectival agreement is also superfluous.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
