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!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: One point against Esperanto
References: <D4wsoy.7y3@indirect.com>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 115
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 02:42:17 +0000
Message-ID: <794457737snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <D4wsoy.7y3@indirect.com>
           stevemac@bud.indirect.com "Stefano MacGregor" writes:
> Lastatempe skribis philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk jene:
>   [ on what would be gained by modifying Esperanto to omit the accusative 
> ending, and abolishing adjective agreement ]
> 
> >Objectively: it would make the language easier to learn, because there
> >would be less complexity ([fewer] endings to learn). Many people learning
> >Esperanto already know a European language which has lots of similar
> >words to Esperanto. It would be help these people to stop the connection
> >between the Esperanto word and the corresponding word in their native
> >language, if the Esperanto word didn't have extraneous endings.
> 
>   All that would be gained is a bit more immediate recognizability to 
> someone who has not yeat begun to learn Esperanto.  Although this ability 
> would be neat and groovy, it would not actually be all that useful.

I think it would be useful. The quicker someone can read a language,
the more painless that language is to learn, since once one has a basic
ability in it, one can gain enjoyment from reading texts it in, which
also increases one's knowledge of it.
 
> > Example:
> >   Esperanto:     vasta
> >   Inflected:     vastajn     (Plural+Object)
> >   English:       vast
> >
> >"vasta" looks a lot like "vast". "vastajn" looks less like "vast".
> 
>   This is a good example of your objection, and also of my reply.  A 
> non-Esperantist sees the entire inflected word, and doesn't recognize 
> it.  You see this as a bad thing; I see it as irrelevant.  Someone who 
> has actually studied Esperanto for a few hours begins to see the parts 
> that the words are constructed from -- in this case vast/a/j/n, and 
> recognizes that the root of the word, 'vast-', is the only part that he 
> should attempt to recognize in other languages.

I agree, once you know the constructions it doesn't make much difference.
But it still makes some difference, as as the reader's brain must process 
the "vastajn" to split it up into "vast-a-j-n". This takes a finite time.
OK for an accomplished Esperantist there is probably no difference, but
for someone who is only a few weeks into learning the language there is
a difference.
 
>        [  on the accusative-N ending:  ]
> 
> >Subjectively: I personally don't like the -n ending.
> >Its only benefit is that it allows one to put the object before the
> >subject.
> 
>   No, it has other benefits as well, such as allowing adjectives to come 
> either before or after the nouns they modify.  Here's a contrived example:
> 
>   Li farbis la bluan domon  -->  He painted the blue house.   
>   Li farbis la domon bluan  -->  He painted the =blue= house. 

There are plenty of other ways to emphasize "blue", apart from word order.
Such as your use of "=".

> >However E-o has other ways of doing that (passive verb constructions), so
> >it is superfluous.
> 
>   On the other hand, Esperanto has the accusative-N ending, making passive
> verb constructions easier to avoid than in English. 
> 
>   In short, there is no list of all features possessed by all languages, 
> in which every item can be unarguably marked either "mmandatory" or 
> "forbidden" for inclusion in an ideal constructed language.  Virtually 
> =every= feature is superfluous. 

I agree, the individual features are not so important on their own, but
in how they interact to make up the structure of the lang. Everything is
connected to everything else.

> Example, Japanese has no articles, 
> pronouns, or future tense, and yet it can actually be spoken and understood.

Japanese does have pronouns. Eg "watashi" = I.
 
> >Adjectival agreement is also superfluous. 
> 
>   Try an experiment:  see what English would be like if you left out the 
> following things that you believe are superfluous in Esperanto!
> 
>   * Adjectival agreement -- expunge the words "these" and "those" from 
> your vocabulary.  Use "this" and "that" as well.
>   * Case-distinctions -- expunge all subjective- and possessive-case
> pronouns, and use the objective only, and omit the possessive forms of all
> nouns.  (I,my,me) --> (me); (who,whose,whom) --> (whom); (they,their,them)
> --> (them). 

I never said that possessive pronouns are superfluous in Esperanto.

>   * What the heck.  Expunge superfluous verb-inflections, while you're at
> it.  (am,is,are) --> (be).  This has the advantage of removing one of
> English's spelling bugbears: the their-there-they're decision, since
> "their" would become "them", and "they're" would become "them be". 
> 
>   This modified English would work just as surely as real English does, 
> but would it be =better=?

What do you mean by better?

As a means of expressing oneself, it would work just as well. In fact 
there's a lot else that could be changed: shall/should is superfluous
and can be replaced by will/would, the spelling needs reforming, phrasal
verbs are illogical and hard for foreigners to learn. Irregular verbs
and nouns are obviously a no-no.

All these changes would make English easier to learn, so in that sense
it would be better.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
"Illiterate? Write today for free help!" -- anon
