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!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: One point against Esperanto
Distribution: inet
References: <D4s7G6.Foo@indirect.com> <794201221snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk> <MRA.95Mar9005202@rhea.hut.fi>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 98
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 04:10:16 +0000
Message-ID: <794981416snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <MRA.95Mar9005202@rhea.hut.fi>
           mra@rhea.hut.fi "Marko Rauhamaa" writes:
> >>   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".
> 
> (First of all, "vasta" means "wide"     (Unue mi diru, ke "vasta" signifas
> so the resemblance might cause          "wide", do la simileco eble pli
> confusion rather than help speak the    kauxzas konfuzon ol helpas paroli la
> language.  The English "vast" is        lingvon.  La angla "vast" estas
> "vastega" in Esperanto.)                "vastega" esperante.)

I think I could live with the confusion. "vasta" and "vast" mean almost
the same thing.
 
> >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.
> 
> But that benefit is immense!  Please    Sed la profito estas grandega!

I think we will have to agree to differ here.

I have read that the -n ending is the one feature of Esperanto that
beginers have most problems with.

> The Esperanto passive is hardly ever    La esperantan pasivon oni apenaux
> used.  I dare say the passive forms     iam uzas.  Mi kuragxas diri, ke
> are also hard to learn.  Look at        ankaux la pasivajn formojn estas
> these sentences:                        malfacile lerni.  Rigardu jenajn
>                                         frazojn:
> 
>     Two million people speak Esperanto.
>     Du milionoj da homoj parolas esperanton.

I don't think passives are particularly difficult (in English or
Esperanto). If we have

spoken,parolata = of that which someone speaks

Then the meaning of:
   Esperanto is spoken.
   Esperanto estas parolata.

is pertty much determined by the menaings of 'is/estas' and 
'spoken/parolata'.

> Now if you want a different emphasis    Se oni volas malsimilan emfazon (kaj
> (as you often do), you say simply       oni ofte volas), oni diras simple
> 
>     Esperanto is spoken by two million people.
>     Esperanton parolas du milionoj da homoj.

In English the change of emphasis is done in an even more natural way:
you just speak the emphasised words more loudly. In writing you can *mark*
them as bold text.

> Your complaint about inflections        Oni povus pluigi vian plendon pri
> could be taken further.  A Chinese      fleksioj.  Cxino eble dirus, ke oni
> person might say that there's no        tute ne bezonas pluralan formon aux
> need for a plural form or verb          verbtempojn, ne menciante
> tenses, let alone verb moods.           verbmodojn.

That could indeed be done. Eg an adverb could be used to mark tenses.

> So many times the English-speakers      Tre ofte anglalingvuloj pretendas,
> claim their language is very simple     ke ilia lingvo estas tre simpla (gxi

I certainly don't claim that!

> (after all, it follows the natural      ja sekvas la naturan vojon de homa
> course of human thought!).  They        pensado!).  Al ili malprosperas vidi
> fail to see the word order patterns     la vortordajn formulojn, kiujn oni
> that are needed to replace the          bezonas por anstatauxi la
> inflectional system.  If English        fleksisistemon.  Se oni uzu la
> were to be used as an example for       anglan kiel modelon por esperanto,
> Esperanto, the grammar books would      la gramatiklibroj devus trakti la
> have to deal with the allowed word      permesatajn vortordojn kaj iliajn
> orders and their meanings.  And I       signifojn.  Kaj mi dubas, ke ilin
> doubt they would be as easy to          estus tiel facile sistemigi kiel
> systematize as inflections are.         fleksiojn.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
"on no pos fac omelet, opcum brekigation ovums"
