Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: ka la .espon. na logji se jicmu (Re: One point against Esperanto)
Message-ID: <D6Brqq.K29@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <D64E7D.I3A@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D680oK.IEu@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 21:59:12 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <D680oK.IEu@cix.compulink.co.uk> antony@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Antony Rawlinson") writes:
[to me]
>[...] I don't think it changes my basic point that Esperanto is
>designed to follow logic.  By this I did not mean to a rigorous
>mathematical degree, but that word-formation and grammar
>are not subject to arbitrary exceptions.
>
>This contrasts with Occidental, for example, [...]

Fair enough.  Very few of the truly illogical features of SAE have
made it into Esperanto, and that sets it apart from Occidental and
Interlingua.  I took issue with your statement that its structure
followed logic *rather than* SAE, because I see many SAE features
in it.  It has a regular morphology, to be sure, but it's obvious
that its designer has been working with the Romance, Germanic and
Slavic languages in mind.

>I don't know anything about Lojban, I'm afraid, and if you think that
>it improves on Esperanto in the logic stakes, who am I to disagree?

I should've made it clear that it was not really my intent to judge
Esperanto by Lojbanic standards, merely to show why I wasn't prepared
to take your word (or anyone else's) in such matters.

>> Let's begin by looking at the basic order.  E-o is SVO (unmarked); ... 
>
>Esperanto is not SVO.  Word-order is whatever is chosen by the speaker or 
>writer (the accusative ending allows this).

Are all word orders semantically equivalent?  No emphasis indicated?
By `SVO (unmarked)' I meant `SVO unless discourse structure suggests
something else', as opposed to `SVO (rigid)'.

>>            indicative    participle
>>   active   _Xas_         _Xanta_
>>   passive  _estas Xata_  _Xata_
>
>Functionally, the suffix -ig^- serves this purpose.

Yes.  So the active voice of another (intransitive) verb fills a gap
in the paradigm. a gap whose presence looks as though it's due to
Romance/Germanic/Slavic influence, because those languages (among
others, of course) tend to have it.  I'm not saying that this gap
is so illogical that you should give up Esperanto because of it, but
let us not underestimate the _a priori_ component in its grammar.

Note that in Volapu"k there's perfect symmetry: voice and finiteness
are orthogonal, and there is only one participle, which is active or
passive depending on its being formed from an active or passive verb.
It looks as though E-o is an exprovement over Vp in the logic stakes.

>The passive form [...] is not often used in E-o, and expressions
>using it in English are generally rendered using -ig^- [...]

Are we talking of the same form?  In English that would be
_is being Xed_, as opposed to the active _is Xing_.

>> ... What does _neebla_ mean?  Is it a negation of _ebla_
>> (`impossible') or a potential of _ne-_ (`deniable')?  If it can
>> mean either, then E-o derivation is unnecessarily ambiguous,
>> otherwise it is subject to random restrictions.
>
>"Neebla" means "impossible", simply because the primary meaning of the 
>word "ne" is "not".  "Nei" (to deny, or contradict) is a secondary 
>meaning.

I'm not sure I know what a secondary meaning is, but never mind.

>Hardly a random restriction.

Still, it is an interesting case of a verb from which a potential
in _-ebl-_ can not be formed.  Hardly a triumph of logic.

-- 
`"Na, na ... ah mean, *no wey*, wi aw due respect, ma lady," stammers Joe.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
