LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG Archives

AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG  May 1998, Week 1

AUXLANG May 1998, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Li'll Poem (was: Occidental & Universality

From:

Jay Bowks <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

International Auxiliary Languages <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 2 May 1998 18:04:00 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (205 lines)

I wrote...
>Sometimes it is better to make soothing statements that
>leave an open invitation for the listener... It is always
better
>to center on winning the person not the argument... =BFQu=E9 s=ED?
>
Don wrote...
99% agreement. But then ... every now and then, I encounter
somebody I'd
just as soon leave on the other side -- with egg on her face.
Let her be
their problem, not mine.
 
To which I respond...
 
Well, way to go Don, if anything you get an A+ for being a good
sport 99% of the time :-) BTW I did enjoy the little poem a lot.
It's a keeper!
 
Thanks,
Jay B.
 
 
--
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
http://adam.cheshire.net/~jjbowks/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list AUXLANG
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Occidental & Universality
 
 
Je 06:47 atm 5/1/98 -0400, Jay BOWKS skribis:
 
>[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
> http://adam.cheshire.net/~jjbowks/index.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>fro: Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]>
>dat: Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:11 PM
 
>>I'd be a bit suspicious of any of these word lists if they are
>as badly
>>done and incorrect as the above.
>
>Hmmm, let's see that is a strong statement, Don. I can't say
>about
>the Czech but the French sure rings true, and the Eo you
correct
>below doesn't disprove anything, in fact it is just as
>puzzling... So
>how is this "as badly done and incorrect" or are you just
>flinging
>words out of discontent? :-)
>
See my answer to Bob's recent posting.
 
>>Naturally, I'm not about to say that the
>>France's, Tchec or Occidental columns are wrong, but the
person
>who wrote
>
>(French, Czech)
>
Strange, I could swear that the headers said "France's, Tchec"
;<)
 
>>To take one example: I suppose there is some advantage in
being
>able to
>>recognize one word at first sight -- even if only a minority
of
>the world's
>
>Indeed, Don, quite an advantage I'd say.
>
For those who (a) can, and (b) don't have much of an interest in
responding
... right.
 
>>people can do this -- rather than spending five minutes
>learning how to
>>recognize a hundred similar words, as well as how to _produce_
>them.
>>"Malkonstruema", a perfectly legitimate word which simply
>doesn't happen to
>>mean the same as "destructive", is a good example (I'm not
sure
>what the
>>English equivalent would be -- "deconstructive"???). It
doesn't
>take all
>>that long to learn how to use both MAL- and -EM-; then,
knowing
>the roots,
>>you immediately know, or can create, words such as
"maldormema"
>=3D
>>insomniac, "malfidelema" =3D having a wandering eye,
>"maldetruema" =3D being a
>>fighter against entropy, "malhonestema" =3D ... well, perhaps we
>should leave
>>that last one alone.
>>
>
>Goodness gratious! My word! Don, don't you agree that
>you have to have a certain frame of mind in order to go
>for these constructions. I mean, there's a certain groove
>or vibe or wave you need to get your mind in for this to
>stick, sort of like a rut :-) "mal-funny" :-))) =BFQu=E9 no?
>
Well, strangely enough, lots of people even start out in this
frame of
mind. For instance, those who speak Chinese (more than all the
speakers of
all the Romance languages put together) put new words together
in _exactly_
this groove. Claude PIRON, who taught himself Chinese (well,
with the aid
of some of his Esperanto-speaking friends in China) well enough
to have
used it in his work when he was a translator for the WHO, loves
to give
examples of Chinese "template expressions" that match up with
Esperanto
"template expressions" such as the above -- the one I remember
offhand is
"tong X ren" =3D "samXano", where X can be any of "ideo",
"religio",
"lernejo", "klaso", "nomo", "lito", "=E6ambro", etc., etc., or (in
the first
part) their Chinese equivalents. (Seems to work in some other
languages, as
well; I may have mentioned that my boss, who is Vietnamese, got
very upset
when he discovered that the Esperanto "samideano" has exactly
the same
construction and the same intrinsic meaning as the Vietnamese
equivalent of
"comrade".)
 
As to how easy it is to acquire that frame of mind ... I don't
know. I
didn't find it very hard.
 
As to whether it constitutes a rut ... I've always enjoyed ruts,
ha-ha.
(Little joke for those among us who (a) speak English natively
and (b) can
ignore their finer sensibilities from time to time.)
 
>>Well, to get back to the original topic -- I will feel no
>rancor about such
>>comparative word lists, even if the words themselves are
>carefully selected
 
>>to prove a point -- as long as the selection is done honestly,
>and words
>>that are actually used are presented. But the one you quote
>above says
>>considerably less about either Esperanto or Occidental than it
>does about
>>the individual who put it together.
>>
>
>Yup, I agree, but I think this was exactly part of Bob's point.
>Sometimes it is better to make soothing statements that
>leave an open invitation for the listener... It is always
better
>to center on winning the person not the argument... =BFQu=E9 s=ED?
>
99% agreement. But then ... every now and then, I encounter
somebody I'd
just as soon leave on the other side -- with egg on her face.
Let her be
their problem, not mine.
 
To close, and having nothing to do with anything else in this
posting (I'm
serious!), here's a "cute" little poem by K. Kalocsay that I've
used to
show the distinction between Esperanto "por" and "pro". Anybody
have a
problem figuring it out? (It's a _utao_, I think, what's often
called
"tanka" in English -- five lines of 5, 7, 5, 7, 7 syllables.)
 
LA HISTORIO
 
La patroj sangas
Por la futur' de l' filoj,
La filoj sangas
Pro la pase' de l' patroj:
Jen sa=F8o de l' armiloj.
 
Just playing around -- I've attached a RealAudio 5.0 file of the
poem, as
well. Hope the size (24K) doesn't upset anybody too much -- it's
a one-time
experiment, in any case.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink