Hello Folks,

Contrary to my plans, I never did unsubscribe from
this list.  I've just been focused on other things
and on keeping my mouth (or keyboard) shut.  Two
small points in this last digest caught my attention,

Andrew Nowicki:
> 2. It is not clear which language the particular
>    word was borrowed from. For example, in Polish
>    language the word "pies" means dog, the word
>    "but" means shoe, "kit" means putty and
>    "lot" means flight.

When I started learning Esperanto, I was by far more
focused on actually learning the language with the
idea that I was going to actually *use* it than to
worry about why particular words have a particular
form.  I've recently been spending a lot of time
flipping through Cherpillod's Konciza Etimolgia
Vortaro and as a result, I'm finding out the answer
to many questions I never bothered to ask myself.  On
a personal level, I'm surprized that I never stopped
to ask where the word "vosto" comes from, for example,
but I never did.  I must have been more focused on the
situation rather than the language every time I used
that word, because usually I am very curious about
these sorts of things.

At any rate, Andrew's point is greatly exaggerated
here.  In practice, this has almost never been a
problem for me.  A few examples:

If I was learning a language and wanted to learn the
word for "shoe" and found out that this word was
"but", I would find that word very easy to remember
because it sounds like "boot."

If while reading I saw that someone had eaten "a
pies", I would not assume that this meant "pie", but
that it was a word I didn't know.  If it was critical
to the passage, I would look it up.

If a Volapük speaker showed up at my door and asked if
I would allow him to "lot" at my place for a few days
because the hotels are expensive, context would
probaby give the meaning - even if similarity to known
words like logxi or l'hotel didn't.

To take a more real example, I never once thought that
"langa" meant "long" (c.f. German "lang") because I
never once saw it in a context which would allow that

The only counter-example which comes to mind,
memorable only because it stands in such strong
contrast to my general experience with the language
is "larmo" (tear).  I kept thinking that it meant
"noise" (from German) because when one cries, quite
often both tears and noise are the result.  In close
to 10 years of daily use, I've not had another similar
confusion (that I can remember, anyway.) (*)

Dana Nutter:
> I liked the name when I first saw it but I must
> admit I liked the previous orthography better
> (Ceqli rather than Tceqli) but it still works.

Me too -- by far.  Having seen the word time and
again on AUXLANG, I was tempted to pronounce it
"check-lee" (rather than cheng-lee), but at least I
was tempted to pronounce it.  Now it just looks like
a spoonful of alphabits (or alphabet soup if it's
lunchtime.)  "Tceqli" strikes me as the sort of thing
which appeals to conlangers but which certainly would
not appeal to Joe Average.

(*) Actually, come to think of it, I once thought that
a man with "armas de foco" ("firearms" in Interlingua)
had "brachios de phoca" (seal arms.)  This was a bit
of a double whammy, but in the end, context still
set me on the right path - but only after I had the
imaage of stump-armed man robbing a bank.

Amike salutas,
Thomas/Tomaso ALEXANDER.
---Anything below this line is not from Thomas ---

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around