Print

Print


----- "MorphemeAddict" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

> I think "Juna beletan amindumas" is well-formed and means "A young one woos 
> a pretty one". They could as easily be animals or birds as people (to the 
> extent that wooing is not unique to people). 

> stevo 

I'm hardly proficient in Esperanto, but I'm not loving this. European languages have a loosey-goosey relationship between adjs. and substantives, and while any anyone who has successfully completely grammar school can identify whether a word is being used adjectivally or substantively, there is no problem transforming adjs. to substantives, whether by use of articles in Language X if you've got them at your disposal, or not, if you don't. 

But the Esperanto objective seems, at least at the outset, to be: learn the 16 rules and you're ready to rock 'n' roll. All you need from there on out is experience, exposure, and expanding your vocabulary repertoire. Esperanto *explicitly* marks substantives with "-o" and adjectives with "-a". I won't speak for Zamenhof, but that would indicate to me a desire for non-native speakers (of whom, at the time there were none), to be able to quickly parse and analyze sentences. It seems to me that, if you can suddenly interpret Esperanto words ending in "-a" as substantives, albeit poetically, it defeats the purpose of this design feature hard-wired into Esperanto grammar. Couldn't, then, "hunda", "a canine one", just be taken for "dog?" I saw nothing in the 16 rules permitting this. 

Part of my response to this, I think, is due to how my lang Géarthnuns started out. Beginning in my teens, it took on a lot of Latinesque and Esperanto-esque features, one of which was marking parts of speech discretely. Géarthnuns has moved in different directions, and was never meant to be "simple" or "prêt-â-porter", but the above Esperanto sentence would be utterly impossible. You can't just have adjs. floating around unattached in sentences. You can create substantives from adjectives; it's not rocket science: 

sö béöbs garhab a white house 
sö garhabs a white one 
*garhab (alone) not permissible (well, okay, this is citation form, but *not* in a sentence) 

Why can't the above just become: "Juno beleton amindumas", and be done with it? That'd make *me* happy. 

My caveat: I'm not proficient in Esperanto. I know Zamenhof had at some point to let it go (dying helps), and there were subsequent divisive conferences, etc. And I don't begrudge an Esperantist culture (and I admire the Weltanschauung) evolving, flourishing and becoming deeper and richer, and/or "pushing the envelope", poetically or otherwise, but this usage seems to bend Esperanto rules in strange and extreme ways, which renders it a successful European artlang, which ain't too shabby. 

If this inspires a flame war, I will fall on my sword (though "one wooing one" should give everyone a warm fuzzy). 

Kou