Print

Print


>>Who to believe? Kjell or Don?
 
>Far as I'm concerned, you can believe whomsoever you want. I doubt it will
>make much difference in the way Esperantists speak...
 
First, Don remarked earlier that Kjell could speak E-o well and that the two
of them communicated in E-o. That would seem to imply that, when Kjell uses
E-o, Don perceived him as an E-ist and his language is included under "the way
Esperantists speak."
 
Second, it may not matter for the way E-ists speak. It does matter in _my_
attempting to figure out how E-o grammar works. I may have no interest in
using E-o as a communication medium. But I _am_, as an amateur linguist,
interested in knowing about the grammar of various languages, including ones,
like Japanese, I know far less than E-o. If Don is saying that E-o is so
inconsequential that I shouldn't care HOW it does anything, fine. But does he
really mean to imply this?
 
                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)