Print

Print


Donald J. HARLOW scripted:
 
> ELPAROLI and SENKULPIGI are words that are both easy to analyze and to
> synthesize ("analize and synthesyze"?). I believe that Kjell has already
> commented on ELPAROLI.
 
Given that EL = out and PAROLI = speak, I would not be able to divine the
meaning of ELPAROLI in an Esp text.  Because "pronounce" simply is not the
same as "speak out" (as if people actually sometimes speak in, sucking air
into their lungs instead of breathing it out!).  Certainly if I didn't
know the word for "pronounce", I wouldn't in a million years think to
construct ELPAROLI.  It just wouldn't enter my head.
 
> As to EKSKUZI and HEZITI, we've discussed this before (including James's
> incorrect use of the nonexistent X in EKSKUZI), so I wonder why he has
> brought it up again. To recap:
 
As I would probably find Don writing EKSKUZAR just as horrifying, I
suppose I ought to apologize for that mistake...
 
> If HEZITI came from Ido, I will be glad to thank Ido for it; it is a useful
> word. But given the time at which it was officialized in Esperanto, and the
> general attitude toward Ido among Esperantists at that time, I suspect that
> its origin was elsewhere.
 
1. When was it officialized?  (Please excuse me if you've told us this
before.)
2. Where else do suspect it could've come from?
 
> EKSKUZI is one of the most totally useless -- and unused -- words in
> Esperanto. If it came from Ido, I am also quite willing to give Ido all the
> thanks it deserves for this word.
 
I would probably use this in preference to SENKULPIGI if I were an Espist.
It is less of a brain-teaser and is naturally international.
 
James Chandler
[log in to unmask]
http://yi.com/home/ChandlerJames
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5037