Print

Print


In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Given that so little of the grammar of Esperanto is specified explicitly
understanding how (and how well) Esperanto works is an interesting
topic.  In the past there were many fierce debates about Eo word
building etc. and many schools of thought.
 
Given that Eo is so "European" I'd be very interested in reading a
text-book for Chinese or Japanese students (something unfortunately
beyond my capabilities).  Here a lot of the "implicit" grammar must be
made explicit.
 
There is, of course, that thick tome, the Plena Analiza Gramatiko, but
you have to realize that even that is not gospel, but represents the
views of certain schools of thought.  To get the full picture you'd have
to read all the debate.
 
Given that Eo speakers come from many linguistic backgrounds and that so
much of Eo grammar is "implicitly" specified it is surprising that Eo
does work so well.  The first English and French Esperantists to meet
face to face were quite relieved to find that they could understand each
other; I felt a similar sense of relief when I met my pen-friend in
Tallinn.
 
As I have remarked to James in the past, Eo word building looks like an
unregulated mess from a theoretical point of view.  From a practical
point of view it seems to work pretty well.  From a theoretical point of
view Ido's system looks much nicer.  From a practical point of view it
is not clear that it isn't too much of a straitjacket.  It is not clear
how much Idists even know the rules, let alone apply them rigorously in
practice.  What's more, I have seen James himself advocate loosening
that straitjacket a little.
 
-- jP --