Print

Print


In-Reply-To: <l03110704b17116c64cb1@[195.17.73.12]>
> As far as _elparolo_ is concerned it is a good formation when you
> already master the basic morphemes. Elparoli is an exact translation
> of Swedish _uttala_, German _au_sprechen_, Polish _wymawiac'_ etc. So
> inside Esperanto it is OK. But for a person who does not know the
> basic words it is harder.
 
I'd agree; I didn't find "elparoli" totally obvious when I first met it.
However, even for someone who doesn't find it easy its meaning is
usually pretty clear from the context.  "How do you speak you name out?"
is not a million miles from "How do you say/pronounce your name?".  For
a Pole or a Greek "elparoli" may not be totally clear but it is a lot
clearer than "prononci".
 
This is a way in which Volapuk is arguably better than Eo.  In Vp there
is a specializing, emphatic prefix "da", whose meaning is very hard to
pin down precisely.  Yet I have no problem in understanding that
"dabino:n" means "exist" (from "bino:n", to be) and "dalabo:n" means
"possess" (from "lab:on", to have).  I wouldn't hesitate to coin
"daspiko:n" (or "dapu:ko:n" depending on dialect) for "pronounce" and
would expect to be understood.  (The awful de Jong dictionary gives
"prono:n", but then it _is_ awful and de Jong's "improvements" lost a
lot of what is good about Vp.)
 
The principles of root economy and instant recognizability clash.  On
the whole I tend to prefer root economy and to use the existing
resources of the language rather than adopt new roots.  At the end of
the day this is my preference though and the issue is one that cannot be
decided 100% by rational argument.
 
-- jP --