[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] http://adam.cheshire.net/~jjbowks/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ fro: Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]> at: Multiple recipients of list AUXLANG <[log in to unmask]> dat: Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:11 PM subjet: Re: Occidental & Universality >I'd be a bit suspicious of any of these word lists if they are as badly >done and incorrect as the above. Hmmm, let's see that is a strong statement, Don. I can't say about the Czech but the French sure rings true, and the Eo you correct below doesn't disprove anything, in fact it is just as puzzling... So how is this "as badly done and incorrect" or are you just flinging words out of discontent? :-) >Naturally, I'm not about to say that the >France's, Tchec or Occidental columns are wrong, but the person who wrote (French, Czech) >the Esperanto column apparently didn't have much of a clue about the >language -- or else he had an axe to grind. Just to keep the record >straight, and supposing that the words in the other three columns mean what >I suppose they mean, the Esperanto column should read: > >kopiilo, ruzemo, suna, polusa, algluig^o*, transformilo, elektro, detruema, >deklamisto**, dekoraciisto***. > >*or "adhero", but that's not an official word, and I wouldn't use it myself. So, you wouldn't even use it yourself, hmmm, otay... >**assuming that here -ATOR means a person who declaims either vocationally >or avocationally; this is opposed to a person who is currently carrying out >an act of declaiming, a deklamanto >***more commonly these days, dekoristo; also, comments under (**) apply. Right! Well, that's is so then. :-? > >To take one example: I suppose there is some advantage in being able to >recognize one word at first sight -- even if only a minority of the world's Indeed, Don, quite an advantage I'd say. >people can do this -- rather than spending five minutes learning how to >recognize a hundred similar words, as well as how to _produce_ them. >"Malkonstruema", a perfectly legitimate word which simply doesn't happen to >mean the same as "destructive", is a good example (I'm not sure what the >English equivalent would be -- "deconstructive"???). It doesn't take all >that long to learn how to use both MAL- and -EM-; then, knowing the roots, >you immediately know, or can create, words such as "maldormema" =3D >insomniac, "malfidelema" =3D having a wandering eye, "maldetruema" =3D being a >fighter against entropy, "malhonestema" =3D ... well, perhaps we should leave >that last one alone. > Goodness gratious! My word! Don, don't you agree that you have to have a certain frame of mind in order to go for these constructions. I mean, there's a certain groove or vibe or wave you need to get your mind in for this to stick, sort of like a rut :-) "mal-funny" :-))) =BFQu=E9 no? >Well, to get back to the original topic -- I will feel no rancor about such >comparative word lists, even if the words themselves are carefully selected >to prove a point -- as long as the selection is done honestly, and words >that are actually used are presented. But the one you quote above says >considerably less about either Esperanto or Occidental than it does about >the individual who put it together. > Yup, I agree, but I think this was exactly part of Bob's point. Sometimes it is better to make soothing statements that leave an open invitation for the listener... It is always better to center on winning the person not the argument... =BFQu=E9 s=ED? > >-- Don HARLOW >http://www.webcom.com/~donh/ >(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html) > Amike, Jay B.