Print

Print


[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.