Print

Print


Julian P wrote. 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.
 
Isto pote multo ben esser le veritate (truth). On debe memorar que
esperanto era create de un persona con su radices in le parte de Europa que
es situate in le frontera inter le "oriente" e le "occidente". Le latino e
germano e francese forsan pote esser vidite como le fundo commun pro omne
(all) le linguas in le region. Esperantistas svedese, finnese, polonese o
estonese se comprende excellentemente.
 
In plure de ille linguas le formation estas -a es tanto possibile como -as.
Viste que esperanto, como Julian correctemente nota, es parlate de personas
con varie fundos lingual, il non del toto es estranie que variantes como
indicate appare. Ma le un o altere variante es probabilemente plus tosto
(sooner) le effecto de prescription que de ver cambios in le uso. Il
simplemente depende de qual grammatica on ha legite.
 
Il es mi impression le anglese NON USA tal formas verbial tanto como le
linguas circumbaltic (situate circum le Mar Baltic). Le majoritate de ille
verbos es incohative (e optine -igh- in esperanto), ma multe verbios etiam
exprime staticitate (como io ha exemplificate antea).
 
Non parlante ido activemente io pensa que illo es un eloquente
demonstration del facto que on ha ejectate le bebe con le aqua de banio
(thrown out the baby with the bathing water). Ido pro exemplo simplifica le
regulas de congruentia ma introduce del altere latere un massa de altere
distinctiones que non era in esperanto.... Inflexion congruential non del
toto es difficile pro illes qui lo ha in lor linguas maternal. (Pro me il
es totalmente natural dicer: Ili eniris la grandajn, blankajn, impresajn
domojn.)
 
Le ideas ke _belas_ significa un altere cosa que _estas bela_ es false.
Viste que esperanto non es mi interesse principal in iste mundo homines
pote - quanto a me - remaner in le credentia qui io non ha ration. Isto non
es importante. Le imagination que le un forma significa un altere cosa que
le altere solo es un construction e le resultato de grammaticas
prescriptive.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden