Print

Print


>From: "Don HARLOW" <[log in to unmask]>
>Organization: YNot Creations
>To: [log in to unmask] (Chris Burd)
>Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:17:40 -0700
>Subject: Re: Quel es do li spi'ritu de Occidental!
>Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
>Priority: normal
>
>Reage al Chris BURD:
>
>(Did you mean to post this, by the way?)
>
>> > > "It is, of course, relatively easy to produce a piece of Esperanto
>> > > prose that is 'immediately comprehensible' to the native English
>> > > speaker, by the simple expedient of avoiding
>> > > compound words..."
>> > >
>> > > Taken literally, this seems to say that Eo passages without
>> > > compound words are typically comprehensible to English speakers,
>> > > or at least as comprehensible as their Interlingua/e equivalents.
>> > > That strikes me as a bit optimistic.
>> > >
>> > (a) _Relatively_ easy. I believe I was speaking of the effort
>> > involved in a conscious, dedicated attempt to write a piece of
>> > Esperanto prose that an English-speaker could understand at sight,
>> > not the chances of some English-speaker's immediately understanding a
>> > piece of randomly-written Esperanto prose that eschewed compounds.
>>
>> That's undoubtedly what you *meant* to say, but there's nothing in
>> the context supporting the notion of a "conscious, dedicated
>> attempt". Now, if you'd omitted the comma after "speaker", the
>> sentence could be interpreted to mean what you want it to say, but
>> as it is, you have introduced an eliptical construction that changes
>> the meaning subtly.
>>
>> Admittedly, I'm being a precisionarian, but after all I did say
>> "taken literally".
>>
>Ummm ... since I was presenting this from the _producer's_ point of
>view, specifying the purpose of the prose, I don't see where your
>argument holds water. The comma, incidentally, is desirable (though
>perhaps not necessary) to make the passage say what I wanted it to
>say.
>
>> > (b) Nevertheless, the passage you quote was written some years before
>> > I had occasion to enter some of the vocabularies from Baghy's _La
>> > Verda Koro_ (a book written by a Hungarian for Hungarian Esperanto
>> > students) into an HTML page and noticed that some 80+% of the
>> > noun/verb/adjective/adverb vocabulary used by Baghy was near-cognate
>> > with English. So perhaps not quite so optimistic (perhaps you
>> > wanted to say "over-optimistic"?)
>>
>> It's called understatement. But how can you have a near cognate?
>> Something is either cognate or not cognate. One can talk of cognates
>> in a narrower or broader sense of course, but any given word will
>> either fit or not fit any given definition.
>>
>A near-cognate is (perhaps in my definition) a term that is not
>_identical_ with one in another language, but close enough to be
>recognizable, both in form and meaning. The Esperanto "g^ardeno", for
>instance, is a very near cognate, but not a cognate.
>
>
>
>--Don HARLOW
>http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
>(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)
>
>