Print

Print


I have this Esperanto-English dictionary. It lists the words by their
roots, and then gives the english meaning.
 
So, in decideing to look "outside" the Cos. jurnales, and Occidental
grammars, etc. I decided to look for myself strictly at Esperanto
books alone.
 
So, here's one thing I have found.
 
Esperanto does not have some common international affixes, at least,
not in the Teach Yourself Esperanto English dictionary which lists 94
affixes, plus some other kinds of endings.
 
So, from my perspective of simplicity, I looked up the word universe.
It is univers/o. The root shown as univers. One root.
Then I looked up the word universal. It is universal/o. The root
shown is universal. A second root.
Then I looked up the word university. It is universitat/o. The root
shown is universitat. A third root.
From Esperanto-English Dictionary, p. 157, TY Books, 1969.
 
Now, here's the tricky part, which folks don't want to see. This is a
complication, not a simplification. How, you say. Well, Esperanto is
supposed to be easier to learn than Occ. Right? So, for romance
linguists or non-romance linguists, it doesn't matter. For in
Esperanto you must learn THREE roots plus all the affixes to use with
them. That means 3X's a potential 45-94+ words. Of course, I know it
would be fewer than that, but whatever it is, it is three times what
is necessary.
 
Now, in occidental how many roots must you learn to create these
three words? Would you believe ONE.
 
Of course, we all know this doesn't matter, because "Esperanto is
easier to learn faster". But, think about the poor Oriental. In
Occidental he/she only has to learn ONE root, but in Esperanto he/she
has to learn THREE. That's twice the effort.
 
And, this is only one concept out of thousands.
 
So, by learning ONE root ,UNIVERS, the Oriental can easily form the
above words easier than with Esperanto. And, remember, this is only
one example.
 
univers/o
univers/al
univers/ita'
univers/al/ita'
univers/al/isar
 
Of course, if you are only learning one word, three roots isn't bad.
But, multiply this effort by the number of extra roots required by
Esperanto over the fewer required by Occidental. I say, one is easier
than three. But, of course, we must remember that only the educated
can learn one root, and the uneducated street people only need three
for the same job.
 
Here is another simple example: number
Esperanto:
numer/o one root numer
numeral/o a second root
numerator/o a third root
 
Occidental:
numer/e one root
numer/al same root
numer/ator same root
numer/os same root
e/numer/ar same root
etc.
 
Esp. needs three roots times a potential 94+ affixes.
Occ needs one root plus the affixes.
 
Now, I don't know about you, but if I am an Oriental, etc. I would
want the easiest to learn. Would I rather learn 94+ affixes and two,
and three roots for the same thing, or:
Learn an equal amount of affixes and one root? And, with affixes that
are in use already in the major languages of the West as an added
benefit, or learn affixes that are used in no other language. For, if
I learn the already in use affixes, then I can later figure out the
meanings easily of words in other Western languages, which I couldn't
do if I learned the 94+ affixes of Esp.
 
At least, that's how I see it. I'd rather take the easy road used by
"erudites". Which when properly translated means "people who take the
easiest route for the most people possible".
 
Con grand joya,
Bob, x+O~
 
P.S. Please don't stop here, go to the library and get an Esperanto
dictionary, preferably the biggest one you can get, and count the
extra roots you have to learn for one concept. Then realize that that
often doubles and triples your effort with the 94+ affixes.