Print

Print


Reage al Chris BURD (per Mike FARRIS):
 
> > Criticising Esperanto on grounds that no proponents of Esperanto have _ver_
> claimed
> > (AFIK) is a cheap shot (like criticising Occi or IALA for not being culturally
> > neutral).
>
> The closest thing I've heard to such a claim is from own Don Harlow,
> who's written:
>
> "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.
 
(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"?) after all. (It's the particles
that'll kill ya -- just as they do in Interlingua. Similarly, the
subsystem words -- correlatives, pronouns, numerals -- are more or
less equally comprehensible, or incomprehensible, in the two
languages, as far as I can tell -- numerals are, of course, the
nicest.)
 
--Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)