Print

Print


Je 6 dec 99, je 14:27, Pierpaolo Bernardi skribis:
 
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Charles wrote:
>
> > Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> >
> > > Polish?  Have you ever seen a polish text?
> >
> > Yes. I thought it was well-known that Esperanto is a Slavic relex.
>
> (I don't know what 'relex' means, and I dont't have an english dict.
> available. I hope this does not led me to much astray)
>
Charles argues that, IHHO, the morphology and syntax of
Esperanto are strictly Slavic, with some Western word roots added
to the vocabulary to make it appear Western. This is a significant
improvement over his argument of a week ago, that Esperanto was
a "Polish relex". "relex" means "re-lexification", i.e. a change of
word forms. It presumes, of course, that "Slavic" really refers to
some specific entity rather than to a wide range of languages, from
the complexities of Russian noun morphology to the simplicities of
Bulgarian, which in this regard is more like Esperanto (though
Zamenhof apparently did not know Bulgarian...).
 
(Zamenhof apparently did, probably more or less automatically,
depend to a great extent on Russian syntax; but even here there is
plenty of latitude for non-Russianism, as, for instance, in the
abandonment of redundant case endings [accusative and
instrumental] after prepositions and the relegation of the genitive
and dative to prepositions rather than to inflections or suffixes. He
did not, however, follow the Western alternative by requiring a
dative or dative-accusative after prepositions -- most obvious, in
English, with the pronouns. Similarly, the entire Russian machinery
for conjugating verbs by person and separate conjugation is
abandoned. Russian may also have contributed the _concept_, but
not, obviously, the forms, of treating certain phonemes, generally
written in the Western languages, and in Polish, as digraphs, as
single letters.)
 
> We were talking about vocabulary.  I am a beginner in Esperanto, so I
> can't speak about *all* of the Eo vocabulary, but up to now the only
> russian radix I remember having seen is 'brovo' (I don't know what's
> this in English).  Flipping through my dictionary doesn't reveal any
> russian word.  They must be rare.
>
brovo = "eye(brow)". It could just as easily have come from English
as from any Slavic language.
 
Slavic roots and particles in Esperanto exist, but are considerably
rarer than Germanic and Latinate roots and particles. Examples off
the top of my head are "kolbaso" (sausage), "barc^o" (borshcht),
"kartavi" (to pronounce the letter 'r' with a gargling noise), "barakti"
(to struggle), the very important "nepre" (absolutely, without fail),
and, of course, the interrogatory particle "c^u", which is probably
from Polish ("czy"), but could also -- as others have pointed out,
though I consider the likelihood to be small -- be Ukrainian. (*) I'm
not sure, but I suspect that the (today) little used verb "svati" (to
make a match -- the kind that ends in marriage, not a flame) is
Slavic in origin. Nobody seems very sure about the particle "tuj"
(immediately, at once), and it looks vaguely Slavic, but I'd be willing
to bet that it had its (distant) origins in the French "toute de suite".
 
Those interested in the sources of the Esperanto vocabulary might
consider investing in Dr. Ebbe Vilborg's "Etimologia Vortaro", which
has so far reached four volumes and the letter 'R'. In addition to the
apparent etymologies of every official word and particle in
Esperanto, it also includes, for a majority of words, the
corresponding forms in Ido and Interlingua, and, of course, from the
Occidental _Radicarium_.
 
> > (Of course you would not attempt to bring your 100,000 word Italian
> > vocabulary into Occidental, which is an interlanguage designed
> > for easy learning by non-Italians ...)
>
> For your curiosity: a just released Italian dictionary (in six
> volumes) contains 380.000 words.  The most authoritative Italian
> dictionary is in 20 volumes, I don't know how many words it contains. 8-)
>
Interestingly, as a couple of us pointed out a year or so ago, we
found Italian to be as easy (or as difficult) to read at first sight as
either Interlingua or Occidental. One wonders why.
 
By the way, apropos of nothing here, I see that the second edition
of Gledhill's book from Lincom: Europa on a corpus-based study of
Esperanto has just appeared. Also, for those interested, a second
edition of David K. Jordan's "Being Colloquial in Esperanto" has
just appeared from ELNA.
 
---
 
(*) The functionality, as opposed to the form, appears in a number
of other languages as well, e.g. Japanese and Chinese. Was it
Occidental that borrowed the French version -- "Est-ce que" -- as
"esque"? Or was it Interlingua?
 
 
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html