![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cannot find the name of the Italian play that was translated into Esperanto and Ido, or the two Italian dialects used in the original (Tuscan and Florentine, maybe?). Can anyone help here? kwami 01:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the origin of these words, which are supposedly from Lithuanian. Surely du is more likely inspired by Latin/Romance. Ju is pretty clearly an alteration of German je:
Ju pli granda la familio, des malpli grandaj la porcioj Je größer die Familie, desto kleiner die Portionen. (The bigger the family, the smaller the portions)
I have the suspicion that a good number of the suffixes are Slavic, though I've never seen this mentioned. The pra- prefix certainly is, and maybe a couple others; and I assume that -aro is Slavic. Could someone who knows Russian or Polish (and especially if you know German as well) go over these and point out any likely possibilities? kwami 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't edzo linked to German (or Yiddish) words like Prinzessin interpreted as princ-edz-in-o?
I see komput-il-o in Wikipedia as a frequent example of Esperanto word creation from basic roots. Isn't the computer-related meaning a modern innovation? Old komputi was more like "meter" or "counter" as in gazkomputilo ( gasometer, not *"gas-powered computer". Hence, the proposal of komputoro and komputero. An older root would be better.
When I first came across Esperanto, I learned the distinction between the tenses by analogy with Latin first-conjugation verbs, e.g. ama (present), amavi (perfect), amabo (future). Though my personal aide-memoire may be a matter of pure coincidence (and probably counts as "original research" anyway), I thought it worth mentioning in this context. Vilcxjo 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE:
END QUOTE
Source: An International Language (1928): Verbs, Otto Jespersen
User:Nov_ialiste 11:43, 2006 April 29
Good current edit of the "Source languages" section. There are a few dubious etymologies, however:
(1) hepato, though it may have come (as so often) through Latin, is basically from Greek ἧπαρ (gen. ἥπατος)—there is a perfectly good native Latin word iecur. On the other hand I'm leaving brako under Latin, because bracchium is the ordinary Latin word, even though it could just as easily be from the cognate Greek word βραχίων.
(2) OK, it's late at night here and my brain's not at its sharpest, but I really can't think what Greek word would serve as the root for pri (mind you, I can't think what would in any other language either). I'm removing it - if you put it back, please tell me what the answer is!
(3) I'm surprised to see the adverbial suffix -e being described as being of Russian/Polish origin. I confess to knowing no Polish, but Russian adverbs typically end in -о (много, хорошо, плоxо, etc.), or else –ому or –ски. It is, on the other hand, a standard adverbial form in Latin (bene, digne, facile ...), so I shall change the text accordingly.
On reflection, my example of δίδου as a -μι-verb imperative was not the best, since general opinion seems to be that it is formed on the basis of normal -ω/-ομαι verbs. I'm changing it to δείκνυ.
I'm also going to be bold and put in the (admittedly speculative, and marked as such) Latin -bo in connection with Eo -os. If this is really thought to be a step too far, I shan't throw a tantrum if it's reverted ... Vilcxjo 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoever the anon is who isn't bothering to read the article they're editing, there's a reason the part-of-speech endings are added to the lexical suffixes: they show which part of speech the suffixes function as. Please don't delete. kwami 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The meanings of kajmani and aligatori in the article at this writing are reversed from what is used among Esperantists I know (in the western United States): Aligatori is where at least one person is speaking their native language and at least one person is not, and kajmani is where no one is speaking their native language, but the language spoken is an ethnic (as opposed to an artificial) language. I wanted to see whether other Esperanto speakers use these meanings or whether someone made an editing mistake. Comments? -- Cxarli 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not totally true. I think PAG deals with this. A counterexample is bon-kor-a ("goodhearted") from bona koro + -a. Kor-bon-a ("heart-good") is also possible but not used. Kompare sen-esper-a and esper-mank-a. Esper-sen-a is also possible, but prepositions are rarely used like that.
There's an error here -- a meleagro undoubtedly means turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), not a kind of guineafowl. The word is actually in the Fundamento. Turkeys are in the order Galliformes like guineafowl but are in a different family, Meleagrididae. -- Cam 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
'affectionate form' should probably redirect to hypocoristic not nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em3ryguy ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In the article there is information about perfective and imperfective verbal aspect in Esperanto. (Almost) quote of definition in this page: "ek -> imperfective aspect (frequent, repeated, or continual action); [...] -adi -> perfective aspect (beginning, sudden, or momentary action)" Esperanto has not properly verbal aspect as slavic languages. Imperfective and perfective aspect is not just what is defined above, but it means that there is a different verbal form to address "perfect" actions (made only once, and finished) and the "imperfective" ones (actions that are not finished, repeated as habit not just for long time, but as habit = many times). E. g. a perfective verb cannot have the present tense since a present action (even momentary) is still not finished. A verb with ek- can have present and can address imperfective actions:
John ekamas = John falls/is falling in love (in this moment, the action is not finished = imperfect) John cxiam ekparolas = John always starts to talk (always, as habit, many times = imperfect)
Imperfective means that a verbal form is used only to address non finished actions, or repeated actions (habits). Paroladi can address both perfective and imperfective actions (in contrast with the definition on this page for all verbs with -adi):
Maria paroladis = Maria had a spech (once and the action is finished = perfect action) Maria paroladas = Maria is having a spech (ok once, but the action is still not finished = imperfect action)
Rather big error for an enciclopedia (every good grammar books says that), I can correct it, but I would like to hear the opinion of others before that. Thanks -- Iosko ( talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Per objection, I removed the following:
I've never actually heard reptilumi, though it has an article on wiki-eo. I wonder, though, do we want to keep all the other words besides krokodili ? Are they really Eo slang, or are they just proposals for Eo slang which hardy anyone actually uses? How many people have fluent command of these words, and use them in conversation or in writing? Should krokodili just be defined as "speaking another language when Eo would be appropriate", which is how it's generally used? kwami ( talk) 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but wouldn't putting the '-i' (ki-,neni-,ti- etc) at the start of the correlative ending (e.g. -ia) help prevent confusion with things like adjective and noun endings if people learn the endings as for example "-ia" as a whole rather than trying to figure out the differences between noun/adjective endings and correlative endings? Sorry if that didn't make sense, if I could I'd show you what I mean in a diagram but not sure how to go about that. Ceigered ( talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the origins section is flawed in saying that Esperanto is a compromise between naturalistic and an a priori language. Esperanto is between a posteriori and a priori (in that it contains borrowed roots but invented suffixes) but is schematic, not naturalistic (a distiction I always thought was seperate from a priori and posteriori), so this may need to be changed. Colorado 2993 ( talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious about the section about um. I can think of alternative words for most of the given examples: kolingo instead of kolumo, krucmortigi instead of krucumi, malvarmalsano instead of malvarmumo, kompleti instead of plenumi, brakĉirkaŭiĝi instead of brakumi, amigi instead of amindumi, and desktrronde instead of dekstrume. If the examples are the only words in which this suffix is used then there isn't much need for it. Inter change able| talk to me 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The affectionate forms injo and iĉjo could not only be interpreted as affectionate forms of ino, but also as similar forms of ido (perhaps an English equivalent would be "my little pup/kit"). Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the affectionate forms' sections. Inter change able| talk to me 22:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article: "This epenthetic vowel [inserted between the elements of a compound] is most commonly the nominal suffix -o- ..." I see no justification to analyse this as a nominal suffix, and not simply an epenthetic phoneme, which is not, in fact, a morpheme. I propose that a justification for this analysis be provided, or this description removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.102.67 ( talk) 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
§ Antonyms says
The reason given for dura is original research pure and simple; I have softened the wording to use "may" and "perhaps", and noted the phonetic factors which could be involved.
The putative iconicity of eta is dubious, but IMHO it's at least somewhat plausible, so I've left it; but I've changed "little" in the description ("a little word")— a weasel word in this context— to "short".
It's not OR, just uncited. But your fix is fine. — kwami ( talk) 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In § Interrogative vs relative pronouns the gloss in
where "[accusative]" applies to the correlative tion, is easily misread as applying it to the correlative being described, kiel: a stumbling block for the reader. Compare the immediately preceding example:
Here the similarly bracketed inflection-specifier "[plural]" refers to kiuj. The exact placement is less conspicuous than the bracketed term itself. To avoid such confusion, I'm changing both bracketed terms to subscripts:
-- Thnidu ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. Tho I think the brackets should be retained as well, to make it as clear as possible. — kwami ( talk) 21:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The sentence: " Thus by learning these 14 elements the speaker acquires a paradigm of 45 adverbs and pronouns. " came up and the word "paradigm" seems to be a bit confusing. This was discussed here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_it_appropriate_to_simplify_regular_wikipedia_vocabulary%3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiveir ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The section "original setup" clearly oversimplifies and distorts the linguistic aspects of implied gender assumptions in original Esperanto usage. I plan to make improvements by refining the current presentation. Hereby I provide an advanced warning to the original author or anybody who is interested. Please let me know if I should be aware of any constraints or dependencies that I need to heed while undertaking this endevor. Thanks, Filozofo ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cannot find the name of the Italian play that was translated into Esperanto and Ido, or the two Italian dialects used in the original (Tuscan and Florentine, maybe?). Can anyone help here? kwami 01:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the origin of these words, which are supposedly from Lithuanian. Surely du is more likely inspired by Latin/Romance. Ju is pretty clearly an alteration of German je:
Ju pli granda la familio, des malpli grandaj la porcioj Je größer die Familie, desto kleiner die Portionen. (The bigger the family, the smaller the portions)
I have the suspicion that a good number of the suffixes are Slavic, though I've never seen this mentioned. The pra- prefix certainly is, and maybe a couple others; and I assume that -aro is Slavic. Could someone who knows Russian or Polish (and especially if you know German as well) go over these and point out any likely possibilities? kwami 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't edzo linked to German (or Yiddish) words like Prinzessin interpreted as princ-edz-in-o?
I see komput-il-o in Wikipedia as a frequent example of Esperanto word creation from basic roots. Isn't the computer-related meaning a modern innovation? Old komputi was more like "meter" or "counter" as in gazkomputilo ( gasometer, not *"gas-powered computer". Hence, the proposal of komputoro and komputero. An older root would be better.
When I first came across Esperanto, I learned the distinction between the tenses by analogy with Latin first-conjugation verbs, e.g. ama (present), amavi (perfect), amabo (future). Though my personal aide-memoire may be a matter of pure coincidence (and probably counts as "original research" anyway), I thought it worth mentioning in this context. Vilcxjo 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE:
END QUOTE
Source: An International Language (1928): Verbs, Otto Jespersen
User:Nov_ialiste 11:43, 2006 April 29
Good current edit of the "Source languages" section. There are a few dubious etymologies, however:
(1) hepato, though it may have come (as so often) through Latin, is basically from Greek ἧπαρ (gen. ἥπατος)—there is a perfectly good native Latin word iecur. On the other hand I'm leaving brako under Latin, because bracchium is the ordinary Latin word, even though it could just as easily be from the cognate Greek word βραχίων.
(2) OK, it's late at night here and my brain's not at its sharpest, but I really can't think what Greek word would serve as the root for pri (mind you, I can't think what would in any other language either). I'm removing it - if you put it back, please tell me what the answer is!
(3) I'm surprised to see the adverbial suffix -e being described as being of Russian/Polish origin. I confess to knowing no Polish, but Russian adverbs typically end in -о (много, хорошо, плоxо, etc.), or else –ому or –ски. It is, on the other hand, a standard adverbial form in Latin (bene, digne, facile ...), so I shall change the text accordingly.
On reflection, my example of δίδου as a -μι-verb imperative was not the best, since general opinion seems to be that it is formed on the basis of normal -ω/-ομαι verbs. I'm changing it to δείκνυ.
I'm also going to be bold and put in the (admittedly speculative, and marked as such) Latin -bo in connection with Eo -os. If this is really thought to be a step too far, I shan't throw a tantrum if it's reverted ... Vilcxjo 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoever the anon is who isn't bothering to read the article they're editing, there's a reason the part-of-speech endings are added to the lexical suffixes: they show which part of speech the suffixes function as. Please don't delete. kwami 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The meanings of kajmani and aligatori in the article at this writing are reversed from what is used among Esperantists I know (in the western United States): Aligatori is where at least one person is speaking their native language and at least one person is not, and kajmani is where no one is speaking their native language, but the language spoken is an ethnic (as opposed to an artificial) language. I wanted to see whether other Esperanto speakers use these meanings or whether someone made an editing mistake. Comments? -- Cxarli 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not totally true. I think PAG deals with this. A counterexample is bon-kor-a ("goodhearted") from bona koro + -a. Kor-bon-a ("heart-good") is also possible but not used. Kompare sen-esper-a and esper-mank-a. Esper-sen-a is also possible, but prepositions are rarely used like that.
There's an error here -- a meleagro undoubtedly means turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), not a kind of guineafowl. The word is actually in the Fundamento. Turkeys are in the order Galliformes like guineafowl but are in a different family, Meleagrididae. -- Cam 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
'affectionate form' should probably redirect to hypocoristic not nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em3ryguy ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In the article there is information about perfective and imperfective verbal aspect in Esperanto. (Almost) quote of definition in this page: "ek -> imperfective aspect (frequent, repeated, or continual action); [...] -adi -> perfective aspect (beginning, sudden, or momentary action)" Esperanto has not properly verbal aspect as slavic languages. Imperfective and perfective aspect is not just what is defined above, but it means that there is a different verbal form to address "perfect" actions (made only once, and finished) and the "imperfective" ones (actions that are not finished, repeated as habit not just for long time, but as habit = many times). E. g. a perfective verb cannot have the present tense since a present action (even momentary) is still not finished. A verb with ek- can have present and can address imperfective actions:
John ekamas = John falls/is falling in love (in this moment, the action is not finished = imperfect) John cxiam ekparolas = John always starts to talk (always, as habit, many times = imperfect)
Imperfective means that a verbal form is used only to address non finished actions, or repeated actions (habits). Paroladi can address both perfective and imperfective actions (in contrast with the definition on this page for all verbs with -adi):
Maria paroladis = Maria had a spech (once and the action is finished = perfect action) Maria paroladas = Maria is having a spech (ok once, but the action is still not finished = imperfect action)
Rather big error for an enciclopedia (every good grammar books says that), I can correct it, but I would like to hear the opinion of others before that. Thanks -- Iosko ( talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Per objection, I removed the following:
I've never actually heard reptilumi, though it has an article on wiki-eo. I wonder, though, do we want to keep all the other words besides krokodili ? Are they really Eo slang, or are they just proposals for Eo slang which hardy anyone actually uses? How many people have fluent command of these words, and use them in conversation or in writing? Should krokodili just be defined as "speaking another language when Eo would be appropriate", which is how it's generally used? kwami ( talk) 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but wouldn't putting the '-i' (ki-,neni-,ti- etc) at the start of the correlative ending (e.g. -ia) help prevent confusion with things like adjective and noun endings if people learn the endings as for example "-ia" as a whole rather than trying to figure out the differences between noun/adjective endings and correlative endings? Sorry if that didn't make sense, if I could I'd show you what I mean in a diagram but not sure how to go about that. Ceigered ( talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the origins section is flawed in saying that Esperanto is a compromise between naturalistic and an a priori language. Esperanto is between a posteriori and a priori (in that it contains borrowed roots but invented suffixes) but is schematic, not naturalistic (a distiction I always thought was seperate from a priori and posteriori), so this may need to be changed. Colorado 2993 ( talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious about the section about um. I can think of alternative words for most of the given examples: kolingo instead of kolumo, krucmortigi instead of krucumi, malvarmalsano instead of malvarmumo, kompleti instead of plenumi, brakĉirkaŭiĝi instead of brakumi, amigi instead of amindumi, and desktrronde instead of dekstrume. If the examples are the only words in which this suffix is used then there isn't much need for it. Inter change able| talk to me 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The affectionate forms injo and iĉjo could not only be interpreted as affectionate forms of ino, but also as similar forms of ido (perhaps an English equivalent would be "my little pup/kit"). Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the affectionate forms' sections. Inter change able| talk to me 22:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In the article: "This epenthetic vowel [inserted between the elements of a compound] is most commonly the nominal suffix -o- ..." I see no justification to analyse this as a nominal suffix, and not simply an epenthetic phoneme, which is not, in fact, a morpheme. I propose that a justification for this analysis be provided, or this description removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.102.67 ( talk) 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
§ Antonyms says
The reason given for dura is original research pure and simple; I have softened the wording to use "may" and "perhaps", and noted the phonetic factors which could be involved.
The putative iconicity of eta is dubious, but IMHO it's at least somewhat plausible, so I've left it; but I've changed "little" in the description ("a little word")— a weasel word in this context— to "short".
It's not OR, just uncited. But your fix is fine. — kwami ( talk) 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In § Interrogative vs relative pronouns the gloss in
where "[accusative]" applies to the correlative tion, is easily misread as applying it to the correlative being described, kiel: a stumbling block for the reader. Compare the immediately preceding example:
Here the similarly bracketed inflection-specifier "[plural]" refers to kiuj. The exact placement is less conspicuous than the bracketed term itself. To avoid such confusion, I'm changing both bracketed terms to subscripts:
-- Thnidu ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. Tho I think the brackets should be retained as well, to make it as clear as possible. — kwami ( talk) 21:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The sentence: " Thus by learning these 14 elements the speaker acquires a paradigm of 45 adverbs and pronouns. " came up and the word "paradigm" seems to be a bit confusing. This was discussed here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_it_appropriate_to_simplify_regular_wikipedia_vocabulary%3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiveir ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The section "original setup" clearly oversimplifies and distorts the linguistic aspects of implied gender assumptions in original Esperanto usage. I plan to make improvements by refining the current presentation. Hereby I provide an advanced warning to the original author or anybody who is interested. Please let me know if I should be aware of any constraints or dependencies that I need to heed while undertaking this endevor. Thanks, Filozofo ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)