3 ms·

Where do you find Esperanto inconsistent?

by pathsjs 10y ago

iso-8859-1 10y ago
Esperanto is a compromise since it tries to be familiar AND logical. The word ovaro "collection of eggs" pointlessly duplicates the meaning of nesto "nest". From: http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  What makes you think 'nest' and 'collection of eggs' are synonyms? True, it's common for a collection of eggs to be found in a nest, but they don't mean the same thing.
jalami 10y ago
I haven't looked into how Esperanto is inconsistent and I'm sure it's very consistent compared to modern languages. I think the two are built on two different paradigms though. Esperanto seems to be a language built for easy adoption. The grammar and vocabulary seem to be a somewhat fair mixture of popular natural languages with the hope for easier adoption. A claim I've heard is that someone that knows Chinese or English would be able to communicate effectively in Esperanto in four months. I see the goal of Lojban being different. Lojban's grammar is based on predicate logic with the intent being a syntactically unambiguous language. This makes it more like a programming language than a natural language. The two bleed into each other often since Lojban's root-words are similar to those in popular natural languages and Esperanto is a constructed language with a simple grammar so it's naturally (artificially?) much more consistent than current spoken languages. I just think Lojban's goal is more interesting than Esperanto's despite honestly feeling like Esperanto is better suited to be a natural language replacement. Esperanto certainly has more resources and support. I'm no linguist and I've only superficially researched either so spare me if I'm being unintentionally disingenuous to either camp or misinterpreted their claims.
tokenadult 10y ago
A regular participant in the sci.lang newsgroup on Usenet compiled a partial list of irregularities in Esperanto a long time ago.[1] Basically, the whole project of building Esperanto as a constructed international auxiliary language was full of internal inconsistencies, especially in word derivation,[2] and full of bizarre arbitrary differences from any natural human language that just make it hard to learn to speak fluently.[3] I have lived in more than one country, and have studied Esperanto quite a while during the 1990s, but it's never had any day-by-day usefulness for any practical purpose for me that any other language has had. [1] http://www.zompist.com/kitespo.html http://www.zompist.com/kitespo.html [2] http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html [3] http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/#d http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/#d
zephyrfalcon 10y ago
Here is a long critique of the language: http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/ http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/

Where do you find Esperanto inconsistent?

by pathsjs 10y ago

Where do you find Esperanto inconsistent?

Esperanto is a compromise since it tries to be familiar AND logical. The word ovaro "collection of eggs" pointlessly duplicates the meaning of nesto "nest". From: http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm

thomasfoster96 10y ago
What makes you think 'nest' and 'collection of eggs' are synonyms? True, it's common for a collection of eggs to be found in a nest, but they don't mean the same thing.

jalami 10y ago

I haven't looked into how Esperanto is inconsistent and I'm sure it's very consistent compared to modern languages. I think the two are built on two different paradigms though. Esperanto seems to be a language built for easy adoption. The grammar and vocabulary seem to be a somewhat fair mixture of popular natural languages with the hope for easier adoption. A claim I've heard is that someone that knows Chinese or English would be able to communicate effectively in Esperanto in four months. I see the goal of Lojban being different. Lojban's grammar is based on predicate logic with the intent being a syntactically unambiguous language. This makes it more like a programming language than a natural language. The two bleed into each other often since Lojban's root-words are similar to those in popular natural languages and Esperanto is a constructed language with a simple grammar so it's naturally (artificially?) much more consistent than current spoken languages. I just think Lojban's goal is more interesting than Esperanto's despite honestly feeling like Esperanto is better suited to be a natural language replacement. Esperanto certainly has more resources and support. I'm no linguist and I've only superficially researched either so spare me if I'm being unintentionally disingenuous to either camp or misinterpreted their claims.

tokenadult 10y ago

A regular participant in the sci.lang newsgroup on Usenet compiled a partial list of irregularities in Esperanto a long time ago.[1] Basically, the whole project of building Esperanto as a constructed international auxiliary language was full of internal inconsistencies, especially in word derivation,[2] and full of bizarre arbitrary differences from any natural human language that just make it hard to learn to speak fluently.[3] I have lived in more than one country, and have studied Esperanto quite a while during the 1990s, but it's never had any day-by-day usefulness for any practical purpose for me that any other language has had. [1] http://www.zompist.com/kitespo.html http://www.zompist.com/kitespo.html [2] http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html [3] http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/#d http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/#d

zephyrfalcon 10y ago

Here is a long critique of the language: http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/ http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/