Talk:Esperantido

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

previous talk[edit]

Whoa, kwamikagami... you've doing the non-Esperanto-IALs-are-for-Romance-speakers-only thing here, too. -_-; Almafeta 14:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, not "for Romance speakers only"! I did not say that, and I did not imply it. But it would be irresponsible not to recognize that the main motivation for Ido was that Esperanto wasn't close enough to French, which was taken as the best exemplar of an international language. This is clear in the writings of the original committee members (at least as far as I've read them in secondary sources).
There are two main criticisms of Esperanto's grammar, orthography, and source vocabulary:
One, that they aren't international because they don't represent all the world's languages, and
Two, that they aren't international because they aren't close enough to the world's premier international languages, French/Italian/Romance (depending on the critic).
I don't know anyone who's attempted to fix Esperanto per critique 1, but there are plenty according to critique 2 — almost all the Esperantidos, in fact. Perhaps some of the people involved were merely interested in a purely inter-Romance language per your criticism, but many believed that making Esperanto more Romance would make it more accessible to the people of the world, as so many have studied Romance languages already. Especially back in 1907, when French was the language of international diplomacy. That is, it's a philosophical dispute over how to best approach an interlanguage, not an attempt to restrict access to it. You'll also notice that much of the drive for Ido was with French Esperantists, who naturally saw their language differently than Zamenhof saw it. Much of the vocab change substitutes Romance for German words, with people often saying how silly it is for a certain word to be German, when a perfectly good Romance word is available. "Arbitrary" is a critique that you hear frequently. You could argue about how much of the project was driven by ethnocentrism (a charge also applied to Esperanto, of course, in critique 1), but not that the aim was to sail closer to the Romance languages. Just look at the Pater noster: Romance qua, quale, tale for kiu, kiel, tiel; French -ez for the jussive; cadie for Latin hodiau; omnidiala for cxiutaga; e for Greek kaj; Romance ofensi for German sxuldoj; a for al; Italian ma for Latin sed. All of these changes bring Ido into closer alignment with the Romance languages than Esperanto is, and that's all that I claimed: "Ido ... sought to bring Esperanto into closer alignment with the Romance languages". Any reading of that to mean that Ido was intended "for Romance speakers only" is unsupported. You can add a disclaimer stating something like, "Of course, a Romance grammar and vocabulary doesn't restrict Ido to Romance speakers, but was intended to make it more accessible to the many people who have already studied a Romance language" if you like. I don't see the need for it in this article, but maybe something like that would be appropriate in the Ido or Interlingua articles. You could say the same thing in the Esperanto article, of course (just changing the source languages), but I don't see why we should be so defensive.
Besides the occasional apriori language like Lojban, there are only a few conlangs that aren't in effect "Latinidos". One of these is described by its creator thus: Slovio, is the international simplified Slavic language, as simple as Esperanto but understood by some 400 million people around the world. This makes Slovio one of the most widely understood languages around the world. That is, Slovio is very much like a Slavic Interlingua in its conception. Then there's Tutonish, which is one of the Germanic equivalents. There was even a conlang based on Cherokee. But nearly all stick very close to the Romance languages. You seem to get a bit defensive about that, Almafeta, but I don't mean it to be a criticism, just honesty. This is what the languages are. You'll notice that I also changed the Esperanto article along these lines: when I found it, it had claimed that Esperanto was truly international in the sense of critique 1, when it clearly isn't. Esperanto is a purely European language in its conception. Ido sought to move it into closer agreement with a perceived Romance ideal. We can leave philosophizing over whether either of these are a good thing to the people learning these languages. —kwami 19:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
I have always heard from Idists that it was created as a 'fixed' version of Esperanto, not as an "Romanceperanto". And although some of the old roots were changed from Esperanto to be more Romantic, many of the new 'demal'd' roots came from Russian or German.
In addition, a truly Romance-biased conlang would have elements that are found in every Romance language, such as modifying verbs for the subject, adjective-noun agreement, and at least a vestigial nod to Latin's declension system. (In this, except for modifying verbs, basic unmodified Esperanto is actually more romantic than Interlingua.)
I made two other changes. I put headings in (just for organization), and I did a bit of reorganization of different language types. When I could, I put in more information. I also change the reference to Ido being romantic; you can revert it if you want, but I think it's false.
Finally... I presume you speak Esperanto (I didn't see a Babel link on your userinfo page). Would you ask on the Esperanto 'village pump' / Esperantido talk page for English-speaking Esperanto users to help create more information on these Esperantidos? I'd appreciate that.  :) Almafeta 16:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't think that the comparison of those languages is appropriate for this page, but I'm not touching it because I don't know where to move it to. Almafeta 17:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to ask for help from Vikipedio. Drop me a line on my talk page if you like to remind me. And thanks for the Babel suggestion; I'd completely forgotten about that. As for your changes, I'd like to put Popido back in. It doesn't take much space, and samples are always helpful in illustrating a topic. I originally had the language samples in the article on Esperanto vocabulary, which was an even less appropriate place for them But I think they are appropriate in an article on those very languages.
As for Ido being more Romance than Eo, I think it's prett clear it is. I just scanned through part of an Ido glossary, and nearly every root was Romance. True, Ido isn't a 'naturalistic' language like Interlingua, but I never claimed that. Much of the motivation was to bring Ido closer into alignment with "Western European norms". Much of the literature says that means "French and English", but I fail to see the similarites to English, except for the Romance portion of its vocabulary. Instead it looks like much of the German and some of the English vocabulary was replaced by French and Italian words. Also, the verbal system is markedly more Romance. Much of the Committees complaint was that Eo was "too German" and "too Slavic". What does that leave us? Romance. True, Ido only adopted a few of the irrationalities of the Romance languages, but since it was an attempt to simplify and fix the irrationalities of Eo, it would be as odd for it to reintroduce verbal agreement as it would be to reintroduce a six-case declensional system! "Brought into closer alignment with Romance" doesn't imply following every idiosyncracy of the Romance languages. How about "brought into closer alignment with Western European expectations of the French, English, & Italian languages"? I'll also try to say a little more about the proposed improvements. kwami 18:30, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
PS. The Ido committee was not a group of former Esperantists. Couturat couldn't even write a simple letter in the language: all his correspondance with Zamenhof was in French! Although I'd also make substantial changes to Eo given the chance, some of them similar to the Ido reforms (like eliminating adjectival agreement and the distinction between jx and gx), it's hard to take such a man seriously. His approach seems to have been "I came, I saw, and it wasn't simplified French, so I fixed it". Most of the proposed changes to Eo that beginners come up with are ethnocentric like that. Riism, for example, is a product of native English speakers. Suggestions to eliminate the distinction between adjectives and adverbs come from native German speakers. Etc. Anyway, the most public proponent of Ido was himself never an Esperantist. kwami 18:41, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
I took out the Popido reference because we already had a Esperantido comparision section (I may be adding the Pater Noster in Sen:espera next), and it's in history if (and probably when) we start a Popido article. I'll also be editing the article for 'needless links' (links which show up within a few paragraphs of each other).
As to Ido, saying "bringing it into alliance with the Western European languages" may be better; unlike projects like Romanova [1] (See bottom of page on ISO, SIL, and BCP language codes for constructed languages for link), I don't see much attempt to give Occitan, Romanian, Sicilian, etc., any immediate usability. By the way, on Ido, you seem to be referring to its past while I'm referring to its present; I don't think either of us has the full story.
Incidentally, I'd be interesting in discussing/debating Esperanto's merits with you sometime, and hearing how you would modify Esperanto. We'd need a new talk page or to take it to e-mail for that, though. Almafeta 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, regarding an Esperanto reform that doesn't represent all the world's languages: There was actually an Esperanto reform that tried to address that. It attempted to create a langauge where 90% of the world would know one of the control languages. Unfortunately, I don't know its name, and it has generated the same level of interest as most esperantidos. Almafeta 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would certainly be worth mentioning. I haven't come across it on the Vikipedio Esperantido pages. BTW, Popido was intended to be a "substandard" dialect, like you'd come across in A Clockwork Orange. That wasn't a value judgement on my part. kwami 19:50, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
As for modifying Esperanto, I think the most important thing is to greatly reduce its bloated vocabulary. Most of the proposed reforms come from a European background and aren't nearly as important to people not raised with Western European languages. A more systematic vocabulary would be less familiar to Europeans, but a "naturalistic" vocabulary is a real killer for the Asian Esperantists I've known. (It's not a problem with African Esperantists, at least south of the Sahara, because for the most part they're already schooled in English or a Romance language.) I would introduce an indicative suffix that does not indicate tense, perhaps -es, so that tense would be no more obligatory than aspect is in current Esperanto. (This is another difficulty in parts of Asia.) Also, I like the Italian plural, but am not sure how to extend it systematically, and would only use adjectival plurals when modifying more than one noun, or not at all. And I think that perhaps the plural should be optional in nouns. (That's not such a difficulty in Asia, however.) I'd keep an obligatory accusative to allow the word order to be truly free (i.e., pragmatic), but would use je or a dedicated preposition instead of the -n case suffix. (However, the -n is great for indicating direction, and very easy to use.) I'd use the masculine prefix and, of the non-specialized masculine words, I would keep only viro masculine (opposite femo), and would make li epicene and create a new masculine pronoun. I'd also reduce the number of phonemic contrasts to get back to the basic Latin alphabet: c ("ch") for both c and ĉ, x ("sh") for ŝ and maybe sc, j for both ĝ and ĵ, etc. Plus some minor word replacements and disambiguations. But the common desire for eliminating the correlative system, or the mal- prefix, and many other proposed reforms, seems to be very Eurocentric, and disappear as soon as someone learns the language, and I have no problem with them. I think that covers the basics. I take it you'd prefer a much more "naturalistic" language? kwami 20:27, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
As for wanting a much more 'naturalistic' language... hehe. When it comes to conlangs, I've already found the one that suits my wants in a IAL; I moved from Esperanto, to Ido, to Occidental, to finally Interlingua. However, when we're talking about making Esperanto the best language it can be, we're talking about something else entirely... something like this, maybe? Almafeta 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Reminds me very much of proto-Esperanto, which treated pronouns as grammatical nouns, used -s for the plural, etc. But I don't think it's as different from Eo as you might think. I'll comment on the talk page. kwami 22:11, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Just to note[edit]

It's strange to see 'Main article: Esperanto' at the top of the article. ALthough I guess it works; I never created this page intending to be part of the Esperanto discussion; I created it because I found Esperantidos to be more interesting than Esperanto, and worthy of more discussion than their predecessor. Almafeta 16:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why we can't just say "See also Esperanto". kwami 18:41, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Bonjang[edit]

I don't know why this is mentioned. Bonjang is a completely unrelated language, as far as I can tell. How can it be at all an Esperantido, if it didn't evolve or was designed, in any discernible manner, from Esperanto? Neither the roots (from *kat to yotang) nor the grammar show any relation.

The website link doesn't mention Esperanto once.

It is a very pretty language though.

Atomsprengja 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the official site and Langmaker say it is influenced by Eo, though.Cameron Nedland 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baza (language)[edit]

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 18
Baza (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Subject is a proposal made in 2003 to limit the vocabulary in Esperanto and its derivatives. Article makes no claim for the subject's notability, and cites no reliable third-party publications. The only provided sources are the self-published (and freely hosted) website of Greg Hoover, the proposal's creator, and the proposal's associated profile at the constructed language wiki Langmaker, which was also authored by Greg Hoover.

Attempts to use Google to establish notability or lack thereof prove difficult, as "Baza" is both a town in Granada and a common adjective in the Esperanto language. Baza's alternative name, "Inter-Esperanto" returns matches of the phrase "inter Esperanto" (no hyphen), which is quite common since "inter" is an Esperanto word for the preposition "between". Despite several attempts, I have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources on either Google or Google Scholar. A search on EBSCOhost, a search engine for academic journals, has also revealed nothing. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think the nominator pretty much sums it up. This is unreviewed, non-peer reviewed material that evidently has not been published anywhere. It is therefore not proper for Wikipedia. JodyB talk 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, complete failure of WP:V. Given the circumstances, it's incumbent on anyone wishing to save the article (as, per policy, it should be in any event in all cases) to provide proper sourcing before the AfD closes.  RGTraynor  18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR or WP:MADEUP. semper fictilis 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Search of major papers for Baza + language over last 10 years also turns up zip. - Aagtbdfoua 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comunleng[edit]

Why does Comunleng redirect here? Is it related to Esperantido in any way? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperan[edit]

Is Esperan notable enough to be mentioned? It seems just a personal project. --Error (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's community usage. kwami (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

orthography[edit]

Anon, orthography belongs in the orthography article, not here. There's already a section about the h-system, x-system, etc. We don't need it said twice there and again here. Please discuss it first. Personally, I don't see how all the info about Portuguese etc. is relevant, but perhaps you can convince others. kwami (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vikipedio d n include these as Esperantidoj. If you want to argue they are, you need some evidence. kwami (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

I wouldn't merge the list here. It's mostly a bunch of red links, which we don't want, and if we remove the links, it's still just a bunch of meaningless names. (I have doubts about some of them anyway.) We might want to just delete the list; I can understand it as a placeholder in eo-wiki, but don't see any point to having it here. kwami (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me agrees with you. I most certainly wouldn't import the list here in toto. What I was thinking of is something along the lines of a short section on "Minor esperantidos" that would not include the ones already discussed elsewhere in the article and those that you have doubts about. In a few cases, however, I'd say that mentioning them is at least warranted. Hence my suggestion to move at least part of the list here, but not necessarily in the form of a list. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 10:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could mention Saussure, since half of them are his. And anything with a blurb in eo-wiki might be worth a line or two. I don't think any of them actually have a description in eo-wiki, so there isn't much to say. kwami (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good criterion to me! —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are the ones we don't have in the article that have something on eo-wiki, sometimes just stubs. Some of them aren't really idos, either, as they're simply reminiscent of Eo rather than derived from it.

3 articles with actual content:

  • eo:Esperan, (2003 kreita pro estetikaj kialoj) [personal ideal language project]
  • Linguna (1978-1992) [web blogs--actually used?]
  • eo:Romanal (1912) [proposal to the Delegation that lost out to Ido]

9 stubs with samples:

Stubs without samples:

Ido reform:

Not separate lang proposals, so not Espidos:

Separate langs/codes, so not Espidos:

I'm going ahead and deleting the list. kwami (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as for calling them "minor idos", apart from Ido, all esperantidos are minor. kwami (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are personal projects that never got anywhere. The only ones that seem to me to have any historical interest at all are Romanal, which should probably just be a line or two in the history section of the Ido article, and the Antido family, which should probably just be a line in the history section of the Esperanto II article. I don't know if Saussure had any influence, but it appears that several of the words he proposed made it into Eo—but maybe he took them from Ido? Linguna, like Snifferanto, looks like it has ongoing web development, so maybe it is of some interest. I don't know if it's just a personal project like Esperan, or actually has some followers. kwami (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sen:esperanto and Esperant'[edit]

These two Esperantidoj seem to have been invented by single persons and put on Wikipedia without their being at all widespread. Wikipedia is not a place for self-publication. Jchthys (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue the same about all of the idos. Esperant' is (was?) used by more than one person, which is more than we can say for Saussure's projects. kwami (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put those on when I worked on this article a while ago when I was looking for unusual examples of esperantidos, so I'd have a sufficient number of samples each. Now that other esperantido articles are being merged into this one, people should feel free to take out any esperantido that isn't an illuminating example of the kind of changes people make to Esperanto. Almafeta (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much point to keeping sen:esperanto, actually, but Esperant' is unusual in actually being used, and so (unless I'm wrong there) IMO should definitely be kept. kwami (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in Esperant'[edit]

I'm not sure that words like "hodiu" and "anku" are possible in Esperant', although they are given as examples in this page. In standard Esperanto, obeying the Fundamento, the words ending in aŭ such as hodiaŭ and ankaŭ are single roots, not combined roots. According to Lernu je Esperant', the dialect completely follows the Fundamento, albeit strangely. It does not contain any evidence that "hodiu" and "anku" are permissible, and I suspect that these would be written as hodiaŭu and ankaŭu. I realize that this may constitute original research, but I am a fluent Esperanto speaker and would be happy to provide more references. --n-k, 20:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ank- and hodi- *are* the roots, though they are seldom used that way. This is one of the things people play with. According to Kalocsay & Waringhien, "-aŭ does not belong to the root, but is only a conventional ending, and is thus as easily left off as the o in nouns." Zamenhof wrote of the "neutral but definite ending aŭ", that is, that -aŭ does not define the part of speech of the root. He suggested in 1892 that it could be replaced with an apostrophe. (Plena analiza gramatiko, 1985:121.) The substitution of -aŭ with other part-of-speech endings, as in anke, apena/apene, morgo/morge, has been "tolerated" by the Esperanto Academy since 1910. (Ibid., p 409:Rim. IV.) kwami (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, those words appear in the Universala Vortaro of the Fundamento as single roots. You've offered sufficient evidence for me to concede that they may as well remain in the article, but as an aside, I feel I should point out that they can never be considered to be in accordance with the Fundamento, regardless as to what Zamenhof and the Akademio later said. Remember, it's "netuŝebla," even by the author. And according to Lernu je Esperant', "Unua regul' grave plejas: CXiamu onia obe' je l' fundament'! Maleblas tro' de tiu dir'." --n-k, 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here is a link to an Esperant' page that contains the forms ankauxu and hodiauxu. I am fairly certain that I am right, and that even in Esperant' treating these as dual-rooted is nonstandard at best, and could be considered "incorrect." Also, here is a link to the Universala Vortaro. Please observe that the aŭ-words are listed as monoradical. --n-k, 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sen:esepera" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sen:esepera. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Sen:esepera until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internasia[edit]

Was there once a section on Internasia, now deleted? It is now mentioned only among the samples. —Tamfang (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esperantido&oldid=1201808822"