What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

User avatar
linguaholic
Posts: 3122
Joined: 2008-06-21, 13:29
Gender: female
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)
Contact:

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby linguaholic » 2012-04-26, 11:47

E Pluribus Neo wrote:This isn't just about hate, but the year or 2 I'd spend on learning this E-bullshit can give me an all-around confidence in Latin and it'll be still more useful. :D

Wow, if you spent enough time on Esperanto to reach 100% confidence in Latin with the same amount of hours, your E-o must be spectacular. :P

E Pluribus Neo wrote:And to top it off, the community is full of nerds and crazy ugly people.

Incidentally, that's what I love about it. :mrgreen: To each his own.

(To me, Esperanto is a useful language because I am interested in the culture and community, not so much because I want LA TUTAN MONDON to speak it - so it's pretty much like any other language I learn.)
native: Deutsch / advanced: English, Nederlands / intermediate: Esperanto / forgotten: Français / fighting my way through: עברית מקראית / dreaming of: Čeština, עברית / admiring from a safe distance: فارسی

User avatar
loqu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 11835
Joined: 2007-08-15, 21:12
Real Name: Daniel
Gender: male
Location: Sevilla [seˈβiʝa] (Andalucía), born in Cádiz [ˈkaði]

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby loqu » 2012-04-26, 14:57

arpee wrote:Yeah, they speak with so much conviction that it reminds me of religion, sometimes.

You obviously mean the anti-Esperantists. These are much more vicious and destructive than Esperantists.
Dir la veritat sempre és revolucionari.

User avatar
Milya0
Posts: 549
Joined: 2009-10-19, 16:17
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Milya0 » 2012-04-29, 13:10

linguaholic wrote:(To me, Esperanto is a useful language because I am interested in the culture and community, not so much because I want LA TUTAN MONDON to speak it - so it's pretty much like any other language I learn.)

That's the right attitude.
Qroo₃₁ kaa₄ cro₂ kraa₃ kaa₄ qo₄₁ cra₄₁ ka₄ qoo₄₂ krá₄₂.

Skeptik
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-01-11, 1:06

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Skeptik » 2012-08-29, 11:16

The fascinating thing I find about Eo is that it attracts such passion. The supporters will fight tooth and nail against anyone that says anything they regard as critical of Eo. The detractors have an almost religious fervour against the language. It's just a language, a way of communicating with other people.
So why the emotion? It would be refreshing if people could follow option 3, a calm discussion of what they find attractive or unattractive about the language, without making personal attacks on people who may have an opinion different to their own.

User avatar
gyrus
Posts: 352
Joined: 2009-01-31, 13:58
Real Name: Rowland Goodbody
Gender: male
Location: Bath
Country: GB United Kingdom (United Kingdom)
Contact:

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby gyrus » 2012-09-10, 21:33

Skeptik wrote:The fascinating thing I find about Eo is that it attracts such passion. The supporters will fight tooth and nail against anyone that says anything they regard as critical of Eo. The detractors have an almost religious fervour against the language. It's just a language, a way of communicating with other people.
So why the emotion? It would be refreshing if people could follow option 3, a calm discussion of what they find attractive or unattractive about the language, without making personal attacks on people who may have an opinion different to their own.

I think you have a skewed image because of the Internet. The majority of Esperantists I meet in real life (and myself) are very much the third.
[flag]en[/flag][flag]fr[/flag][flag]de[/flag][flag]ja[/flag][flag]eo[/flag][flag]zh[/flag]
Twitter
YouTube

xBlackWolfx

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby xBlackWolfx » 2013-08-31, 5:51

If I was to make one modification, it would be to remove all the odd and difficult-to-pronounce consonant clusters. I don't mind the phonology on its own (I don't even care about ĥ, in fact I have a hard time understanding why so many people want to remove it...)

I'd also change the first person plural pronoun (ni) to make it easier to distinguish from 'mi'. I tried to listening to audio on lernu once, and I could never hear the difference between 'mi' and 'ni', because the difference is so subtle. The accusative marker also isn't obvious enough. Either I'd encourage a specific word order, or change the accusative marker to make it easier to hear.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10035
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby mōdgethanc » 2013-09-01, 6:12

xBlackWolfx wrote:I don't even care about ĥ, in fact I have a hard time understanding why so many people want to remove it
Because that particular contrast is rare in the world's languages (outside of Europe) and the functional load is rather low in Esperanto.

RubyH

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby RubyH » 2013-10-15, 12:24

In terms of learning it
Make it more similar to my fantasy people language, that's assuming I speak their language by the way, was that case 29 or case 11?, Was that the general or territorial person?–
I suppose… I ought to learn Lojban, seeing as my fictional peoples language is meant to be logical.
Even having several international languages would be intriguing at the very least.

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2013-12-22, 18:25

Talib wrote:Yeah, and he answered: It doesn't matter if you make it easier. That will have no impact on how many people want to learn it.


linguoboy wrote:I'm generally not one to dick around with languages for no reason at all. If you don't have any real-world motivation for soliciting changes, then that makes this thread like ten times more pointless.


I was going to do this whole thing about actually improving the language, and I will later, but dang! You guys came to this forum simply to say it sucks? You don't go to a Patrick Swayzee convention and yell "Patrick Swayzee is stupid!" and you don't go to a forum about improvements to Esperanto and say it's stupid, because it makes YOU look stupid for coming to this forum simply to complain about it.
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2013-12-22, 18:49

Now, back to the thread.
I would add five new letters: Ææ(Axax), Qq, Ww, Ŵŵ(Wxwx), and Yy; to assist in borrowing words and names from other languages
æ is like a in apple. q is like th in thick. w is like th in otherwise. ŵ is like ng in song, y is like oo in foot. wæt ŭej, esperanto ŭyd bij fylli fonetik, see?
That way people with names like Arthur, Adam, Ðek, Nguyen, and Øbricht would be able to have their names in Esperanto. (Arqur, Ædam, Wek, Ŵujen, kaj Ybricht)
This would be used only for foreign loanwords and names. All current words would remain unchanged (except maybe the ones with the ŵ sound in them, like lingvo->liŵgvo)
My reasoning for using these is because: A. all of them already exist, hence, you see them on your screen, and B. two already have the sound they have here (Ææ=Norwegian/Danish, Yy=German[or close to it]) and one looks similar to one that does (Qq=Þþ[Icelandic]).
An added benefit is that if Esperanto is successful, no-one who learns it as a first language will have trouble with the sounds made by other languages, because they'd already be in Esperanto
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Levike » 2013-12-30, 23:53

Just looked at Esperanto and here is my list: :P

1. It should throw out the definite article la, it's completely useless.

2. Extra letters with diacritics should disappear and also the sounds they represent

3. We don't need tenses

4. We don't need any gerund, that's a joke

5. No plural needed

6. Nor an accusative, word order to save the day

7. Numbers are too complicated, 0-10 would be just great

8. There should be only one third person pronoun

9. Too many question words, one should be enough

10. Infinitive for verbs is useless too

11. Either capital or small letters should not be used

12. Wouldn't it be nicer for the reflexive verbs to be formed with the prefix auto-

13. Why is there an imperative mood, isn't the tone of your voice enough

14. Again why do we need interjections

15. Too many words
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-01-10, 14:45

Levente wrote:Just looked at Esperanto and here is my list: :P

1. It should throw out the definite article la, it's completely useless.
2. Extra letters with diacritics should disappear and also the sounds they represent
3. We don't need tenses
4. We don't need any gerund, that's a joke
5. No plural needed
6. Nor an accusative, word order to save the day
7. Numbers are too complicated, 0-10 would be just great
8. There should be only one third person pronoun
9. Too many question words, one should be enough
10. Infinitive for verbs is useless too
11. Either capital or small letters should not be used
12. Wouldn't it be nicer for the reflexive verbs to be formed with the prefix auto-
13. Why is there an imperative mood, isn't the tone of your voice enough
14. Again why do we need interjections
15. Too many words

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If so, I like this comment, and commendest I you. If not, not.
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Levike » 2014-01-10, 18:28

Thanks.

But really, I was as serious, this is the way I would change Esperanto.

I meant it, those things are really useless and just complicate it.

Why don't you like them, if I may ask? :whistle:
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-01-11, 16:26

Levente wrote:Why don't you like them, if I may ask? :whistle:

Uh, actually, I do like them. I'll just explain each of them in order:
1) la is to denote a specific something. there's a reason it exists in almost every natural language
2) the point of that was to be fully phonectic. Without those letters, there are many sounds that simply could not be imported to Esperanto. Oh, and btw, say goodbye to: all the -aŭ words, -aĉ-, -aĵ-, ĉef-, fuŝ-, -iĉ-, -loĝi-, pseŭdo-, -riĉ-, -ŝajn-, all imported words from Italian, ŝi, ĝi, ect. ect. ect.
3) How will I specify something I did vs. am doing?
4) It's used fairly frequently
5) Again, specificity. Isn't it enough that it's always the same rule? Even English doesn't have as consistent of plurals
6) Word order freedom. Ili pugnbatis min./Min pugnbatis ili./Pugnbatis ili min./ect.
7) It IS only 0-10. There are only two others after that. dek & mil (10 & 100). For 1,000,000+, add -iliono (with the exceptin of miliono, million; miliardo, billion; and triliono, trillion) ie. kvariliono=quadrillion, naŭiliono=novillion, tridekmiliardo=duotrigintillion
8) Again, specificity.
9) Again, specificity.
10) They're used pretty often. (I like to play.=Mi ŝatas ludi.)
11) Style preferance
12) That would mean car=self. you sure about that?
13) Uh, no. Since there's no sing/plural verb agreement, the imperative is VERY necessary.
14) To express strong emotion.
15) Again, specificity.
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-01-11, 16:42

That aside, I had another idea: two new correlatives.
Toŭ-, any
-doĥ, extent
some correlatives involving these will be pretty rare, but I can see the following being used very often:
Kidoĥ(to what extent), Tidoĥ(so much [that]), Idoĥ(somewhat), Toŭdoĥ(whatever), Toŭam(anytime), Toŭe(anywhere), Toŭel(in any way: I could see it being used in place of ASAP), Toŭes(anyone's), Toŭo(anything), Toŭu(anyone/any _)
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Levike » 2014-01-11, 17:31

la is to denote a specific something. there's a reason it exists in almost every natural language

Many languages don't have them and work perfectly.
I think demonstrative pronouns "this/that" are enough.
Plus you could put "one" before it and everyone would know it's about one single thing.

2) the point of that was to be fully phonectic.

But we would throw out the sounds they represent as well.
A language can work with fewer sounds, plus it's harder to write with diacritics on a keyboard.
Imported words will have to adapt.

3) How will I specify something I did vs. am doing?

By putting words next to it like: yesterday, tomorrow, in the past, soon
For example in Hungarian the future tense is often omitted because we put there a word that
already shows when the action will happen.

4) It's used fairly frequently

It's more simple to put while and then the verb.

5) Again, specificity. Isn't it enough that it's always the same rule?

Putting words like two, four, more, less, a couple would be easy.

6) Word order freedom.

It's quite hard for some to understand the concept of an accusative.
I'm just saying it's more simple, otherwise I too like it.

7) It IS only 0-10. There are only two others after that

It's easier to say use a word or a letter that connects them, Let's say e.
One hundred fifty six = 1e5e6

8) Again, specificity.

For the same reason you could say that the first person should need a gender.
Hungarian has only one and it bothers nobody.

9) Again, specificity.

It's easier to say what place compared to where.

10) They're used pretty often.

Guess what Greek doesn't have one and Romanian most of the time leaves it out.
I want to go = I want that I go.
It's easier to say the next verb in indicative.

11) Style preferance

Since the Romans used capital letters I say they are enough.

12) That would mean car=self. you sure about that?

It autodestroyed. = It destroyed itself.

Sorry I didn't know auto meant car in Esperanto.
For car you could translate "self-moving-device" or something like that.

13) Uh, no. Since there's no sing/plural verb agreement, the imperative is VERY necessary.

But in English you just say "GO!" or "WASH!"
and by the tone of your voice everyone understands that it's a command.
And you could also say "GO YOU ALL!".

14) To express strong emotion.

You could just scream "It reaaaally huuuuuurts" instad of "Aaaaaaaaaah".

15) Again, specificity.

I was talking about things like bono/malbono.
It was a very good idea.
It would be a good idea to build up words this way.

And instead of words like "excelent" you could just say "very good".

Or instead of "auto" you could say "Self-Mover" like in Greek.
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 19120
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby linguoboy » 2014-01-11, 19:22

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:
linguoboy wrote:I'm generally not one to dick around with languages for no reason at all. If you don't have any real-world motivation for soliciting changes, then that makes this thread like ten times more pointless.

I was going to do this whole thing about actually improving the language, and I will later, but dang! You guys came to this forum simply to say it sucks? You don't go to a Patrick Swayzee convention and yell "Patrick Swayzee is stupid!" and you don't go to a forum about improvements to Esperanto and say it's stupid, because it makes YOU look stupid for coming to this forum simply to complain about it.

If you think my comments are the equivalent of "Esperanto sucks!" then you clearly didn't understand them.

I don't have any particular interest in Esperanto as a language. (I do find Esperantism interesting as a social phenomenon in the same way that I find Mormonism interesting or Céline Dion fandom.) But lots of people do, and I wish them well. However, those who like the idea of Esperanto have gone and learned it in spite of its purported flaws (which are different in the minds of every critic), and those who don't aren't going to change their minds simply on account of ditching accusative -n or adopting masculine -iĉo. Only language nuts learn languages chiefly on account of their grammatical features; everyone else learns them because they have to or because the see some real-world advantages to doing so. The real-world advantages of learning Esperanto simply don't appeal to more than a selecti quidem, and there's nothing at all wrong with that.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-01-11, 19:40

I think demonstrative pronouns "this/that" are enough.
Plus you could put "one" before it and everyone would know it's about one single thing.

Okay, that makes la optional, but removing something that is optional simply because you don't like it is unfair to those who do like it. Every time I want to repeat this, I will write: Optional

But we would throw out the sounds they represent as well.
A language can work with fewer sounds, plus it's harder to write with diacritics on a keyboard.
Imported words will have to adapt.

You might be missing the point here. The point was TO HAVE those sounds. Unless you can think of a way to denote them without diatrics *cough*x-system*cough*, people will still use the ^. Or you could just join Ido.

By putting words next to it like: yesterday, tomorrow, in the past, soon
For example in Hungarian the future tense is often omitted because we put there a word that
already shows when the action will happen.

Okay, I rephrase: specificty AND efficiency. Adding two-four letters at the end of a word is way more efficient than adding an entire word. But even then, you could still do that. Optional

It's more simple to put while and then the verb.

A gerund is a verb acting as a noun. I think that you may need a "while teaching" in this respect.

Putting words like two, four, more, less, a couple would be easy.

Optional

It's quite hard for some to understand the concept of an accusative. I'm just saying it's more simple, otherwise I too like it.

Just tell them it's the "direct object". Most, if not all, schools teach this concept. Implementation is easy too (add an n).

It's easier to say use a word or a letter that connects them, Let's say e.
One hundred fifty six = 1e5e6

That would be 156, not 1e5e6. The letter form is just how you say it out loud. Also, Optional

For the same reason you could say that the first person should need a gender.
Hungarian has only one and it bothers nobody.

There are two epicene third-person pronouns: gi or ri: take your pick. At least have a way to specify male/female. That could actuall be something to change: add li on the end of a pronoun to make it male, ŝi for female. The pronouns would be mi, ci, gi/ri, ĝi, ni, vi, i, and si (gili/rili=he, giŝi/riŝi=she). Tell me if you like the Idea.

It's easier to say what place compared to where.

Same difference. In fact, that's exactly what the correlatives do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_vocabulary#Correlatives
(see my previous comment for my idea on that)

Guess what Greek doesn't have one and Romanian most of the time leaves it out.
I want to go = I want that I go.
It's easier to say the next verb in indicative.

Optional

Since the Romans used capital letters I say they are enough.

Optional

It autodestroyed. = It destroyed itself.

Sorry I didn't know auto meant car in Esperanto.
For car you could translate "self-moving-device" or something like that.

Optional, but for unambiguity's sake, I'd suggest to stick with mem-

But in English you just say "GO!" or "WASH!"
and by the tone of your voice everyone understands that it's a command.
And you could also say "GO YOU ALL!".

Uh, no, it's because this is the only time in English when there is an implied subject. There's no S/V aggreement in Esperanto, so you can't imply subjects, hence the imperative -u.

You could just scream "It reaaaally huuuuuurts" instad of "Aaaaaaaaaah".

The purpose of written language is to represent how people actually talk. No-one I know or know of does that.

I was talking about things like bono/malbono.
It was a very good idea.
It would be a good idea to build up words this way.

And instead of words like "excelent" you could just say "very good".

That's the idea, but Optional.

Or instead of "auto" you could say "Self-Mover" like in Greek.

Optional
Last edited by JuxtapositionQMan on 2014-01-11, 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-01-11, 19:47

linguoboy wrote:If you think my comments are the equivalent of "Esperanto sucks!" then you clearly didn't understand them.
I don't have any particular interest in Esperanto as a language. (I do find Esperantism interesting as a social phenomenon in the same way that I find Mormonism interesting or Céline Dion fandom.) But lots of people do, and I wish them well. However, those who like the idea of Esperanto have gone and learned it in spite of its purported flaws (which are different in the minds of every critic), and those who don't aren't going to change their minds simply on account of ditching accusative -n or adopting masculine -iĉo. Only language nuts learn languages chiefly on account of their grammatical features; everyone else learns them because they have to or because the see some real-world advantages to doing so. The real-world advantages of learning Esperanto simply don't appeal to more than a selecti quidem, and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Ok, I can see that. I will admit, Esperanto does attract a lot of nuts, but I still like it. I, personally, learned it in the real world as a transition language for others that I'll use more often. (And because I wanted to write a book on it, but I gave up on that) I'm sorry that it seemed like I singled you out, but a lot of people were doing the Patrick Swayzee sucks thing, and I didn't want to waste thread room quoting each one. I just got tired of people coming to this forum simply to crap on Esperanto. So, sorry.
Well, that was a thing.
speak:  (en) (eo)
learning:  (fr) (de) (ru) (pt) (es) (ro) (art-jbo)
hiatus:  (fi) (it) (la) (wa) (sv) (eu) (zh.Hans) (is)
want to learn:  (fo) (be) (ko) (he) (sw) (hi) (tr) (nl) (cy) (hu)

User avatar
Levike
Posts: 6029
Joined: 2013-04-22, 19:26
Real Name: Levi
Gender: male
Location: Kolozsvár
Country: RO Romania (România)

Re: What would you change about Esperanto to make it easier?

Postby Levike » 2014-01-11, 20:49

I didn't say not even once that I "hate" definite articles, accusatives, gerunds, tenses, etc.

I just said those things because the topic was "How could we simplify the language".
How to make it more simple, not to make it more likeable or efficient.

By the way, I don't like languages which don't have these things. :)

Note: At the gerund part, where you said "while teaching".
You could say "while he/she teaches".
Nem egy nap alatt épült Buda vára.


Return to “Esperanto”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest