Talk:Esperanto/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Esperanto, relexified Yiddish??

This is by far the most detailed study of Yiddish and Hebrew influence on Esperanto:

Gold, David L. 1980. "Towards a Study of Possible Yiddish and Hebrew Influence on Esperanto." In Szerdahélyi 1980:300-367.

Szerdahelyi, István, ed. 1980. Miscellanea Interlinguistica: Interlingvisztikai Szöveggyűjtemény: Interlingvistika Antologio: Antologia Interlinguistica. Budapest. Tankönyvkiadó

The author found few clear-cut examples of Yiddish influence, for example, superjaro 'leap year' is a literal translation of איבעריאָר (iberyor) 'leap year' and the morpheme edzin- 'wife' comes from the phonemes /ecn/ in רביצין (rebetsn) 'rabbi's wife'.

Wexler tends to make sweeping generalizations but does not prove them S. Valkemirer (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There are other Yiddish influences as well, such as fajro, which has been assumed to be English but is probably Yiddish. However, impressionistically it seems to me that the Belarusian influence is stronger than the Yiddish. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way? I don't know Belarusian, so I'm curious (I know, I know, WP:FORUM, but that is sitting at the back of my head now). TucanHolmes (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Esperanto is intentionally international. The word fajr·o (and its root fajr-) could quite well be inspired by all three of English fire, German Feuer, and the Yiddish equivalent which I don't know but assume must be a close cognate to the German. None of these languages was unknown to Zamenhof. — Tonymec (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Yiddish פייער "fayer". — Tonymec (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Image placement

@TucanHolmes: - In regards to the my edit which was reverted, could you please do justify why left image placement is better than the standardised right. Thank you. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My only reason is that "Bertalan Farkas, the first Esperantist in space" is mentioned nowhere else in the text, i.e. the image is not decorative/supporting, but part of the "information flow", so to speak. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

UEA members in new map - individual or total?

@Kwamikagami: Does the new Esperantujo map count only the individual UEA members per country, or does it include the members of member organisations as well? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes: No, it's just UEA membership. That was the only ref for the old map. If you show me how I can access the numbers for the member organizations, I'd love to adjust the map to reflect them. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I sadly don't know either, but I will adjust the map caption to avoid any confusion. Thank you for updating the map! TucanHolmes (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the word order of Esperanto

Hello everyone!

I'm writing this up to get a consensus here before editing the article. At the time of writing, the most recent "Offciala Informo (warning: it's in Esperanto)" (Official Information) from the Akademio de Esperanto (basically an Esperanto version of the Académie française but not as controversial) is actually on the word order of Esperanto, and it states that "topic → comment" is the correct word order. As far as I can tell, this doesn't make a significant difference to the content already there (if anything, it confirms it), but I just wanted to make sure before adding it. Thoughts?

— MeasureWell (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, and the fact that the source is in another language isn't particularly a problem AFAIK. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This section reads as a duolingo advertisement

This whole page needs to be redone as it reads as a duolingo advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.209.194 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Duolingo was a huge boost for the language, and really revitalised it with a broader, more casual audience, so the emphasis is (IMHO) justified. Could you be a bit more specific about which paragraphs/sentences have what issues from your point of view? TucanHolmes (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I also think the amount of detail devoted to Duolingo seems to be excessive. I think it is worth mentioning that Duolingo teachs Esperanto, but blow by blows of user numbers and which base language it supports does not seem to be notable and smacks of WP:RECENT Ashmoo (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

use in philosophy

I cut this from the Eo vocab article as being off topic. Not sure where it belongs, or if it's notable enough to include at all:

Esperanto has been used to discuss philosophical concepts by at least one author in the UK.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO it isn't particularly notable except as a counterexample to people who, not having checked what Esperanto actually is, and in particular how it builds words and sentences, assert that it is "a mere code, unfit for serious discussion". In fact, Esperanto is a language just as any language, and I can express in Esperanto anything I can say in my native language, sometimes even more easily thanks to its rich word-making power. — Tonymec (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Latter Day Saints

Is image of the plan the plan of salvation of the Latter Day Saint movement relevant to this? User1042 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Common Phrases being innacurate

i'll start with Ni Amos, no esperantist i've spoken to has heard of this, it's translated counterpart dosen't make sense, who would you say this to? the closest that would make sense would be "Ni Faros Amo" which translates as "We will make love". also "Ĝis la revido" is not Goodbye it's "See you later" (only in formal translation the litteral is "Until the Later") "adiaŭ" is goodbye a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@SirColdcrown: "Ĝis [la] revido" literally means "until see-again" but, like French au revoir, Dutch tot ziens, German auf Wiedersehen, Polish do widzenia, Russian до свидания (do svidaniya), all of which have the same literal meaning, it is used to mean "goodbye" in the sense of "until we meet again (at some indeterminate future time, possibly months or years)", not "goodbye for ever" which would be adiaŭ. "See you later" (implying a shorter interval, possibly minutes or hours but certainly not years and probably not even months) would be Ĝis poste (literally "until afterwards"). — Tonymec (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Plunkett

One of the seven leaders of Ireland's 1916 Rising was a founder of the Irish Esperanto League, so this would appear a notable addition to either the "History" or "Politics" sections. Culloty82 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Culloty82 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that relevant to this article, though? I feel like unless the 1916 Rising was influenced by the fact that Plunkett spoke Esperanto, or Esperanto was influenced by the 1916 Rising through Plunkett, then it's not really related to Esperanto's history or politics. It could go in a "Notable Esperantists" section if we had one. Justin Kunimune (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Classification section needs cleanup

I flagged the classification subsection of the linguistic properties section as needing more citations. A large amount of the first paragraph is unsubstantiated (e.g. the claim that the sound system is slavic) and many sources are either inaccessible or need translations. Specifically these two sentences:

The sound inventory is essentially Slavic, as is much of the semantics, whereas the vocabulary derives primarily from Romance languages, with a lesser contribution from Germanic languages, and minor contributions from Slavic languages and Greek. Pragmatics and other aspects of the language not specified by Zamenhof's original documents were influenced by the native languages of early authors, primarily Russian, Polish, German, and French.

Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul Wexler

I feel like the mention of Paul Wexler's idea that Esperanto is relexified Yiddish can be misleading to a casual reader. It's a highly dubious claim, but, because it's under discussion of Esperanto's classification, it can lend the idea some credibility to a reader who isn't knowledgeable in the subject. I think that the sentence should be removed from this page and moved to Paul Wexler's page. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s put in the proper context by "though this model is not accepted by mainstream academics", personally. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I at least think it needs stronger language, something like "though Paul Wexler's linguistic theories and methods have been thoroughly rejected by most researchers" (like the wording in Altaic languages page) with an improved citation. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Esperanto courses on Duolingo in Spanish, Portuguese and French vanished

It seems the Esperanto courses in Spanish, Portuguese and French are gone. Only the course for English speakers remained. 91.60.121.82 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

situation wanted

Esperanto has been placed in many proposed political situations.

Mi ne certas ke tio signifas ion klare ajn. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ge-nouns

Someone of no account replaced my example gepatroj with geviroj … but does anyone use that word, rather than homoj? —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

« A country that uses it officially », really?

@Peasandbrocks: @Justinkunimune: What is that supposed "Republic of Palma" anyway? If it exists, Wikipedia doesn't know about it. AFAIK, and eo:Esperanto confirms it, the only "country" ever to have recognised Esperanto as an official language is the defunct micro-state Neutral Moresnet, a contested territory of 360 hectares (900 acres) which existed from 1816 to 1920 between Prussia OT1H, and the United Netherlands then Belgium OTOH.

I'll let you judge whether or not a 360 ha disputed territory with no diplomatic representation and defunct since about as long as it existed deserves being listed as a country where the language is official. If it doesn't, better omit that "nation" parameter.

Once upon a time (9 December 1920), Esperanto was proposed as an official language of the League of Nations by eleven delegates but France vetoed it in the name of « the already existing universality of the French language ».

— Tonymec (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Slavic?

There are a lot of mentions of Slavic influence peppered on the page, but I don't see (in-text) citations for the Slavic influence anywhere (besides one article on the influence of Polish on Esperanto's phonology and certain calques). Where is the source on Slavic influence? Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I will remove references to Slavic influence (as opposed to the influence of other European languages). You are welcome to undo these edits if you cite a proper source. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely Slavic influence in Esperanto, some words are vaguely Slavic or Slavic-inspired, the consonant system is a compromise between various Central and Western European languages (including Slavic languages), and the whole language certainly feels like Latin with a Slavic flavor (spoken Esperanto is often associated with spoken Romanian or Portuguese, which is itself often associated with spoken Russian). I agree that we need more sources to back it up, but it definitely needs to be included ASAP. I'll try to find some more reliable sources. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for your help :) _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The word ĉu, for example, is said to be Polish czy. (I wouldn't know.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

An anonymous user reverted a series of my edits. Please contribute to the talk page before adding references to Slavic reputable sources and claims. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, it was Kwamikagami who did it, not me. I was only trying to backtrack on his changes. 152.165.60.191 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that! Thank you for clarifying. It was hard to track the changes given the reverts and undos. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any sources at hand, but there are a number that mention the slavic influence in semantics. Plena vortaro, for example, is pure slavic -- you don't say a "full dictionary" in romance or germanic languages, and vortaro itself is a direct calque of russian slovar. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I kept the mention of calques in there.

I just thought it was a bit of a stretch to say that there was a large Slavic influence or that "the semantics are largely Slavic" (which is phrased pretty grandly and my understanding is that it's not really reflective of what's studied in semantic typology). I think it's better to stick to general "European" influence with Romance influence until sources are found (which I would be very interested in reading!). _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources I've seen -- the ones I own are in storage -- say that the vocab is largely romance and germanic, but that the phonology and the semantics of those words is often slavic. Much like the yiddish component of modern hebrew. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Please provide your source before editing. Volf (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one editing. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

While I do think it's more productive to retain added uncited claims that aren't dubious most of the time, it would be nice to know what the sources are for others to use writing the article. Remsense留 07:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sources would be good. I've come across more than one saying basically the same thing, and the one we do have here keeps getting deleted. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the claims that are uncontroversial are:

• Esperanto was inspired by European languages.
• Esperanto's vocabulary was largely inspired by Romance languages.

I think that the Slavic claims are more dubious given my knowledge of Esperanto and linguistics. While I've personally refrained from editing while this is hashed out, per WP:BURDEN, Volf is correct that this content must be verifiable to be restored.

Here are why I believe the claims made about Slavic in the page are dubious:

1. Saying the semantics "derives from Slavic" is misleading and not in accordance with language used in linguistics. It is not reflective of the study of semantic typology. It is a grandiose, general claim without clear meaning or explanation. It is better addressed by saying "many expressions are calques of Slavic languages like Polish" or "idioms are borrowed from Polish". It is better for claims to be precise (WP:BECLEAR).^{[Note 1]}
2. Esperanto phonology is broadly European. It is missing many of the features that are unique to Slavic phonology like palatalization and are prominent features of Belarusian and Polish phonology (which were known to Zamenhof). Only the affricate /dz/ is unique to non-Slavic languages.
3. Paul Wexler is considered to be--and apologies for my sass--a crackpot. He is not respected among Yiddish studies scholars or linguists. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, his claims should not be included here, and should be moved to his page.

^{^} As an aside, is no reason why the infobox and lede shouldn't use a general claim like "broadly European". Since these are the parts of the page first viewed and skimmed by readers, it is critical that this portion be accurate. Any nuanced claims can be looked at by more interested readers later on.

_{too_much} curiosity (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The current claims of Esperanto's Slavic influence are a magazine article and a Polish book with no hyperlink to read online. The Polish book fails WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NOENG.

The magazine article is used to justify grandiose claims. Here are some examples from the article:

• "That’s why some practitioners of Esperanto claim that Polish pronunciation of Esperanto is the most natural and closest to the Esperanto standard. But this is of course rather a matter of individual taste." (emphasis my own).
• "A similar ‘subliminal’ influence of Slavic semantics can be seen in the meaning and functioning of some words."

These do not translate to grandiose claims of "much of the semantics are Slavic".

The only grandiose claim in the article is the claim by Żelazny: “The Esperanto phonological system is almost entirely Polish.” However, the article does not explain why it is Polish compared to other European languages. It certainly does not justify the claim that the phonology is "Slavic". Per WP:EVIDENCE, this source on its own is insufficient for these large claims. Claims about the Polish accent, however, should certainly be included in the page. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The "based on European" comment is ambiguous to the point of being nearly meaningless. Gaelic, Basque and Hungarian are European, but not the basis of Eo.

Basic vocab is about 2∕3 Romance and 1∕3 Germanic, subsuming the Greek component.

Early Eo did have palatalization. Z dropped it later for international accessibility, e.g. nacjes > nacioj. The stress pattern in nacioj is Greek, one of a very few apparent Greek influences (if not just coincidence). Apart from /h/ instead of /ɣ/, as in Yiddish, the consonants are otherwise those of Belarusian -- including the near allophony of [v] ~ [u̯]. Belarusian actually does have /dz/.

I've seen claims that the diphthongs may be influenced by Yiddish rather than just Belarusian. Either way, Eo phonology parallels Z's native languages in its details.

The semantics is similar to cases of relexification. E.g. plena means what its translation in ~Russian means, not what its Romance cognates mean. Da is completely Slavic. How extensive that pattern is I don't know, but it's enough to be notable.

The morphology of course has been abstracted away from its source languages, though the agglutination was inspired by Russian. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful! Your notes are convincing, but can these claims be sourced? To clarify, I'm not against the inclusion of these claims in the page. My comment above is meant to show that these claims are not reasonably assumed and must include sources per WP:VERIFY.

I will revert the page to be accordance with WP:BURDEN. I welcome any future changes or reversions that include appropriate sourcing.

However, I believe we must remove the Wexler note since it is currently WP:PROFRINGE and since it is not a sufficiently notable theory. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have my old sources accessible.

Claiming it's just "european languages" is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless and that the vocab is "largely romance" is misleading.

I've tagged those for clarification and failing verification. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. You're right that those could be worked on as well. I'll look for some sources on that. Do you remember the names of the sources? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. All packed away in another city, for those I own myself. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Typo correction request

French "Jaques" should be spelled "Jacques" EclecticSantaRosa (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

EclecticSantaRosa,  Done— Remsense诉 21:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Zamenhof was not Polish.

The Creation section currently starts with "Esperanto was created...by L. L. Zamenhof, a Polish-Jewish ophthalmologist..."

Zamenhof was not Polish and he asked people not to call him Polish. ("...sed ne nomu min 'Polo', por ke oni ne diru, ke mi--por akcepti honorojn--metis sur min maskon de popolo, al kiu mi ne apartenas". (...but don't call me Polish so that people will not say that I--to accept honors--put on a mask of an ethnic group of which I am not a part.) He described himself as "Ruslanda hebreo" (Russian Hebrew). 2600:1700:7260:AB20:5C69:424C:3954:FDBF (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No action should have been performed without appropriate citations for the quotes provided by the IP user. The issue of Zamenhof's nationality – even the applicability of a national classification – is contentious. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish language banned in 1870s. Relevance?

The Polish language was banned in the 1870s. What significance does that have on Esperanto? I think it does not have much significance at all. Zamenhof was already developing Esperanto at that time. He had already determined that the world needed a common language for peace and unity.

The only published connection Esperanto has to the banning of the Polish language is in a Medium post by Gian Pablo Antonetti who also posted an instructive Esperanto video at Wikimedia Commons: File:Stela speaking the Esperanto language.webm. Gian Pablo Antonetti is not a known expert in Esperanto, which means that WP:MEDIUM takes effect and we cannot trust his Medium post to be reliable. It's basically his own opinion in the form of a blog.

The other citation for this fact, https://www.bstok.pl/bialystok/, does not mention Esperanto at all, nor does it mention Zamenhof. It is not helpful here.

That is why I removed the bit about the Polish language being banned. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is still useful for context, in my opinion, since it illustrates the attitude of the Russian Empire towards multiculturalism. This showcases the atmosphere under which Esperanto was created, more than an abstract "Russian Empire was an oppressive empire, language-wise as in general life" could. A footnote might be more appropriate. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The context would be useful if a good WP:SECONDARY source can be found. Antonetti's Medium.com post won't do it. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)