Talk:Esperanto/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Over-emphasis on Polish elements

Aleksander Korzhenkov says on page 5 in his 2010 book, Zamenhof: The Life, Works and Ideas of the Author of Esperanto (ISBN 9781595691675), that this has been a problem since the 1910s when Adam Zakrzewski and other Poles tried to portray Zamenhof as a Pole, hiding his strong Russian Jewish identity. Korzhenkov says that Zamenhof identified as a Russian Jew, and that his two native languages were Yiddish and Russian. He learned Belarusian and Polish in childhood, along with French and German from his father. The Zamenhof family was Litvak Jewish in ethnicity, but in 1863's January Uprising when the Poles were trying to kick out the Russians, the Zamenhofs stayed faithful to the Russian side, and were subsequently rewarded with a Russian civil service job for Zamenhof's father.

Korzhenkov continues by saying that early Esperantists wrote 700 articles about the language for the 1905 World Esperanto Congress, and only one of these mentioned that Zamenhof was Jewish. Korzhenkov says that this was part of a campaign by Poles to claim the language as having a Polish birth, and erase any Jewish taint. Zamenhof plainly stated that his invented language was designed to be neutral—balanced between the languages—so that no nation can claim it.

I can see in this article that the Polish aspects have been over-emphasized in keeping with the revisionist writings of Zakrzewski and other Poles. Zamenhof was never a nationalist favoring the country of Poland. He was a global thinker, an internationalist as it were. He wanted peace and commonality among the peoples of the world. He never promoted Polish culture or Polish nationalism. The fact that he lived many years in Warsaw is incidental to the story of Esperanto. He developed the language in various cities, including Moscow, Vienna, Płock (in Poland), Warsaw and Veisiejai (in Lithuania.) He never connected the language to Warsaw or Poland. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note the talk page of the article about Zamenhof, which is full of repeated discussions about this issue, e.g. § Ethnicity/nationality: a proposal. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is highly disputed in countless sources then I agree believe that placing a nationality/national identity is not necessary (see Copernicus article). There are many claims for and against this, especially that Zamenhof's legacy in Russia is meagre and that Zamenhof was both a citizen of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Poland formed in 1917 (citizenship preferred in lead sections). Erasing his legacy in Poland would be most unwise (see Zamenhof's funeral eulogy) and simply writing "Russian-Jewish" is an overstep. Furthermore, I find Korzhenkov to be quite biased on the topic, even if there is an overemphasis on the Polish element (which cannot be denied). The current page after reverts does not address nationality. Merangs (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is the best option. We can just not mention his nationality, especially if it's not that it important (what is more important is the context in which Esperanto was created, as well as the place where its creator grew up). His Jewishness is key, his nationality isn't; especially in a Russian Empire that was multicultural, but where nationalism (and language) was a constant source of conflict between people(s), plus antisemitism. This is an encyclopedic entry; Wikipedia doesn't have to take a position if it's not relevant to the topic – and I argue it isn't. TucanHolmes (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

So we go from "created by the Russian-Jewish ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887" to "created by the ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887." How is his being an ophthalmologist relevant to the topic? It's not even discussed in the text (there's only a mention), so why have it in the lead? It would be a bit like writing "Albert Einstein was a Swiss patent officer."

His being Jewish, however, was important. He created a unified standard for Yiddish -- an important project in his younger years -- and all 3 of his children were murdered in the Holocaust. But that should be cut because the state that controlled the city he lived in changed a few months before he died?

I suppose we could argue that his children were Polish-Jewish, so the Polish element is certainly relevant. But we state that Esperanto contains calques from Polish without mentioning that it contains as many, if not more, from Russian. So the Polish element is both underrepresented and exaggerated, while the Russian element is almost cut out entirely. It shouldn't be that hard to just say what we know from RS's without pandering to nationalist idiots. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly the ophthalmologist label has nothing to do with Esperanto. The fact that Z was Jewish is important, though, and should not be hidden as it has been in the past. The old label "Warsaw-based" was inappropriate because his invention of Esperanto was not due to his location. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to copy my response to user Binksternet from his talk page as I believe it is relevant, hope that's alright - 'I agree with your comment on "he did not promote Russian interests or Polish interests or even Jewish interests", and as such "generating" a nationality or national identity in the Esperanto article is not necessary if this topic is so sensitive, contentious and debated. In a way, I do not think that us, a handful of Wikipedia users, even should approach this topic with contradicting bibliography and force an outcome as it will just create more hostility.' Regarding the profession, if it is not key then it can be removed. The lead section should be a summary of facts, not an in-depth analysis nor a battleground of information. Merangs (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Add link to the China Esperanto page

The article mentions China.org.cn uses Esperanto language, proposed to add a link to it.

http://esperanto.china.org.cn/ Lflucena (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, can be added to the External links section. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made this change. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Swap "Official use" and "History"

I believe these two sections should be swapped, since the History of Esperanto leads up to its official, modern-day use. (Maybe it should be moved down even further, past "Internet"?)

Also, the "Official use" section should be organized, either by subject (education, military, news, etc.) or by region (Europe, Americas, East Asia, etc.). TucanHolmes (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe subject to be the best categorization system. My proposed categories (subsections):

• International organizations
• Education
• News/Media
• Military
• Micronations

TucanHolmes (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic properties subsection ordering

The "Linguistic properties" section is generally ordered by increasing scope. I would expect "Vocabulary" to fall between Orthography and Grammar. Similarly, I would expect "Simple phrases" to precede "Sample texts". Dotyoyo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Slavic middle plane

Claude Piron's 1981 paper "Esperanto: european or asiatic language?" is cited to support the statement that Esperanto's grammar has more in common with Asian languages than with European ones. The paper's section titled "The Middle Plane" highlights several language features that are traditionally considered individually, but together can be construed as an additional linguistic structure that might be worth mentioning in this Wikipedia article.

This information could be added to the "Linguistic properties" section, in the "Classification" subsection, or in a new subsection called "Syntactic and semantic middle layer" or "Slavic influence".

Specifically, the paper's section "The Middle Plane" covers these aspects of the language:

• (1) Word order and style
• (2) Syntax
  • (a) sequence of tenses
  • (b) obligatory reflexive
  • (c) distinction between modifying and predicative complements
  • (d) use of adverbial form with infinitival or clausal subject
  • (e) infinitive as prepositionless complement of noun
  • (f) asymmetry or constraints placed on the use of prepositions followed by infinitives
• (3) Various non-Western aspects (distinctions of nuance)
• (4) Obligatory distinction between transitivity and intransitivity
• (5) Turns of phrase
• (6) Semantic associations of roots, independent of source language
• (7) Forms taken by loanwords
• (8) The writing system (abbreviations, and lack of coarticulation effects)

Dotyoyo (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Piron is that he is a language activist, and so his ideas should be checked against other secondary or tertiary sources. We can include this with an attribution to Piron, but we shouldn't give his ideas undue weight or prominence. Esperanto was designed to be an intermediary language, with a synthesis of different elements from its source languages, which makes attributing certain features to specific (groups of) source languages difficult, especially when these languages are in a continuum or a Sprachbund. It is for example often unclear whether a given feature is supposed to be classified as "Slavic-influenced" or more generally "Central European-influenced". TucanHolmes (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a sentence regarding Claude Piron's work to the end of the classification section. Dotyoyo (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason this was removed from the article years ago. It only works if by "Asiatic" you mean "Russian". There's obviously a Slavic core, e.g. in semantics and phonology, that many people have commented on. But people wouldn't read 'Asiatic' to mean 'Russian', and if it's not that, what's "Asiatic grammar"? Topic-comment rather than subject-verb syntax? Verbs as adjectives? Verbs as adpositions? Nouns as adjectives? Nouns as adpositions? Noun classifiers? Actor-pivot morphology? Infixes? Aspect rather than tense? Lack of pronouns as a part of speech?

Non-Western, sure (i.e. Slavic). But "Asiatic" here is undefined and therefore meaningless. It doesn't add anything, only gives the false impression that it's saying something.

For "European", there is a vaguely defined Standard Average European that has some utility. But there's nothing comparable for Asia. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If we are mentioning Piron, we should be clear that he is an Esperanto activist, rather than an academic authority. His writings from his website should be treated as both self-published and heavily partisan. That means that, if we're making exceptional claims (like, that Esperanto grammar is more Asian than European), then we need an exceptional source and Piron is not an exceptional source. That applies even if we attribute him, because the mere fact of mentioning the claim gives it a credibility it doesn't obviously merit. Kahastok talk 11:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't support this. There are several obvious problems with it. One is the claim that Z didn't know any "Asiatic" languages. Yet Hebrew and Aramaic are Asian languages. (Off-topic: I didn't know Z had studied Aramaic. I've never seen that before.) Another is the alleged "syntactic simplicity" that Eo shares with Chinese -- French and German are a lot simpler than Chinese is, at least to someone from a European background, and I doubt that Eo is 'syntactically simple' from a Chinese background either.

The Slavic connection is much more straightforward (and easily defined), and Piron's paper seems to have done a much better job with that. That's also something that a number of other people have noticed.

Claims that Eo is not "Indo-European" are usually made by people who have little to no idea what non-IE languages are actually like, and are never AFAICT accompanied by any data apart from a few (often inaccurate) generalizations. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Claude Piron knew both Esperanto and Chinese; he did professional interpretation for UNO then the WHO from English, Chinese, Spanish and Russian into French. Does this make him biased? Are PhDs who disparage Esperanto without ever having tried to learn it, or at least find out how it works, more "objective"? IMHO his arguments, as laid out in his free.fr user site (kept up unchanged by his friends since he died), make sense, and if one wants to refute them it should be with equally solid arguments from people who seriously knew Esperanto, not with a disparaging "Oh, he's an Esperanto activist, he doesn't count". For a serious opinion about, let's say, German, would you not require a reference from someone who seriously studied German? Then why should the opinions of those who seriously studied Esperanto be rejected as "Esperanto activists" when looking for a serious opinion about Esperanto?

This said, I believe that Claude Piron's opinions merit a mention, and that they should be attributed to him, not necessarily taken as "the truth from on high". I tried to do that in the article text. After reading Piron's article, I find his opinions interesting, to say the least. — Tonymec (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Point about needed to know a language before opining on it. We shouldn't cite people who don't know the topic. Per WP:RS, they aren't acceptable as sources.

I would be curious as to how Piron determined that Chinese is syntactically simpler than French. Is it that in French you need to choose between être and avoir to govern a participle, or that in Chinese a word may function as either a verb or a preposition? The one isn't followed by European languages in general, whereas the other is nothing like Eo.

By "Asiatic", does he mean just Chinese? Or is Esperanto closer to Arabic, Sanskrit, Tagalog and Korean than it is to French? Does he have significant knowledge of "Asiatic" languages, so that he has some idea of what he's talking about? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, IIUC by reading the article, by "Asiatic" he meant "Chinese-like" i.e. not only Mandarin, but what one might call "Sinitic" languages. He draws a parallel between the way Chinese and Esperanto build derived words from constant "building blocks" as opposed to European languages where you have to learn the whole set of relations again for each basic root: for instance, the family ox, bull, cow, calf, beef, veal, etc. corresponds in Esperanto to bovo, virbovo, bovino, bovido, bovaĵo, bovidaĵo, etc., and the same set of prefixes and suffixes are used again with the radix ĉeval- to make the equivalents of horse, stallion, mare, foal, filly, and words nonexistent in English for "horse meat" and "foal meat" if they were needed. Similarly for every "family" of animals, where in English (or French or…) one has to learn the whole set again but in Esperanto (or, IIUC, Chinese) a single set of affixes works with all word roots, making the learning effort linear rather than quadratic in relation to the amount of concepts learned. Similarly for samlandano compatriot, samklasano classmate, samfamiliano relation (i.e. person of the same family) etc. where Esperanto and Chinese simply plop different roots between a common prefix and suffix to mean "member of the same <something>", while European languages need ad hoc variants in every case. — Tonymec (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not syntax, then, but word-formation, and not Asiatic, but Chinese. (Sinitic is Chinese.) That makes much more sense, and I think is defensible. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The word Sinitic was unfortunate; I imagine Tonymec was thinking of e.g. Vietnamese, which is unrelated but (as I misunderstand) similarly isolating. —Tamfang (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, don't delete tags from an article. They're there for a reason, and need to be resolved. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was giving the needed "clarification". — Tonymec (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a citation-needed tag without providing a citation is not clarifying anything. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. A single word root can be used in Esperanto as a preposition, a verb, an adjective, a noun, etc., with the single requirement that the result have a meaning. The difference with Chinese is that Esperanto nouns, verbs, adjectives, but not prepositions, need a specific "grammatical ending" to make their nature clear. For instance, the preposition per "by, through, by way of" has been reused as the verb per·i "to transmit, to be a go-between", then its present participle per·ant·o "go-between" reused in kotiz·per·ant·o "one who collects membership fees (for some association)", abon·per·ant·o "one who collects subscriptions (to some magazine)" etc. (where I use the middle dot · to separate the "invariable elements" used in word-building, the way Zamenhof did with dots, apostrophes, or the like, in the various different-language editions of his book The International Language). — Tonymec (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A root is not a word. Peri is a derivation of per. It's a different word. In Mandarin, the single word yán can mean 'to follow', but is also equivalent to a preposition 'along'. It's ambiguous whether you're saying 'following the river' or 'along the river'. Esperanto is most emphatically not like that. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)