Talk:1894 Esperanto reform project

Constructed languages: Esperanto Mid‑importance

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
	This article is an Esperanto core topic.

Untitled

Is there a record of the exact reforms Zamenhof proposed? I'm curious.

As am I. Mga 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such a record -- it's in the book "antauen al la laboro." I have gone through this record in some detail and have given a lecture on the topic at some Esperanto gatherings. It is my intention to convert these lecture notes into an article. If that article appears on the web, I suppose a link to it could be put here. Please note that *no* actual samples of the language exist. The ones you find here and there on the web (including in this article) were meant to illustrate certain provisional ideas for the reform, but no original texts illustrating *all* of them exist. I have composed some and they are part of my lecture notes. -- Thomas Alexander

Whoops, I spoke too soon. I see that the patro nose here does indeed reflect changes to the vocabulary. I am glad to see that it doesn't include a mistake which I made in a version which I posted to the list Auxlang (the word "vulo" is correct, and is not "volo" as I have stated elsewhere.) However, it is not clear to me why "regito" in Z's draft version was changed to "reksito" here and not "regno", as reflected in the general vocabulary proposal. I also suspect that the change from "in tento" in Z's draft to "versu tento" here is not authentic. Remember that "versu" was already a part of the proposal when Z made his draft of the patro nose. Since the draft was intended to illustrate the grammar (and not the vocabulary), this grammatical change is at least questionable. "Versu" was presented in the context of the 13th rule and thus seems most applicable to sentences like "mi iris Berlinon." I'm curious about the use of "omnudie" instead of "omnedie". I, myself, have given more than a little thought and research as to which is correct without finding enough information to be willing to come to a firm conclusion. -- Thomas Alexander

CLCR

CLCR:

qer art-x-eporef

Error (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]