Talk:Esperanto/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Criticism section problems

The Criticism section has many problems. I removed some of the 'counter criticisms' because such a style is appropriate for UseNet discussions, but not an encyclopedia. I also agree that the Criticism section is in dire need of sources to avoid total removal, but individual problems with the article should be solved independantly. We can't leave one problem unsolved, just because another remains. Some of the 'criticisms' do seem a bit non-notable or editors opinion and should probably be removed. While others are long standing criticisms which have been written about many times and can probably be cited without too much trouble. Ashmoo (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it as a compromise between editors who made the article read as propaganda, and others who wanted a running critique throughout the article. The points were pretty much whatever popped into my head at the time. At first I thought we needed the responses, but after reading what Ashmoo left, I agree that we don't. (Except to point out that Z intended that Eo carry no particular culture—that is notable.) It's pretty obvious that many of the criticisms contradict one another, so we don't need to come out and say it.

Which criticisms are non-notable, though? They're all pretty standard. kwami (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kwami. I think cites here would solve almost all the issues. I even think responses would be acceptable if they were sourced to Z defending the language himself, or something similar. Also it would be good to attribute each criticism to a source so the reader knows what sort of standing the crticism has. ie. is it a criticism by linguists, 1920s internationalists, artificial language enthusiasts or conspiracy nuts? If you get my meaning... Ashmoo (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand, why you removed the 'counter critisisms'. In what way is there a style issue? They show that not all of the claims are completely unquestionable. I'm not against the critisism section at all, I really opt for a more neutral critisism section that sheds light on both sides. Currently uses get to read only one side (the negative one), apart from the intented-to-be neutral one of the article itself. I do agree that they might need slight rewording, though. — N-true (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I purposefully picked four of the criticisms so that they would negate each other: no culture / European culture; vocab. too European / not European enough. I'm not sure that we need counter-criticism. What's generally done with articles like this? Say, with astrology: do we defend astrology against its critics, or do we simply present its case, and then present its critics? Too much defense comes off as sounding biased: We present everything that's good, and then down at the bottom we give token attention to critics, but then show how they're all wrong. I'm not sure where to draw the line. kwami (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations by reliable sources is the WP test for inclusion. I know you didn't mean it that way, by selecting the criticisms to keep by ensuring thay they are contradictory seems a bit like stealth POV and should probably be avoided. But you are right about counter-criticisms. An encyc. article on Esperanto shouldn't be written so as to help a reader decide whether Esp. is a good language or not, but just to desribe the language objectively and report what 3rd parties have said about it. We really need to dig up some sourced criticisms. Ashmoo (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As for it being stealth POV, we need to cover a range of opinions. These are, after all, opinions, not factual disputes. Noting that people with different language backgrounds have conflicting criticisms of Eo is important for a broad coverage. kwami (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

television

"Today, Esperanto is employed in world travel, correspondence, cultural exchange, conventions, literature, language instruction, television"

But the source cited is wikipedia, where it says the (internet) television station in question no longer broadcasts!

so its inaccurate to say that "today" esperanto is used in television! 75.7.33.233 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.experiencefestival.com/

I appreciate the references that TCForever has added to the article, but I'm questionable of the value of the http://www.experiencefestival.com/ links. Not only does it have a huge number of intrusive ads, it doesn't seem to have actual content; it's not even a useful link farm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Criticism should also have a reply (for each criticism a reply). For example it's absolutely not true that the phonemes come from Bielorussian (and, even if it was true, Bielorussian is not an inferior language), the web site that sais this is not truly. The wowels are tipical of almost all european languages (languages like English have really many vowels, esperanto 5 of them). Almost all phonemes are in languages like Italian (just h and ĥ are missing, because in standard italian there is no aspiration). All phonemes are in Polish (so not only Bielorussian), ĵ is in French, ĥ is in German, h, ŭ are in English etc. A sentence should reply to every criticism, for neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 ()talk 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is not the artificial balancing of criticism with reply; it's showing the response to Esperanto as an international language. I might even argue for for the replacement of this whole section with a section entitled response, with criticisms integrated into flowing text. Perhaps one of the Esperanto books has a good section on which criticisms are real reasons for rejection and which ones are mere idle criticism.

As for the phonemes, I disagree strongly. I think there's decent evidence that the phonemes are basically Belorussian. It's not really about Belorussian being an inferior language; it's that it's naturalistic and has various rough bits that are hard for those who don't speak a Western Slavic language. I'm not sure there's another major auxlang that has such a large set of phonemes (and no, you may not put the period after the first auxlang in this sentence).--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would have heard any slavic language, you wouldn't say that esperanto sounds slavic. I read the source for that criticism, the referenced article sais other stuff. And it is not an official linguistic source. So this is a not-so-enciclopedic criticism. And all slavic languages have more sounds than esperanto (Russian, Polish, Slovakian, Bielorussian...). English has also more sounds than esperanto, Italian, Arabian, Hindi too. Maybe only Bielorussian and Polish (maybe) have all the sounds, but saing that esperanto is nationalistic i think it's too much (if it was Basic English, i would agree)... I want also to say that I write just for the thruth, and not because I just want to complain. About this: (and no, you may not put the period after the first auxlang in this sentence); <- Sorry i don't understand meaning of this sentence. 160.97.9.85

I thought about what you told me, my proposal is that every criticism has 3 parts: 1 Criticism; 2 Reply; 3 Objective Observation. Examples:

1. C: esperanto lexicon comes only from european language. R: recently words come also from other languages; non european people cannot try to guess a word, so they don't do some mistakes (italian can guess that the word "vedi"=to see, while the right word is "vidi", similar but not the same). OO: even the latest words come also from non european languages, it's true that the most important and used words are from English-German, Latin-Italian-French-Spanish, Russian-Polish, and few others; the disadvantage of german-latin-slavic speakers to try to guess words is not so disadvantaging as much the advantage of other to remember words
2. C:an artificial language cannot express human thinking, or be used in poetry and literature, it's ambiguos. R:that's not true, esperantist dimonstrated that; OO: Yes, that was empirically demonstrated (see translations of the following books, or the original creations in esperanto of the poet P).

I used different styles (italic,bold and normal) for the 3 different parts, but you choose how to format, you can also put everything in a discussion-paragraph. Also you can put a more formal language, this was only an example. I think to also criticism in this way is necessary, because also the worse criminal has a lawyer as defence. Since this is your wikipedia (i am native speaker of 2 languages, i am already quite busy in those wiki), you discuss and do what you want, i wanted just to do a constructive criticism. Good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 ()talk 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objective observation, at least that Wikipedia recognizes; verifiability, not truth. It's one thing to wade through the physical properties of the language, but things like criticism need to be done with a careful eye to WP:V and WP:NPOV, and that doesn't include "objective observation"s or too much "writing for the truth".--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

just a suggestion, please don't take literally, truth or verifiability, you choose one of them (maybe verifiability). about Belarussian, you can chech the source of that, and you won't find any real support about so much closeness of esperanto and Belarussian, i would delete that (compare belarussian texts, hear songs, verify it). Please chech all sources and see what's really verified. Do zobaczenia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 ()talk 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked it. Except for palatalization, they're nearly identical. kwami (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto phonology is unimaginatively provincial, being essentially Belorussian with regularized stress. <- Maybe this is too exagerated. Maybe single phonemes are similar, but when they put letters togheter to make a word, they sound very very very different. And there is not a reference supporting that (actually ref. 55 says something else, and doesnt' refer anything else). I heard Bielorussian, I would never think it's esperanto. When i heard esperanto first times, i thought it was similar to spanish or latin (vidis). But this discussion was about the whole criticism section, not just about this single critic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 ()talk 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Phonology is not the same thing as pronunciation. The pronunciation takes Italian as the model, and so would sound quite different than Belorusian. Also, the primary feature of Slavic languages to English ears, palatalization, is retained in only vestigial form in Esperanto (in pet names), and so that would also make it sound very different. kwami (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding "phonology" includes both "phoneme inventory" and "phonotactics" (and some other stuff like suprasegmental phonology). E-o's phoneme inventory is very similar to Belorusian and some other Slavic languages, but its phonotactics (and maybe suprasegmental phonology?) are very different. Is that a better way to phrase it? Where can we fit that into the article? --Jim Henry (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Plus Italian is given as the model for the pronunciation, so it's Belorusian sounds but in novel combinations and pronounced with an Italian accent. But not Italian phonotactics either: What other language has initial sc?

I'd be curious as to what divergences from Belorusian phonotactics you found. kwami (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New proposal: I notice that the criticism section (and the associated page devoted to it at Criticism of Esperanto) conflate two different kinds of criticism: general criticisms of all invented auxiliary languages (goals, feasibility, wisdom, etc)--which would apply equally well to Ido, Volapük, etc.--with specific criticism of Esperanto itself (that is, gender, vocab, etc). These strike me as very separate issues, and ones that should be tackled separately. That is, someone could disagree with all the general criticism but agree with specific. What do others think?Mundart (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be worth separating them like that. But probly best to keep them in the same article, since Eo is what people generally think of when speaking of artificial languages. kwami (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Criticisms?

Esperanto is too based on the vocabulary of the Western European languages, but the vocabulary isn't familiar by speakers of Western European languages? Which is it? Esperanto has no culture but it has the culture of Western Europe? Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooplah (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point. kwami (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Esperanto symbol

I think it's misleading to present the jubilea simbolo as the symbol of Esperanto. At the top of the page, it makes it look like it's some kind of official emblem, and it's not. The verda stelo (green star) isn't "official" either, but it's far more widely accepted and recognized. We should either put both of them, or just the green star. And we should note that neither is "official." --n-k 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. kwami (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure

Really diacritic letters make Esperanto "difficult to learn" ??? ... maybe they are difficult to write at computer, but don't make esperanto difficult to learn... --Iosko (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And the note in the same paragraph about how Ido and Interlingua address the supposed problems of E-o being harder than necessary for speakers of European languages might should note (if we can find a suitable source to cite for it) that they (or at least Interlingua) simultaneously are harder for speakers of non-European languages to learn. Really it's "speakers of Romance languages" and not "speakers of European languages" in general that Ido and Interlingua are easier for. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvements...

Saluton. I see that this page is very messy, and could be improbed a lot. Many other languages have this as very good article. Some of the problems here:

• there is too much... even correlatives in the main page! (those should stay in the grammar page) - result: this page is boring to read, and not fluent;
• NPOV the criticism section has just one point of view, the "defence" is missing (i can understand, many don't like this language, but no defence is too much);
• some part can be reduced or be deleted, for example "useful sentences" can stay in other pages, this is not a course, but an enciclopedic article;
• other line guide of wikipedia...

Ĝis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.72.157 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For User:N-true: maybe you are ineducated, that i wrote was quite educated and kind, and reasonable. For the other users who don't know, please check this in the history of the page:

• (Undid revision 233086746 by 83.10.72.157 (talk) I am pro responses-to-the-arguments, but not pro uneducated, false ones.)

There is a will to don't improve this? Where is the uneducateness? --83.10.72.157 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) -- NOW REGISTERED AS user:iosko

What this article needs: cited material. What this article doesn't need: more uncited arguments over the criticism section.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What else this article needs: the whole article needs to be re-writed (this doesn't mean to delete contents, but to change their position, if they are good). Fluency. In the main page of esperanto should be a

• presentation of the language and its ideals
• creation of Esperanto
• its history and the community of esperantists
• (a little of) grammar
• practice uses
• Famous esperantists
• recognitions and uses of international Entities (Unesco, candidate for the Nobel this year, etc.)
• Esperanto and religions
• ...
• criticism

Good examples can be the featured articles in other languages. Also something shouldn't be here, this page should be for people that never heard about esperanto, and don't want to read about correlatives, i guess. If they want to see correlatives, they can go in the page with grammar of esperanto. Here there can be short sections, something like the 16 rules of the fundamento. Does anybody want to collaborate to this? This can be a featured article, if the work will be good ... ;) --Iosko (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to, but not sure I can afford the time. kwami (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against basing the grammar section of this article (much less the Grammar of Esperanto article) on the "16 rules". The 16 rules are of historical importance, both as the original blueprint for the language and as having a gradually decreasing influence on the way the language has been presented and taught, but they are too vague and incomplete to be regarded as a real grammar of the language.

It's probably a good idea to overhaul the whole article. I took the article through peer review a few years ago and I'm not sure anyone has done a global revision of the article since then; most of the revisions since then have been locally improvements but might not have improved the article-as-a-whole. But like kwami I don't think I have the time to do such an overhaul any time soon. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, time is also my problem... About 16 rules, i don't mean to use just them, but to make a list of brief rules. or maybe brief explanation about every part of speech (article, prepositions, pronouns, nouns-adjectives-verbs-adverbs, conjunctions). Few rows with example for them (nouns-adjectives-verbs-adverbs can be in the same part). One very important part missing in the main article is some part of the esperanto creation, i'll do something. --Iosko (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Borovko letter --Iosko (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Who speaks esperanto ???

Hi! i've never heard of this language before and i have some questions. Why would somebody learn this language when we have english, german, italian and many other known languages?? Where this language is spoken? How is this language learned?? in schools?? Who uses esperanto to travel and who is meeting other persons in esperanto languages? Is this language spoken in US ?? in Europe all everywhere??? Why?Where?When?How?Who?Camaradianis (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You really might want to read the article, I think it answers most of your question. Reasons are different for many persons. I learned it because I like languages and Esperanto grammar was particularly easy (for me). Others might learn it because they find it easier than English or German or Spanish, while other people just like its idea and philosophy, so they give it a try. While there are other, arguably more useful languages, it takes remarkably longer to become fluent in them. Esperanto is spoken by people all over the world, I'd dare say there are Esperantists in every country in the world, except for maybe the extremely small island nations like Vanuatu, Aruba or Réunion. You can learn Esperanto in many ways... books, courses on the internet, downloadable guides, etc. I will teach Esperanto at my university, next semester, so that's an option too. Here in Germany there are also schools, where Esperanto is offered as a extrecurricular subject. Not sure about other countries, but I think it's similar there. Many people use Esperanto to travel and there are Esperanto meetings all over the world every once in a while (i.e., very often!). We have a small weekly one in our city, where about 3 to 4 people come together, but most are much bigger. And yes, of course there are also many Esperantists in the USA. I know some of them. There might be even more in Europe. And also in Africa and Asia. Hope that helped. There's a good online course at http://www.cursodeesperanto.br.com — N-true (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiable

I learned because I'd basically failed at Spanish and a guy I knew who spoke 12 languages (I've seen him in action) recommended Esperanto. After that, Japanese was easy. I'd support teaching it to all elementary school kids, so that when they go on to high school they won't be intimidated by foreign languages. kwami (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I started learning it because it sounded cool, structurally. Later on I realized I was becoming moderately fluent in it after a few months of fairly casual study, and I decided to put more time and effort into becoming really fluent in it; it took me about two years, as compared to fourteen years of studying French in which I've not managed to become truly actively fluent. I learned it mainly through the Internet, partly through books bought by mail-order, partly through a course taught by a local Esperanto speaker, and partly through the three-week immersion course that was then at San Francisco State, now at the University of San Diego. I think most of the younger (under 40) people I know started learning it via the Internet. Because of health problems I haven't done much international travel, but I've hosted Esperanto-speaking guests in my home several times, and acted as tour-guide for Esperanto speakers visiting Atlanta. The people I've hosted or shown around the city or both were from Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Iceland, and Spain; I may be forgetting one or two. I've also had email correspondence with Esperanto speakers in more countries than I can think of or count offhand, primarily Brazil, Japan, Bulgaria, Russia, and Italy.

I'm reasonably sure there are considerably more Esperanto speakers in Europe than in the USA; I suspect English-speaking countries tend to have fewer Esperanto speakers relative to their population than other countries whose citizens have similar wealth and amounts of leisure time. Still, you can probably find one or more Esperanto speakers in almost every major city in the U.S.A., and a fairly large number in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for this answeres ;). I think esperanto has small chances to become what is english today... Everybody actually meets through english( at least here). I am not a native speaker of english, but i speak it very well and fluent(i think).. and i am still learning english at school.. by the way i have just starded highschool :D tody was my first day. I learn english in10 years.. i dont know.I was speaking fluently for a long time ago. I thinik i am gonna learn esperanto :D:D I heard is brainfriendly( i dont know exactly what is that). I also learn german in my school. but is a hard language and i dont actually want to learn it.... i think it is the most brainfucking language compared to esperanto.... i think i will learn this language a bit later, cause i start school and the romanian school is really brainfucking and brainkilling. We have 8 ours tomorow :(( and i am 15 years old....:((:(( The law sais no more that 6 but they kill us :((:((. I now have health problems because this school :((. Anyway...intresting things about esperanto ;)

I would not say you're speaking English fluently - you're making lots of mistakes :) but I'm sure one day you will speak Esperanto fluently. It's not that logical, but sufficiently regular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.166.230.47 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Same vowels as Japanese?

Esperanto has the five cardinal vowels of Japanese, Spanish, Swahili, and Modern Greek.

Someone just recently added Japanese to this list. Haven't we been over this before? Japanese has an unrounded 'u' and a voiceless unrounded 'u'; it's close to Esperanto's vowel system than many other languages, but still hardly the same. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, needs to be reverted, again. kwami (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Template placement

The {{Esperanto}} template's current placement, taking up so much room in the right column, squeezes the references section so it's hard to read. Can we move it to the end of the article, maybe right above the conlang-related articles template? Mabye ditto with all the category templates at the beginning of the see also section? --Jim Henry (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"by far" as a value judgement

"by far" is not a value judgement; it is not terribly concrete, but I'd say that any English speaker would agree that a 10:1 ratio classifies as "by far".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)