💾 Archived View for text.adventuregameclub.com › offline › esperanto-rant-strikes-nerve.gmi captured on 2023-06-16 at 16:28:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I had posted a rant about how the Esperanto "community" sucks on another site some years ago and it attracted a bitter response over at duolingo.
Original Post: The Esperanto "Community" Sucks
Salivanto, Does the Espranto Community Suck?
The post is by a guy who goes by the name "salivanto" and basically, he makes a complete straw-man of the article and then attacks it.
I should really, just let this go, but I thought if I wrote down some responses, it would help me forget about the whole thing.
Esperanto is, as I always say, the language of the Esperanto community. This means that when you learn Esperanto, you have to learn how people actually speak it -- otherwise you're not learning Esperanto, but rather you're making up your own language -- a language that only you speak (salivanto)
I address this view-point in my article and the reasons I reject it. Essentially, I don't find Esperanto's tiny history and speaker-base to be enough to justify changing the rules that were established by Zamenhof, published in the 1905, *Fundamento de Esperanto*, and established as the *only* obligatory authority over the language by the first World Esperanto Congress.
My claim is that the "community" has made up their own dialect of the language, but the original is as established by the Fundamento. I believe the most common view world-wide is that Esperanto is the language established by Zamenhof. Rather than address this conflict of viewpoints, salivanto will just accept his own definition as the "true" one; basically provided no argument for it.
This kind of arrogance is *exactly* my problem with the Esperanto "community".
I firmly believe that if someone thinks that it's offensive that languages have rules, Esperanto is better off without this person. The author of the blog post says that he "would have gotten more out of studying Spanish, Italian, or French" - and I agree. When people come to Spanish, Italian, and French, they come knowing that languages belong to the community of people who speak them, and that languages have rules. -- salivanto
Another straw-man. There's nothing offensive about Esperanto having rules. There are plenty of rules described in the *Fundamento*. What's offensive is the arrogance of claiming that Esperanto has certain rules without feeling *any* obligation to cite sources, or justify your claims. What's offensive is taking the position that you yourself have the athority to make proclamations about the rules of the language without backing up those claims with evidence. What's also offensive, is the arrogance of a tiny community of enthusiasts deciding that their conventions should be considered law.
And asserted that this sentence was correct. Note - this was after the question had already been answered.
Did you even read the post!? The question was most definitely *NOT* answered. The OP did not ask how to construct a sentence, he asked *why* the machine translation did what it did. Despite several posters adding replies, *no one* had answered that question.
Not adressing the actual question being asked, but rather assuming that everyone wants to hear your oppinion on the *orthodox* way of saying something is another disturbing trend that I noticed on lernu.
The blogger calls out Erinja (forum admin) for explaining how Esperanto works without citing a source. Of course, we know that Our Blogger doesn't accept sources anyway. (They're merely "well meaning") and this, ultimately, is where I lose interest in the blog. -- salivanto
Bullshit. Either you know that I accept the Fundamento as a legitimate source, or you have terrible reading comprehension. What I don't accept is that descriptions of *common usage* among the tiny speaking/writing population amounts to prescriptive rules. I don't accept such descriptions as legitimate *rules* of the language and I don't necessarily believe that they were even intended is such, although they are definitely interpreted as rules by many.
So I guess I can assume that by "lose interest", you mean "stop reading". That means you literally don't know what you're talking about. Now you're going to continue using the pronoun 'he' after introducing a couple other people so that it's really easy to think your whole post is about me.
The blogger calls out Erinja (forum admin) for explaining how Esperanto works without citing a source. Of course, we know that Our Blogger doesn't accept sources anyway. (They're merely "well meaning") and this, ultimately, is where I lose interest in the blog. -- salivanto
I would say that I politely asked for her justification for her claims. You'll also notice that my ivolvement with the thread ended **the second someone produced a source**; even though I don't really find PAG to be legitimate. Apparently, neither did nornen, as he described it as "not authoritative at all". Still, I bowed out. I would accept that the best they had to offer was a "not authoritative at all" "opinion", and leave it at that. I didn't want to contribute to the circus this thing was becomming.
There were a lot of other posters and a lot of other points made about what can and can't be done in Esperanto. I had countered some of those points. Not everything was about one particular sentence. Furthermore, I think salivanto has confused me with someone else (more on that later)
The conversation continued with Erinja kindly explaining that the cited examples don't prove the point, and that it would really be better for someone interested in learning the language to actually listen to people who speak it -- salivanto
I can tell, you that it didn't come off as "kind" to me. It came off as condescending... and that post wasn't even directed at me, BTW!
I don't which "point" you're talking about, or which "explanation" of Erinja's you're referring to. There were several points made by several people and several explanations given. But it does sound like you're referring to the point where Erinja basically conceded that the sentence in question did *not* violate the fundamento, but did violate "established" grammar of the "community"; which, as you should know, I find to be irrelevant.
Therefore, you could **not** say that this particular use was expressly forbidden -- erinja
See what I mean? Not forbidden.
I'm aware of that and I see it as an idiomatic usage, common in European languages. It's a shorthand for "cxe mia domo", which would be the place. -- erinja
Sounds like, it's bordering on agreement now!
So as far as her interation with me, she seems to actually be somewhat in **agreement**.
Now, there's another poster, whom I think you've conflated with me.
I don't have any speaking experience. Perhaps the spoken version is different than the written version from a hundred years ago.
I think that the spoken version includes conventions, which people assume to be rules. -- ALKANADI
Alkanadi has made some questionable points and perhaps used some irellevant references, but he's also asked some important questions and made some very good points. At this point in the thread, however, he's made it **abundantly clear** that he's talking **only** about the original language and is uninterested in "conventions" of the speaking "community".
Will the thread change now? Will everyone just say, "Oh, OK! Why didn't you just say so! Well if that's what you're talking about, then..."???
I think you have very limited experience with either the spoken or written version of the language (which hardly differ) and you are pointedly ignoring the good advice that experienced speakers are trying to give you, in favor of baseless theories that have no support in the history of Esperanto usage, past or present. I ask myself, why are you insisting on this point, even to the point of presenting it as fact on a learning website where beginners can be misled by it? -- erinja
I guess not! That sounds pretty harsh to me. It also sounds like she's completely ignoring his expressed desire to learn the original (1905) version of the language.
If you think the established grammar has settled on the side of too much strictness in this regard, the best you could say is that this sentence SHOULD have the meaning you hope it has, but in actual Esperanto as it is spoken, your interpretation is simply incorrect. -- erinja IN RESPONSE TO ALKANADI
And here's the "established grammar" claim that I wrote about previously. Note that this is not in response to me (as claimed by salivanto), but to Alkanadi.
Again, this is pretty close to agreement that according to the 1905 rules, there is no prohibition against using the accusative of direction with pronouns. It's valid. It only becomes invalid if add on the overlay of additional rules that come from speakers who decided that their conventions should be rules taught to others. (Or, likely, who couldn't remember what was a convention and what was a rule anymore and couldn't find the humility to check a rule book.)
I bailed from this sinking ship **the second someone provided a citation**, but erinja stuck around... probably too long; she seemed like she was getting pretty frazzled.
Given the straw man presented by salivanto, the commenters on his post produce some interesting gems.
All I got from this blog post was that he claimed that this syntax had not been prohibited by Fundamento so it had been allowed, so when it was not allowed by the community because of usus, the community was wrong. -- Randybvain
Not bad, Randybvain, that's pretty close. The problem is, 'usus' isn't really a thing in a constructed language like Esperanto, where the rules are explicitly created by an ultimate authority. I'm open to counter arguments, but I haven't been convinced.
For example retaining o in compound words is not welcome, is it? I was reprimanded for writing naskiĝotagon instead of naskiĝtagon. -- Randybvain
Thanks for another example of the errant pedantry within the "community", Randybvain! Zamenhof **explicitly** describes this in the Fundamento. The rule is that you are free to use the "o", or drop it as you see fit. It's up to you to decide what sounds best. (Zamenhof, _Fundamento de Esperanto_, Rule 11: Compound Words)
Depending on the sound produced when the two words are put together, the speaker **may wish** to insert a vowel between the two. -- Zamenhof, 1905
Remember that the Fundamento is the inviolable athority. It's rules may not be broken.
The Esperanto community, global and local, is full of kindness, thoughtfulness, generosity, and helpfulness. -- PatinjoEgan
Yeah, I've heard a lot of claims like this. But I think we're dealing with an extremely self-selected community and that we really only hear form the 'survivors'. This certainly wasn't my experience.
Survivorship Bias (Wikipedia via Gemini)
In fact, the sharp disconnect between how the Esperanto "community" describes itself, and my *actual experience* with them was a major motivation behind my decision to write the original post.
To suggest that the Esperanto community "sucks" because he found fault or frustration with translation portals... -- PatinjoEgan
Now we're conflating the OP with me and completely missing the boat about why I think that the Esperanto community "sucks". It sucks because of the arrogant attitudes of the people it attracts. People who don't even bother to answer the *actual question* being asked in forums, or you know... read enough to understand what someone else is actually saying.
The key is not the blog post, but the Lernu thread. He wanted to say "vin iri" instead of "iri al vi" and started citing several irrelevant examples such as "iri en la parkon" to justify it -- then he got mad and quit Esperanto because nobody was convinced. -- salivanto
Yes, ignore the careful analysis and just go to the thread where the "orthodox" opinions are the majority.
Who, exactly is the "he" you're referring to!? The OP? Me? Alkanadi? I don't remember who used "iri en la parkon" (to go into the park), but it wasn't me. Nor do I know what that was quoted in response to. It wasn't exactly a focused thread.
"Then he got mad and quit Esperanto because nobody was convinced"... I don't know who you're referring to, or how you think you know their story. I presented only one of the **many** reasons that I abandoned esperanto in my post. And I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything in that lernu thread. I just wanted people to cite some sources for their claims. And when someone did, I left (even though neither of us thought that source was authoritative; at least he posted something!).
I'm pretty sure Alkanadi stuck with Esperanto longer than that, too. As for the OP, I haven't a clue.
You sure like straw-men, don't you, salivanto?
Some Esperanto speakers can be real "aĉuloj" (homophobic, sexist, racist!), but the huge majority of them are extremely nice and open-minded people. -- Samurajo
...just not open-minded about you know; different viewpoints about what counts as a legitimate source of grammar rules in Esperanto.
I wouldn't worry too much if they are using the word "sucks". They are probably children. What does it even mean? Are the people who use the language inherently uncool? Is it just a bad language? I can't really see why people would see any problem with its existence or the people using it. -- PotatoSanta
OK, PotatoSanta... some day I'll write a post explaining this extremely common idiom for you. Also, no one has a problem with the Esperanto community "existing"; that would be a post entitled, "The Esperanto Community Should not Exist!". Likewise, no one has a problem with people using the language of Esperanto; that would be a post entitled, "Stop Using Esperanto".
Please have your mommy or daddy read the post with you to help you with your reding comprehension. But your post was very good! I'm so proud of you. You're such a big boy! 😍
"Mi volas malrapide vin iri" I don't understand why anybody would think that this is a correct sentence. -- RoDaPI2
"I've found you an explanation madam; I'm not obligated to find you an understanding" -- Winston Churchill said something like that.
It's laid out there in the post that you didn't read. Read the Fundamento. Rule 13 says that to show direction, words take the accusative ending. Note that there's no qualification there: pronouns are not off-limits. Rule 14 say that if you aren't sure what preposition to use, you can either use 'je', or use no preposition at all and use the -n ending. Not all languages use prepositions, so it quite possible for a speaker to decide that he isn't sure which preposition to use, and to use the -n ending instead.
These two rules alone are enough to explain why the sentence is legitimate, but you may think that these rules are too broad and that there is further nuance to them. There is some, and Zamenhof describes it in detail in the Ekszercaro.
Exercise 28 gives clear examples of how rule 13 is to be implemented. One example sentence is *Morgaŭ mi veturos Parizon*, "Tomorrow I will-journey [to] Paris". This construction is equivalent to *Mi iras Parizon* (I go [to] Paris). An equivalent way of saying this is *Mi iras al Parizo* (I go to Paris). Using the -n ending in place of the preposition 'al' is explicitly endorsed by Zamenhof (as is using the -n ending in place of *any* preposition "as long as the context makes it clear.") Zamenhof **never** says that the -n ending can only be used on a "location" (whatever that is) when using -n to mark direction.
Several examples in the fundamento show non-locations used with the accusative of direction "e.g. *sur la tablon*". In the learnu forum, people came up with ad hoc explanations that "on the table" is a place, but "the table" is not. This simply isn't supported by anything in the Fundamento; it's an ad hoc rationalization.
But really, how can you go "to" a person, if a person can't at least, *gramatically*, be a location!?
This next exchange is between salivanto and one of his own commentors. I find it a delightful illustration of the "community" mindset.
Its a made up language = downvote
"Its a made up language" = upvote
-- salivanto (in response to a sympathetic commentor)
Oh picky picky picky. -- Bangxulo
Evidently, salivanto can't resist nit-picking even his supporters.
Yes, there is a difference between the two. -- RoDaPI2
Nor can RoDaPI2 resist joining in.
This actually prompts quite a bit of bickering. Lovely. I stand totally corrected. Not a bunch of grammar nazis at all... 😉
They may have been thinking of some kind of directional accusative but without a preposition, a construction which I believe historically was considered legit (like in Zamenhofer's day). -- t20f7gYt
Ya think!? Maybe you should try reading the post yourself... and maybe the Fundamento, while you're at it. And maybe you should LEARN THE NAME OF THE GUY WHO CREATED ESPERANTO! (Zamenhofer... 😂)
Oh, and there's no "historically was considered", unless you're talking about before 1905. Once the Fundamento was published, the rules were set in stone (Wikipedia).
The rest of this sub-thread shows that the commentors don't actually have a very good grasp on how the -n ending works when it comes to expressing directions or standing in for missing prepositions.
But this level of ignorance apparently doesn't stop them from weighing in on the matter. I guess it's the bicycle-shed phenomenon.
The bottom line is, a language is defined by its community of users -- Bongxulo
You're thinking of languages that don't have an establishing document that acts as the ultimate authority now and forever. I'm not convinced that the Esperanto community is significant enough to "take over the language", the way they clearly want to.
Esperanto is the language created by Zamenhof as described in the Fundamento. If you add rules or conventions to it, that's a dialect of Esperanto; not Esperanto itself. Outside the tiny Esperanto "community", I really don't think that's a controversial statement.
And even then, how would they deal with speaking their personal brand of Esperanto, not being understood by anyone? -- Vabelie
So Vabelie has made it pretty clear earlier in the comments that she/he doesn't have a strong understanding of the fundamentals. But really, Vabelie!? You've never been mis-understood in your native language and had to re-state something in a way that made it clear?
P1 = Native language uses no prepositions. He therefore habitually drops them in Esperanto in favor of the -n ending.
P2 = Native language uses prepositions extensively. He has difficulty understanding Esperanto when prepositions are dropped in favor of the -n ending, or when 'je' (the catch-all prepositon) is used, or when a preposition is used that varies from the one he would be inclined to used based on his native-language intuitions.
It's as simple as that. This sort of thing happens all the time in normal speach, but somehow people often seem to think that Esperanto is somehow immune to ambiguity.
I really don't think this construction would be difficult to understand in context, even if you've never heard the "accusative of direction" (as people like to call it) used with a pronoun before.
Let's also keep in mind that the context of the discussion on lernu was a machine translation where the computer has no context to go off of and has to use all possible rules to come up with a most-likely interpretation.
And how is following the rules laid out by the ultimate authoritative document of Esperanto, anyone's own "personal brand"!? 🙈
Hopefully giving these posts a new home on Gemini will mean that people are less likely to post knee-jerk reactions to straw-men created by people so heavily invested in Esperanto that they can't even entertain other perspectives.
So what's the score?
---'--,-<@ @>-'--,---
✍️ Last Updated: 2021-06-18