Roy McCoy | Re: “Imajinar”
Antonio wrote:
> Nonfelis, esperanto es in prison de se propre normas e no un pote
> cambiar los. Mesma si Dro. Zamenhoff es renasante. :(
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. This doesn't mean, however, that
positive elements of Esperanto can't or shouldn't be incorporated
into other, more freely evolving planned languages.
> Me ave aprendedo speranto per plu ce 10 anios. Me nunca ia pote parlar
> el. Me ia comensa studiar LFN ave 10 meses. Me ja scribe e parla LFN
> razonante. Vere, sola oto oras ia es bastante per comensar.
Because you're Brazilian, and LFN bears a strong resemblance to Portuguese.
I don't say there's necessarily anything wrong with that - but it's not
something that's universal, as you somehow seem to imply.
Jacques wrote:
> I thank you, dear Roy McCoy, for your comment
> (discussion gives life to this website)
> even if it seems to me that you skipped
> the specific LFN phonology.
Indeed I did - I've skipped just about everything, in fact, concerning LFN.
Perhaps you can be more specific, letting me know why e.g. "imajinar" is
obligatory, and/or why "imaginar" is prohibited, by LFN phonology.
George wrote:
> I have often wondered why Esperantists never did some of the obvious things
> to improve their language.
I may have wondered about that at some point, but not anymore. Esperanto
was regarded as sufficiently adequate to serve in its original state, as
indeed it has for well over a hundred years. Its movement was pretty much
from the beginning a religion, with the Fundamento as its sacred text -
not something you mess with. Also there was simply the technical problem
of establishing and implementing the "obvious" changes - which unfortunately
weren't obvious enough that a sufficiently large number of people could agree
on them.
I got a message from someone else on this list, privately, who wrote in
defense of Esperanto, as if I hadn't just in a way defended it myself.
Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that I was either for or against
Esperanto, but simply that I preferred the more Esperantic and natural
forms imagi/imaginar, religio/religion, etc., to the noticeably less
natural-looking forms imajinar and relijion. I'm sure many share or
would share my preference on that.
Roy McCoy