Talk:Esperanto vocabulary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here.
Constructed languages
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
This article is an Esperanto core topic.

I cannot find the name of the Italian play that was translated into Esperanto and Ido, or the two Italian dialects used in the original (Tuscan and Florentine, maybe?). Can anyone help here? kwami 01:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Du, ju?

I'm wondering about the origin of these words, which are supposedly from Lithuanian. Surely du is more likely inspired by Latin/Romance. Ju is pretty clearly an alteration of German je:

   Ju pli granda la familio,  des malpli grandaj la porcioj 
   Je größer die Familie, desto kleiner die Portionen.
   (The bigger the family, the smaller the portions)
I've asked on the Lithuanian talk page. Hopefully someone can confirm or disconfirm. Lithuanian "two" is du, but given Italian due, it would be hard to justify it's actually from Lithuanian. And even if L comparative "the" is ju, the parallel of both words in German is convincing. Perhaps L was used as a model for modifying the German? We'll have to see what the L equivalent is.
kwami 00:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone responded that Tuj is similar to tuojau, "right away". No comment on the the more the merrier construction, so I've removed that from the list. Looks like we really have only the one probably Lithuanian root.
(The Hebrew one is the masculine/epicene plural imperative suffix -û.) kwami
The Esperanto construction ju ... des corresponds precisely to the Swedish ju ... dess—which raises the question as to whether Zamenhof was consciously borrowing from Swedish (and if so, was it a one-off), or is there some other Germanic source as precise as this which he might have been using? Vilcxjo 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there really no authoritative dictionary of Esperanto etymology which can straightforwardly resolve these issues? (If not—looks like there's a gap in the market!) Vilcxjo 23:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There are two that I'm aware of, but they're both expensive. And of course they're going to be pretty speculative, comparing Eo roots to various languages and drawing conclusions based on appearances much of the time. I've pretty much lifted this section from Eo wiki, so we can ask there. Of course, they credited ju ... des with being Lithuanian, so ... kwami 01:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
In Norse it's jo ... jo and in Dutch it's hoe ... hoe, so it looks like Swedish is it. kwami 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic suffixes?

I have the suspicion that a good number of the suffixes are Slavic, though I've never seen this mentioned. The pra- prefix certainly is, and maybe a couple others; and I assume that -aro is Slavic. Could someone who knows Russian or Polish (and especially if you know German as well) go over these and point out any likely possibilities? kwami 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I always thought "-aro" was Latin, as in "aviary", collection of birds, "library", collection of books, etc. — {{User:JonMoore/sig}} 03:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, though that's not the etymology of the ending (aquarium, secretary, secondary, sanctuary, etc., all "connected with"), and neither biblioteko nor birdejo use the -ar suffix. Still, there's both glossary and slovarj as analogies for vortaro, so a Latin source is certainly possible. kwami 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edzo

Wasn't edzo linked to German (or Yiddish) words like Prinzessin interpreted as princ-edz-in-o?

I have no idea. Rather a stretch from es to edz. Can you find a ref? kwami 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Jen http://www.esperanto.org/Ondo/L-lr.htm --Yuu en 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Yuu en. An unusually convoluted etymology. I've added it in. kwami 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Komputi

I see komput-il-o in Wikipedia as a frequent example of Esperanto word creation from basic roots. Isn't the computer-related meaning a modern innovation? Old komputi was more like "meter" or "counter" as in gazkomputilo (gasometer, not *"gas-powered computer". Hence, the proposal of komputoro and komputero. An older root would be better.

Komputi is a fairly recent root - more recent than kalkuli or the use of metro as a suffix meaning mezurilo. Do you have examples of komputilo ever being used for anything but 'computer'? kwami 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right, though: we should have a recent compound created from an old root. Can't think of anything offhand. kwami 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A-I-O ablaut

When I first came across Esperanto, I learned the distinction between the tenses by analogy with Latin first-conjugation verbs, e.g. ama (present), amavi (perfect), amabo (future). Though my personal aide-memoire may be a matter of pure coincidence (and probably counts as "original research" anyway), I thought it worth mentioning in this context. Vilcxjo 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Zamenhof didn't leave detailed notes of which languages inspired which words, so Eo etymology is as speculative as any other. Pointing out similarities in such a situation is acceptable. However, there is no o in the Latin future - it's just a 1sg marker. kwami 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course you're right about the o of amabo (the future is no more distinctively marked by an o than is the present), but I don't think that necessarily rules it out as a possible model for the ablaut. It certainly seems to me no more speculative than the implication in your current edit (unless I'm misinterpreting you!) that the future o is related in some way to the u of the future participle amaturus (I assume that's the connection you're making, since it can surely have nothing to do with the u of Eo conditional or jussive).
I think there's a risk of applying to conlang etymology, standards or principles which are appropriate to natural languages but not to conlangs. An amabo—amos linkage would make little or no sense in dealing with a natural language, for the reason you correctly state; but it can perfectly well work with a conlang, since we are ultimately having to consider what may have constituted a connection (no matter how tenuous or ill-founded) in the mind of the conlang's originator. Unfortunately, this makes the whole process far more speculative and less susceptible to normal linguistic analysis. Vilcxjo 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are just five vowels, and he used four of them in verbal endings, so the o doesn't have to be from anything. I wonder if that's how the infinitive came about: four vowels were assigned, and i was the only one left. Can you think of anyplace it could have come from? Maybe it should be listed as an innovation along with gxi and ujo.
I'll take out the comment about the conditional (which after all could be the vowel of the jussive, as a fellow non-indicative mood - all speculation, of course). kwami 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The infinitive in -i is reminiscent of the infinitive of Latin deponent verbs (uti, loqui, sequi &c). The jussive -u is likewise paralleled in the imperative of Greek deponent verbs (e.g. δέχου) as well as some -μι verbs (δίδου, θοῦ). (This strikes me as a stronger connection than the -û ending of the Hebrew imperative, which only appears in the masculine plural.) Granted, it may seem slightly desperate looking to deponent forms for parallels, but as you say LZ may simply have been running out of vowels at this stage! I can only say that, unlike the indicative tenses which I had to consciously learn, the -i and -u forms felt entirely natural to me when I came across them (being already conversant with Latin and Greek).
The "u" of -us, however, remains a mystery to me. Your suggestion that it simply marks a "fellow non-indicative mood" to the jussive seems about as reasonable as anything. Vilcxjo 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The Hebrew is not my suggestion. Perhaps masculine plural is used as a general imperative. (I don't know if biblical or 19th century Hebrew had a tu-vous distinction, but masculine plural is at least used for groups of mixed gender.) But of course Eo -u could have been modeled on more than one source. I have made the Hebrew claim look more solid than my sources indicated, so I'll tone it down.
I think the o of -os is also still a mystery. Of course, trying to find cognates for an element one segment long will always be a challenge. kwami 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

QUOTE:

This play of vowels is not an original idea of Zamenhof's: -as, -is, -os are found for the three tenses of the infinitive in Faiguet's system of 1765; -a, -i, -o without a consonant are used like Z's -as, -is, -os by Rudelle (1858); Courtonne in 1885 had -am, -im, -om in the same values, and the similarity with Esperanto is here even more perfect than in the other projects, as -um corresponds to Z's -us.

END QUOTE

Source: An International Language (1928): Verbs, Otto Jespersen

User:Nov_ialiste 11:43, 2006 April 29

Thank you! kwami 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source languages

Good current edit of the "Source languages" section. There are a few dubious etymologies, however:

(1) hepato, though it may have come (as so often) through Latin, is basically from Greek ἧπαρ (gen. ἥπατος)—there is a perfectly good native Latin word iecur. On the other hand I'm leaving brako under Latin, because bracchium is the ordinary Latin word, even though it could just as easily be from the cognate Greek word βραχίων.

Several of the examples are also generic Romance, including Italian: kapo, mano, reno. We should stick to unambiguously Latin forms, since Italian/generic Romance is already listed as a primary source. kwami

(2) OK, it's late at night here and my brain's not at its sharpest, but I really can't think what Greek word would serve as the root for pri (mind you, I can't think what would in any other language either). I'm removing it - if you put it back, please tell me what the answer is!

I've seen this assertion several places. I've always assumed the source was peri. It's typical for grammatical words in Eo to have more retricted meanings than in their source language, or for the original vagueness to be divided up among words from different languages (in this case ĉirk- vs pri). Z tended to make prepositions monosyllabic, and it would make sense to drop the unstressed vowel to do that. (Besides, there's already a per.) No more of a distortion than nepre from nepremenno. kwami
Of course, obvious once you point it out. Vilcxjo 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

(3) I'm surprised to see the adverbial suffix -e being described as being of Russian/Polish origin. I confess to knowing no Polish, but Russian adverbs typically end in -о (много, хорошо, плоxо, etc.), or else –ому or –ски. It is, on the other hand, a standard adverbial form in Latin (bene, digne, facile ...), so I shall change the text accordingly.

You're probably right about it being Latin. However, it could well have been reinforced by Russian -e, which is the form after palatalized consonants, as well as after ž, š when unstressed. But best to leave it as you've changed it, I think. kwami

On reflection, my example of δίδου as a -μι-verb imperative was not the best, since general opinion seems to be that it is formed on the basis of normal -ω/-ομαι verbs. I'm changing it to δείκνυ.

It's all Greek to me.
It's probably best just to give the deponent example, then, since δείκνυ doesn't have the same vowel. The deponents are common enough. kwami

I'm also going to be bold and put in the (admittedly speculative, and marked as such) Latin -bo in connection with Eo -os. If this is really thought to be a step too far, I shan't throw a tantrum if it's reverted ... Vilcxjo 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do wish to remove that. Sorry, but the o isn't characteristic of the future (and i or an e I could understand), and it appears in the 1sg of the present as well. I just don't see any connection, and I don't see how we could defend it if someone attacked it. kwami 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fair enough, it was only ever really a private aide-memoire. In fact I wasn't sure how seriously the amat/amavit links would be taken, though they're clearly more defensible than amabo. Vilcxjo 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this, by the way. You've made some substantial improvements. kwami 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there are lots of Latin words that are common as roots in derived forms in the Romance languages, but which no longer exist on their own. Does anyone still use vir for 'man'? Maybe vir- from virility and okulo- from occulist should be given as examples of common/generic Romance roots, with only brako remaining as a purely Latin anatomical term? kwami 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suffixes

Whoever the anon is who isn't bothering to read the article they're editing, there's a reason the part-of-speech endings are added to the lexical suffixes: they show which part of speech the suffixes function as. Please don't delete. kwami 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krokodili

The meanings of kajmani and aligatori in the article at this writing are reversed from what is used among Esperantists I know (in the western United States): Aligatori is where at least one person is speaking their native language and at least one person is not, and kajmani is where no one is speaking their native language, but the language spoken is an ethnic (as opposed to an artificial) language. I wanted to see whether other Esperanto speakers use these meanings or whether someone made an editing mistake. Comments? --Cxarli 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order in compounds

Compound words in Esperanto are similar to English, in that the final root is basic to the meaning.

This is not totally true. I think PAG deals with this. A counterexample is bon-kor-a ("goodhearted") from bona koro + -a. Kor-bon-a ("heart-good") is also possible but not used. Kompare sen-esper-a and esper-mank-a. Esper-sen-a is also possible, but prepositions are rarely used like that.

Good point. Will deal with this when I have time, unless you get to it first! kwami 09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numido/meleagro

There's an error here -- a meleagro undoubtedly means turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), not a kind of guineafowl. The word is actually in the Fundamento. Turkeys are in the order Galliformes like guineafowl but are in a different family, Meleagrididae. --Cam 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Cam 20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)