Talk:Esperanto/Archive 8

How to estimate population
This is the best way: take the online population of smaller languages that aren't studied as a foreign language by all that many people, such as Hungarian, Lithuanian, Icelandic, etc. Looking at the internet penetration in a country compared to the population gives a mostly accurate count of the # of people that use that language on the internet. After that, take a few dozen phrases that don't appear in guidebooks or simple language courses (so no 'how are you' but rather 'the one that built it', 'not so much as', 'I wasn't that thirsty', etc). Search for the number of occurrences by language and compare that to Esperanto. After estimating the online population it should be pretty easy to guess the real population. Esperanto would have a much higher percentage of online users than other languages, probably over 90%. Ido, Interlingua and others would probably be around 99% (I've seen a very few that are old and don't use the internet). It might be said that since Esperanto is almost never used as a maternal language that people wouldn't be able to write as much as they would in their own language, but at the same time people are often eager to go out of their way to use the language just to support it, so I think that would even out. Estimating the population in this way would be a project that would take a number of people and it should include proponents of other IALs as well to give it more legitimacy, and a number of people that can make sure that phrases chosen are appropriate (ie, nothing that could turn up in a search as another language). The Esperanto phrases should also be without chapeloj, because then you have to search with the h-system and x-system as well. Better to have '...ne havas katojn' than '...ne havas pagxojn'. The first one gives zero results, by the way. Turn it into 'ne havas katon' and you get three. I suggest a wiki be created on pbwiki.com if a project like this is to be started up. Mithridates 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Original research, and no way to verify the results. It wouldn't even tell us the comparative internet presence of various languages, because we have no way of ensuring that the phrases used for the different languages have similar frequencies in those languages. kwami 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be for Wikipedia. I just want to know the answers myself. It wouldn't be all that hard if a few people from each maternal language were present to give advice and to verify whether a phrase is normally used or not. Languages like Korean wouldn't work because of the varying levels of politeness that would throw off the numbers, but with a large enough sample with enough languages it would be possible to get a more accurate picture than what we have now. Simple enough phrases like "I don't like", "If I could", "I don't think so" and so on would be most appropriate. Mithridates 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it is our job to estitmate the population, that is I think, origonal research.

I believe it is our job to cite some sources. It seems that the sources contradict. Ok. We report that.

Is it more complicated then that?Sethie 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The study Mithridates proposed could be done and the results published on the Conlang Wikicity; then we could cite the results here -- as one more estimate in addition to the three we already have (Culbert, Lindstedt, Sikosek). But I think that similar rough studies have already been done by just using a group of words which are collectively unique to Esperanto (e.g. "la + kaj"). --Jim Henry 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That would circumvent the origonal research rule by the letter of the law, but not the spirit... what is wrong with just using the sources we have? Sethie 17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with using numbers that we already have but I have a feeling that a lot of people are quite curious and just want to know, whether for wikipedia or not. Mithridates 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Place several ads for well-paying jobs where you must speak Esperanto "looking for new CEO necessity : he must speak Esperanto..." you'll find 2 000 000 speakers in a couple months. Until then, I would be surprised if there were over 10 000 who were fluent Stettlerj 20:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted link
I've deleted the link to Esperanto Discussion. I visited the site, which consists of a newly minted form, with only a single article in it from the forum admin. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article until it's proven itself by attracting a community. Waitak 13:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems Esperantio.com already has several members on its forum. It is a free site, well intentioned and in the true spirit of Esperanto.  I do not see the harm in allowing it to be here, unless someone has a vested interest in the other forum that is listed.


 * This forum has three members. It keeps on getting re-added after being deleted, which just shows bad manners. The relevant guideline is WP:EL — this is cearly not a useful or necessary link, seeing as there seem to be other fora. Consensus seems to be against linking to it. — Gareth Hughes 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It had no members at all when I first deleted it. Good to see that it's beginning to attract some, but this still doesn't merit inclusion here. Waitak 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We have run into this problem before, for example on the politically relatated sections. It is desirable to have alternate fora and not promote merely one to the exclusion of all others. It may be someone thinks their particular forum should be shown on Wikipedia to the exclusion of all others. My vote is let Esperantio.com stay. It provides an alternative to the single forum listed, and is good for the Esperanto community.


 * If it were a major forum, it might be worth keeping. What's good for the Esperanto community is irrelevant to what should go into this article; that's WP:NPOV. As it is, Wikipedia is not a collection of weblinks, and this doesn't satisify any criteria I can imagine for adding a link to it. It doesn't have historical importance, it's not currently a useful resource, it's not well-known, etc.--Prosfilaes 19:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem with Wikipedia is people stake out their turf and patrol it to keep competing sites out of the links. You can justify this in a number of ways, but the reality is still the same. Nowhere is this more painful than in the Esperanto section, Esperanto having been created in a spirit of goodwill and sharing. As usual, a good thing becomes subverted to personal interests.


 * And using it for free advertising... — Gareth Hughes 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pen pal service
I don't want to advertise the Esperanto Pen Pal Service by giving it a section of its own on this very high-profile article. I think it's more in line with the AfD discussion to reduce it to an external link, so I'll do that now. If anyone wants to write some prose on the general phenomenon of pen pal services in Esperanto, that would be a lot better. Melchoir 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Link bronken?
Is the "Esperantido (Esperanto-inspired projects)" link broken in the criticism section?
 * No. Marcoscramer 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ease
Just how easy is Esperanto to learn? Obv. it would be easier if you are dedicated, but .. would it be said to be easier than say German or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loserdog3000 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm by no means an Esperanto fan, but for an English speaker it's undoubtedly much easier to learn than any other language. The question is to what degree it's worth learning.--Chris 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that should say easier than any *natural language*. Novial is certainly easier than Esperanto for English speakers and probably Ido is too. Nov ialiste 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I doubt you (okay, well... maybe I do a little...) but are there studies that show that Novial is easier than Esperanto for English speakers? Waitak
 * No. How to find out: take a native English speaker who has previously studied neither. Get them to study Esperanto for x hours over y weeks (say 50 hours over 20 weeks to reach some useful level). Then get them to study Novial for 50 hours over 20 weeks. Then ask them which is easier. Of course, you should repeat for statistical significance. 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (I am a native English speaker and I have studied both, as well Interlingua and to a lesser extent Ido and Occidental.)
 * Watch it, you'll start a flame war among the various auxiliary-language partisans - not a pretty sight! Basically all of the so-called "Euroclone" auxiliary languages are dead easy for speakers of English or one of the Romance languages. Objectively speaking, Novial lacks some of the features that English-speaking Esperantists find difficult - consistent marking of the accusative case, for example. However, it has its own peculiarities, I seem to recall. Isn't that -um ending for abstract nouns possibly a problem? Anyway, the main problem with Novial is that it was almost more of an experiment than a real language. Hardly any speakers, ever, and a constant reforms, so anyone who's writing it is practically a pioneer... whereas Esperanto is a relative stable language with well-defined community norms.
 * The use of -um meaning abstract was never consistently established. So -u can always be used. The test Novial wikipedia has been accepted: it now awaits a developer to create the real one.Nov ialiste 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I found Interlingua easier than Esperanto (which I still haven't mastered, even for passive reading), but I was motivated. Even if it didn't turn out to be terribly useful in itself, what you learn can serve as intellectual capital for other purposes - Latin, technical and scholarly vocabulary, or Romance languages. Esperanto offers those advantages to a lesser degree. On the other hand, the existence of a large Esperanto community is a powerful motivation for many. Auxiliary-language proponents have always obsessed about ease of learning, but usefulness (even things like, it makes a good hobby) is more important.--Chris 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably easier than any natural language for almost any Indo-European language speaker, short of really similar langauges. I would say it's certainly easier than German; remembering the genders and various grammatical endings along with a wealth of strong verbs was pain.--Prosfilaes 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say it's a fraction simpler than Norwegian for an English speaker. Norwegian is pretty easy with verb conjugations, and even the strong verbs conjugate in much the same way that irregular ones in English do, so it feels pretty natural to learn. Mithridates 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I should take a look at it. I've heard that Frisian is the easiest foreign language for English speakers, but knowing a Scandinavian language would be cool. --Chris 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Frisian is pretty similar to the way English used to be, but I'm pretty sure verb conjugation is just as annoying as any other Germanic language. Norwegian and the other two major Scandinavian languages have some of the easiest verb conjugation there is. Just the fact that they never change depending on who is doing the action saves the student a huge amount of work. Just put an -r on the end of a verb and it's conjugated, no matter who's doing it. Check out http://www.verbix.com and compare Norwegian to a few other languages. Actually here's an example. Mithridates 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Frisian? I would think Scots would be easier than Frisian. I can damn-near (excuse the language) read the whole Scots Wikipedia!Cameron Nedland 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're counting Scots as a separate language, yes. Actually some of the English Caribbean patois may also be fairly easy for standard English speakers.--Chris 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Afrikaans is also super easy too. In addition to that its similarity to Dutch is an added plus, and apparently it's more similar to standard Dutch than a lot of Dutch dialects, in spite of the fact that it's much easier to master. Mithridates 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice article
Hi, I just wanted to say that this is a wonderful article. I learned a lot about Esperanto by reading this article and the other related article. I want to learn Esperanto now that I have read the pages. :) lol.  I love the portal too. Bye and keep up the good work maintaining the pages.  Bye  --Starionwolf 06:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * um... thanks? we enjoyed witing it...

Further Criticism
Shouldn't the criticism section include the problem that Esperanto is neither widely spoken nor indiginous to any location. In terms of learning a second language most people chose to speak a diversely spoken Language (English, Spanish, Russian) or the national language of the country which one intends to travel to (or is likely to, such as learning French in a British School). While I like the ideals of Esperanto, and would be interseted to learn it, the fact that I cannot usefully speak it in any country is a major disadvantage. --Timdownie 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really not the page to multiply criticism on criticism. Esperanto as an international language is much more appropriate. Furthermore, as per WP:NOR and WP:V, we do not report on our own criticisms, but instead report on the notable criticisms of others.--Prosfilaes 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

An example or two in sound
I'm not sure where I should put them, but wikicommons has two sound files of Esperanto--one is a person rehearsing a speech by Zamenhof and the second is the Lord's prayer (see this link).-- The ikiroid  23:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanto and Novial compared
Might the article "Esperanto and Novial compared" be included in the Esperanto navigation box (as are the comparisons with Interlingua and Ido)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_and_Novial_compared


 * Done.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language of the Catholic Church, instead of Latin?
See this news (in Esperanto). Adam78 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the date that article was published... --Kwekubo 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be very cool.Cameron Nedland 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i.e., as Kwekubo implied, it was an April Fools joke article. --Jim Henry 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie references
I noticed that there are now two references to the Charlie Chaplin film - one in Esperanto and the other in Esperanto. It doesn't seem to me that it belongs in both. Should there be a single section in the main article that summarizes Esperanto film? Any opinions? --Waitak 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I now removed the reference to usage of Esperanto in popular culture from the "Culture" section, because this section only covers Esperanto culture, not usage of Esperanto in English language culture. We have a seperate section for that. Marcoscramer 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Useful phrases
I've compared some of the phrases under the 'useful phrases' section to the English wikibook on Esperanto and to an article in Esperanto. My conclusion: the phrases aren't all that accurate. For example, the phrase My name is ... would need to be Mia nomo estas ... according to the wikibook. Unless there is some special reason to make it "Mi nomiĝas ..." (which, according to wikibook, would translate someway like 'I come to be called ...' or 'I become called' [literally]) (I don't know Esperanto yet), I suggest that this be altered. Otherwise, please let me know. --JorisvS 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both phrases are used in Esperanto. Neither is wrong. "Mi nomiĝas ..." means "I am called." --Cam 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So is the suffix -iĝ somewhat like a passive marker? Or how else must I view it? Maybe it is useful to include both sentences for the purpose of showing that both are right. --JorisvS 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * More or less. Words are very flexible in Esperanto, and any roots can be combined so long as the result is grammatical and isn't meaningless. -iĝ- can also mean 'to become' - for example, "La ĉambro varmiĝas", the room is becoming warm. I'd guess most people use "Mi nomiĝas...", simply because it's quicker to say.--Kwekubo 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this flexibility is fine to me, as long as I know what an affix means. I've not yet figured out its exact meaning. So: What is thus the semantic connection between the -iĝ- in "La ĉambro varmiĝas" and in "Mi nomiĝas"? --JorisvS 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Think of -iĝ- as a marking intransitivity, a counterpart to the transtive marker -ig- (yes, Zamenhof could have made them more distinct). "La ĉambro varmiĝas" 'the room warms up' versus "La fajro varmigas la ĉambron" 'the fire warms the room'. Or "Mi nomiĝas Fredo" versus "Mi nomigas mian filion Tedo" 'I call my son Fred'. "La ĉambro varmas", btw, just means 'the room is warm', without any indication of causality. But I don't really know what "Mi nomas Fredo" would mean, if anything.--CJGB (Chris) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the verb nomi is already transitive, so -ig- is not added. In a nutshell, every verbal root in Esperanto is either inherently transitive or intransitive. To make a transitive verb intransitive, you add -iĝ- (as in nomi => nomiĝi). To make an intransitive verb transitive, you add -ig- (for example, stari (to stand up) => starigi (to set something up, make something stand up)). --Kwekubo 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(How) can you distinguish between the two? Just by learning the correct translation, or is there some underlying principe to it? --JorisvS 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically you have to memorize the transitivity of verb root words as you learn them. -ig- and -iĝ- are a lot more distinct in speech than in writing, fortunately. --Jim Henry 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

R. Kent Jones and Christopher Zervic
Why has R. Kent Jones' name been delinked in the references section, while Christopher Zervic now has a stubby article? Jones is considerably more famous within the Esperanto movement, but neither has any fame outside it AFAIK. With no offense to Mr. Zervic, I have half a mind to nominate the article for deletion -- being coauthor of a pamphlet and president of a local Esperanto society does not make for encyclopedic notability. Kent Jones had a number of other publications, offices and so forth to his credit, but I'm not sure even he would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If so, materials for an article on him can probably be found in the issue of Esperanto USA which appeared shortly after his death. (Even Kent R. JONES has been nominated for deletion, though maybe for problems other than non-notability.) --Jim Henry 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Esperanto speakers growing faster than world population
I thought this was interesting:


 * In 1927, when the population of the earth was around two billion, Dr. Johannes Dietterle of the Reich Institut fur Esperanto in Leipzig carried out a survey from which he estimated a speaking population for Esperanto of some 128,000 persons. Today the population of the earth is around six billion, and the number of speakers of Esperanto is on the order of two million.

Seems to worth noting. This information came from http://www.webcom.com/~donh/efaq.html#growing. Cameron Nedland 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That does sound worth noting. Zazaban 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don is great guy, but definitely an Esperanto zealot, so I'd take some of his more speculative claims with a grain of salt. It's true that if we use Dieterle's 1927 estimate of 126,000 as a baseline and Culbert's nearly 2 million as the present-day figure, we get a fairly high growth rate of 15x or so over 60 or 70 years. But other estimates would show a bare doubling or even a decline.


 * I suggest we stick with documenting the current range of estimates and allowing Wikipedia users to do the math, if they care to.--CJGB (Chris) 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enuf.Cameron Nedland 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiritism
Looks like someone reverted a paragraph about the Brazilian Spiritists' support of Esperanto, saying it wasn't relevant to the section. Do y'all reckon it would be more appropriate under "History" where the article talks about Oomoto and Baha'i? Or should we add another section (or spin off another article) to talk about religions and other movements or organizations that have more or less supported Esperanto? --Jim Henry 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, i don't believe it is relevant. Many other orgs are now supporting Esperanto. The Brazilian Spiritists are not the only ones anyway. -- Szvest 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is religious use of Esperanto more prevalent than use among social, humanitarian or other kinds of groups? It's certainly interesting to know which groups advocate and use Esperanto, but I think that the treatment in the article should match the actual usage. If religious groups tend to use the language more than other groups, it's worth saying so. Just my $0.02. I do definitely agree that the paragraph on Esperanto in Spiritism doesn't belong in the Goals section. Waitak 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my point Waitak. The usage of Esperanto by religious groups doesn't prevail on non-religious usages. I won't object of course if someone proves me wrong. -- Szvest 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Forster's book on the Esperanto Movement says that Esperantists (British Esperantists, at least) are more likely than the average person be either strongly religious or strongly atheistic, and less likely to be moderately religious. For what it's worth.--CJGB (Chris) 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's encyclopaedic. Thanks Chris. -- Szvest 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spiritists aren't a huge percentage of Esperanto speakers, but they are relatively more numerous in the Esperanto movement than in the general population. In Brazil, I seem to recall hearing that roughly half of the Esperanto speakers are Spiritists; worldwide it's a much smaller proportion. The same seems to be true of Baha'i: they're not a huge percentage of Esperanto speakers, but more numerous than their numbers in the general population would predict. Quakers and Unitarians may also be represented in larger than expected numbers, at least in the U.S. No census figures available as far as I know, though. --Jim Henry 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We need a good formulation for that so it can have a context. Do you have any suggestion? -- Szvest 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can move the existing text about Baha'i and Oomoto to a new section, restore the deleted text about Spiritsm in Brazil with maybe a little editing, plus a quote from the Forster book Chris cited above. My source for the figure of about half the Esperanto speakers in Brazil being Spiritists is a lecture at a recent Esperanto convention, which I don't think has been published.  I don't have a source for the preponderance of Quakers and Unitarians; as far as I know there is no official church support of E-o there, as with Oomoto.  There are also large numbers of Catholics and evangelical Christians among Esperanto speakers, but I would guess they may be a smaller percentage than in the world population as a whole.  --Jim Henry 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds perfect Jim. I'll try to do it and wait for your comments guys. Please complete it w/ the info about the Quakers and Unitarians. -- Szvest 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit looks good. I would need to find some references on the numbers of Quakers and Unitarians; it might be enough to mention the various religious associations listed in the Jarlibro. Unsigned comment by Jim Henry

Bible translation
The section that starts


 * The first translation of the Bible into Esperanto was done by L. L. Zamenhof. ....

needs some more work. Zamenhof translated the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament (the former is the preferred term on Wikipedia, right?); the London scholars made some linguistic revision (not much if any doctrinal revision), since the language had evolved rapidly since Zamenhof completed some of his earliest translations; and they translated the New Testament from Greek. I will try to find a list of the London translators. The most detailed discussion I know of is in Esperanto, the New Latin for the Church by Ulrich Matthias, but I no longer own a copy. We could also mention Gerrit Berveling's new translation in progress, which includes the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. --Jim Henry 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of something...
Are there foreign exchanges conducted in Esperanto? Cameron Nedland 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? -- Szvest 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like an Esperanto-speaking family hosts an Esperanto-speaking person to live with them for a short while.Cameron Nedland 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the Pasporta Servo, but typically the guests stay with the hosts for a shorter time than one normally associates with exchange student programs (days rather than weeks or months). It varies a lot from one situation to another. --Jim Henry 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.Cameron Nedland 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can contact this email: ________. You can also contact Monda Turismo in Poland (+48 (52) 415 744). Szvest 17:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool.Cameron Nedland 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This link may also be helpful. -- Szvest 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Lusi Harmon's email address above; I don't think it suits to post a non-Wikipedian's email address here without her permission. Lusi Harmon runs "Esperanto Vojagx-Servo" (Esperanto Travel Agency), which is useful though not exactly what Cameron Nedland was asking for. She is also the director of the Pasporto al la Tuta Mondo project, which might be confused with Pasporta Servo but is completely unrelated. --Jim Henry 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers again
From the article as it stands now (emphasis mine):
 * Marcus Sikosek has challenged this figure of 1.6 million as exaggerated.

I assume this figure of 1.6 million refers to the Culbert estimation, but this more precise figure wasn't mentioned before. I think that's odd and that the text should be changed to avoid this "surprise". While we're at it, a reference to the 1.6 million would also be nice. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Background of Esperanto banner
According to the eo Wikipedia, the banner was used in essentially its current format at the 1905 Conference in Boulogne-sur-Mer. Majorarcanum 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I was going to just remove two dead links when I noticed a few other doubled links that were already on the template on the right, then noticed that they were pretty much all the same as the template links (see other section), and then while looking at that I noticed the wikified headers, even more of the same links in each paragraph as the ones in the template and in see other, followed by two links to the wikibooks book on Esperanto, etc. etc. and I decided the whole thing needs a cleanup. Some parts say see also for the main article while others say for more information, see (article name); others come at the end of the paragraph etc. I did what I could today but it's 3:30 am here in Korea and time to sleep. Hopefully others can take a good look at the links and try to get them standardized and maybe fix up anything else I might have missed. Mithridates 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By see other do you mean See also? I don't think it hurts to have links to other more detailed Wp articles at the beginning of each section and also in the  template, but I agree the form of the cross-references to more detailed articles could be better standardized. --Jim Henry 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)