From: Nick Nicholas Message-Id: <199210110536.AA15730@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> Subject: Re: PFO'S strikes again. To: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 15:36:24 EST Cc: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 >Got PFO'S's comments from Lojbab yesterday. Something about that guy >annoys me. Something?! It's pretty clear what; he's a pedantic doofus with no awareness of Esperanto as a (for better or worse) living language; he's a Sxulcisto. Damn, I hate his type! :( Heavens, I wish I was more active in Esperanto these days. I've had Esperanto poems in my drawer awaiting publication for two years now... *sigh* Oh well. >2a. [contention that it's entranched Esperanto style] With Esperanto, more >than with Lojban, there are many non-standard usages. I cab understand >"Lojban," the original spelling; "Lojxbano," despite its ambiguities with >"ano" and "bano;" Lojxbo, as in the _extremely_ familiar _le lojbo karni_. >What I don't understand is the non-English, pseudo-accusative, >pseudo-adjectival form "Lojxban," corresponding neither to English, nor to >Lojban, nor to Esperanto, nor to any known language. He'd have kittens with Monato monthly then. And {lojbo} familiar? Only to those who actually have gotten into the language... >2b. [accent-shifting] If we were very authentically with some Esperanto >text from a century ago, then I'd say, "Let's preserve this >accent-shifting, as a historic relic." We are _not_, however, re-enactors >portraying the genuine folk ways of Zamenhof et al. We're just starting, >why not do it right? Because that's how names get assimilated by everyone these days... sheesh >2d. [lojxbo is not what lojbanists call the language] Bogus! "Germana" is >not "deutch;" "angla" is not "English;" and so on. "Lojxbo" even has the >same pronunciation as an indisputable Lojban word with the same meaning. >Would you make the same requirement for discussing the "cxina" language? *buries head in hands* Fine, go off and call Swahili barapantunga. Latin didn't *have* a name for Lojban... argh! >3. ["Loglan" instead of "loglo"] Okay; we don't really need an Esperanto >word for Loglan yet. YET?! Kristo krusta, this guy has plans for world domination :( >13. ["-in" debate, just pointing out that it exists] Masculine suffixes >like K"udiger Eicholz "-un-" are non-official, like many, if not most, >Esperanto roots, but these suffixes are _not_ non-existent. I'm still in shock over the last time -icx- was argued in s.c.e, so I don't want to even *know* about this. We said what was appropriate, in any case. >Next line, corrects "predikatan strukturon" to "predikatostrukturon". 'stas indiferente al mi. >Third paragraph on page 3, changes "prepoziciumaj" to "prepozicieskaj", >commenting "["-eskaj" estas pli placxa ol "-umaj"]" I've never heard of >"-esk" as a suffix, nor has my dictionary. Hey, maybe he meant "-ecaj", in >which case I might be inclined to agree. -esk very much exists ("-esque"); I don't think it quite gels here though. The Plena Analiza Gramatiko refers to forms like "meze de" as prepoziciajxoj. >Second-to-last paragraph on page 3, changes "Lojxban-uzantoj" to >"Lojxbistoj", saying "["-istoj" estas pli placxa ol "-uzantoj"]". Actually, that's fair, I suppose. Lojbab tends to hesitate overmuch, I think, to refer to Lojxbananoj or Lojxbanistoj, using the more prosaic lojxban-uzantoj form. -istoj is probably more appropriate in an Esperanto medium. >Last line in the next paragraph: He corrects the final word, "Lojxban" to >"Lojxbo", as usual, and continues the sentence, placing a comma and adding >"kaj la _gismu_-formo estas "lojbo" (lojxbo)." I'm not sure we ever >mention the word "gismu", or at least not much, and I doubt we explain >carefully what it means. Nah, don't. You'll only confuse the audience. >In last two complete paragrphs on page 5, changes "same kiel" to "samkiel", >saying "["samkiel" estas pli placxa ol "same kiel"]". *shrug* fine... >Comment on top of page 6: "[Akademiano Eichholz uzis la masklan sufikxon >"-un-" en sia _Bildvortaro_.]" (shouldn't that be "Ajhxholc"?), and >corrects "analogan" on the first paragraph to "oficialan", noting >"[analogan =/= oficialan]". Presumable a reference to comment #13. Eichholz's proposal is far from sanctioned or widely-used; of course, a mind like PFOS's, with no synchronic awareness, would naturally leap at such an Akademiana propono, without thinking that noone on the European continent (whose attitudes to linguistic sexism varies significantly from us anglalingvanoj) takes this stuff in earnest. You can change the analoga to oficiala, if you please; I'd rather vaste agnoskata or something similar. >Page 8, has footnote numbers after Internet, Usenet, CompuServe, and >FIDOnet, referencing them with question marks. I think it polite to prefix "per la komputil-retoj Internet, Usenet..." Maybe we should change "neada" gramatiko to "nega". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie. ______________________________________________________________________________