Talk:Esperanto/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Baha'i

Moving from the article:

The famous publishing house Hachette in its “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes an important link between Baha’is and Esperantists. As far as religion is concerned reference is made only to the Baha’i Faith under the Esperanto entry on page 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry is found on page 66. It is accurate and substantial and it reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on page 192.

(01:38, 2011 February 9 User:Paul Joseph Desailly)

— kwami (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the frequency, Kenneth. You can't say it "notes an important link"; you have to say what that is. We can talk about the percentage of Baha'is that are Esperantists, or the percentage of Esperantists that are Baha'is, or the amount of literature the Baha'is have published in Esperanto, whatever we can cite, but we can't just say "notes an important link". The structure of one book is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And then there is "It is accurate and substantial ...", which sounds much like a value judgment (and a personal one at that, which is suggestive of OR). --JorisvS (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The new (now hidden) comment contains some curious remarks:

• "Links between movements, ideas etc and their (lack of) importance become known and understood through consultation." - "Through consultation", what?? We cite what reliable sources tell us, we don't determine such things ourselves.
• "Let the readers decide if they want to pursue the matter and let the truth emerge in the process." - WTF? "... the truth emerge in the process."? Sounds like the editor would like to engage in original research (OR) with others here, if I'm getting any of it.

In all, I'm (still) not completely sure what to make of these, but they give me the idea that the editor does not really understand what Wikipedia is/isn't. --JorisvS (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've accidentally entered my latest comments (Feb 24) under the heading 'Phonology' instead of 'Baha'i' and now I don't know how to remove them from 'Phonology'. Sorry! My wife has looked at my contributions and suggested that I have not absorbed some of your suggestions adequately. For instance, would my proposal be more acceptable were I to remove page numbers from my wording and place them in the reference section? Here is my wording before acting on my wife's idea, hopefully in the right place:

Dear co-editors

I apologise if I have accidently misused Wikipedia's on line editing process. For the elderly it's a challenge navigating these new things

I'm still not clear what the main objections are. While I respect views contrary to mine I don't hold that the number of those contrary positions should be a determining factor as to what appears in encyclopaedias I'd have thought that the veracity and the importance of one's edit should determine matters. My edit can be checked easily as to its truth. Though its importance is a subjective matter greater minds than mine and larger organisations than Baha'i, Esperanto or Wikipedia impute importance to it.

Some one has commented on the percentage of Baha'is who are Esperantists. This is a subject close to my heart but also unpopular, almost taboo, vis-à-vis discussion in either camp. My best guesstimate is that there are 5 million active Baha'is and half a million Esperantists. The Baha'i Esperanto League has a registered membership around 450 but there are probably a few more Baha'i Esperantists who do not subscribe to BEL.

I have altered my edit again but will await further consultation, especially re my arithmetic:

(----) The publishing house Hachette in “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes a Baha’i/Esperanto link. As far as religion is concerned it refers only to the Baha’i Faith in the Esperanto entry on p. 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry on p.66 is substantial and reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on p. 192. The 500 Baha’is who speak Esperanto form one of the latter's largest independent groups but the percentage of the former who are Esperantists is only 0.01 i.e. not one Baha'i in ten thousand (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Desailly (talk • contribs)

No problem, I've corrected your mistake and moved your comment down to the usual place. Let me first say that it is good that you've finally decided to come to the talk page. Now we can work toward something we should be able to include. If some things are unclear, just ask about them here, instead of glancing over or ignoring them. "WTF" means "what the fuck", "UTC" is part of the autogenerated timestamp (comments on talk pages should be signed by typing --~~~~ or using the button at top of the edit box).

Could you try to look at our comments/questions above and try to give a response; ask questions if something is unclear. You don't have to put your responses into a piece of text designed for the article (please don't). Let me ask you a question about the numbers you use: Where have you found them? --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What goes into Wikipedia is decided by consensus. Veracity is important (though the standard in Wikipedia is verifiability.) Importance seems to be the big issue here. The Baha'i Esperanto League is possibly worth mentioning, but what one book does or does not do is not important. I am curious about how the BEL counts members; the count is more significant if it's a yearly paid membership.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote half a paragraph vaguely saying this “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” (2009) talks about some sort of Bahá’i/Esperanto link without any indication of what it is. So I went and looked up the book.

The entry for “Baha’i faith” on p. 66 makes no mention of Esperanto, but a 'see also' line at the end includes Esperanto in the list.

The entry for “Esperanto” on p. 192 contains only one sentence about Baha’i: “A symbol of the desirability of worldwide linguistic union, it is encouraged by the Bahá’i religious tradition, which stresses the notion that as there is one God and one human race a universal language is also important.”

... That’s it? That one sentence? In this entire book, one sentence. When you write, “at some length cites the Baha’i faith”, you meant specifically the length of exactly one sentence.

Your paragraph seems intentionally and deceptively obfuscatory, and I suspect your intent was to use the Esperanto article as a coathanger to promote your religion. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You have asked for evidence re Baha'ist and Esperantist numbers. It's hard to quantify, especially the latter, as claims vary from 50,000 to 2 million speakers. Many Baha'i publications claim six million believers worlwide today. I like to refer to famous non-Baha'i publications as this tends to engage more non Baha'is i m o. I'm loath to use the word 'famous' on this forum. Chelsea House Publishers New York (Infobase Publishing - Facts on File) in the last few years has produced a series of hard cover high quality books on a dozen or so religions entitled "World Religions". Edition 3 of "World Religions - Baha'i Faith" by non-Baha'i Paula Hartz on p.135 cites 5 million Baha'is as of 2009. The Baha'i Esperanto League reckons on nearly 500 Baha'i Esperantists. In the "JARLIBRO 2010" published by Universala Esperanto-Asocio on p.61 a membership of 400 is quoted.

Essays by scholars in the English language re the relationship between the two movements are rare. But, the secretary of the Baha'i Esperanto League (Bernhard Westerhoff is not a native speaker of English), has recently put up two works on BEL's new web site: www.bel.bahai.de The trouble is the intro page is in Esperanto and ergo not so easy to navigate. These definitive descriptions are under the orange and green rubric 07.11 located left of screen: "Du eseoj tradukitaj al la angla" and they appear on your screen entirely in English translated by a native English speaker

There's nothing dishonest about my desire (and apparently also the editor of Chambers) to promote among other things my religious beliefs. Lionheart's observation is elementary. I prefer his accusations to those couched in coarse language because the latter undermines matters by alienating a certain audience. Robin better write too to Chambers and rebuke their editor. Baha'i teachings proscribe aggressive proselytizing, door knocking etc but revealing what others write about us is encouraged. What's (very) important about Chambers is (a) that for the first time a famous publisher has noted a Baha'i - Esperanto link on two pages of its encyclopedia and (b) that the Esperanto link refers only to the Baha'i faith as far as religions are concerned. That the Esperanto entry is so positive in its reference to the Baha'i faith is an added bonus for me as an avowed member. I mean, Chambers itself uses the word 'important' re this link. OK, re-reading my earlier entries I see some ambiguity as to descriptions. Big deal. Consultation sorts all this out and no one gets hurt. That the notion of consensus, as adopted by some, has to some degree dismissed these two points is an illustration of its shortcomings vis-a-vis true consultation. And, debating 'important' as used in that crucial Chambers' sentence has limited value

Moreover, I don't like to quote verbatim from copyrighted texts because such behaviour brings into question my trustwothiness and my desire to be credible. I can say though that Chambers has really lifted its game and is avant garde re its description of Bahaism. There are several more entries than the important two cited above: Baha'i : most of p.66, all of p67, 1/4 of p68 Abdu'l-Baha : 1/4 of p.2 The Bab : 1/4 p.64 Babis : 1/4 p.65--Paul Desailly (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Ridvan Garden : 1/7 p.520 Shoghi Effendi : 1/4 p 570

Little wonder then that Chambers is the first to note the importance of a subject that even few Baha'is as yet realize

There's no problem with noting the Baha'i–Esperanto link. It's well known. However, your edit was more about the publication than the link, and therefore not particularly relevant here. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

“Robin better write too to Chambers and rebuke their editor.” I take no issue with the Chambers Dictionary, I take issue with you obfuscating,

“The publishing house Hachette in “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes a Baha’i/Esperanto link. As far as religion is concerned it refers only to the Baha’i Faith in the Esperanto entry on p. 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry on p.66 is substantial and reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on p. 192.”

instead of writing something straightforward and informative like,

“According to “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions”, the Baha’i religious tradition encourages Esperanto because they believe “that as there is one God and one human race a universal language is also important.””

which would have been unobjectionable.

You lie that “for the first time a famous publisher has noted a Baha'i - Esperanto link on two pages of its encyclopedia”, when this “link” is only mentioned in one single sentence on one single page. You’re being deliberately vague to inflate “one sentence” into “two pages”, and imply a lengthier discussion than is present. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

R U serious or delirious Kwami? when you say: 'The Baha'i Esperanto link is well known' Again, when consensus brings us to this sort of conclusion one increasingly realizes that some other agenda is at play here. There was consensus big time that the earth is flat. And when moderators ignore evidence and logic their impartiality is in question. In reality neither movement is well known in their own right, much less the link between the 2.

Lionheart, that I am riddled with faults is not in question. What is in question is an understanding of the word 'link', especially when used by young web surfers vis-a-vis old codgers like me. English is so flexible that 'link' in dictionaries has many definitions. Jumping to personal accusations might lead to consensus but it doesn't help much else. Consider too the difference between 'a lie' and 'an untruth'. Confusing 'obfuscating' with 'Socratic irony' will lead next to labelling me 'the missing link' What I'm really interested in is whether you acquired Chambers' work on line and for how much? I mean, if there is, as Chambers has noted, only one God [and one religion] and one human race and ergo [eventually] one universal language, [all of which] is important, do you think any amount of consensus will obfuscate all that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Desailly (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I understood your equivocation of “link”, so that by a loose, lawyerly interpretation your obfuscatory spin could be interpreted as not untrue. So, I bid you consider, knowing how words have many definitions, the sense in which I called out your claim as a “lie”. And if you try to insert said lie into this article again, it will be removed. I trust we understand each other.

Where I obtained the book is immaterial; you should expect that any reference may get fact-checked here. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you're behaving rather oddly. I support a link with Baha'ism as notable (Lidia Zamenhof was a convert, after all), but if you say that I'm delirious for thinking that, then I suppose we can take you at your word and strike any mention of Baha'ism from this article as non-notable. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

U r quite right Kwami re ‘R u serious or delirious?’ What a coincidence! Would you believe, I read this phrase for the first time only last week when an atheistic friend jocularly deployed it in rebuttal of the assertion that for the first time in written history proofs exist based on logic (as distinct from science) that God actually exists and ergo holding to its opposite becomes untenable. Along with the challenge contained within I was taken by the poetic ring of the expression which on reflection I retract in the hope that no offence will last for none was intended.

With respect I’d add that though Lidia Zamenhof is among my heroes, her bruiting abroad of Baha’ism and Esperanto/Esperantism as a spear head for both movements is known by relatively few today, 70 years since her passing in Treblinka. Her legacy i m o will grow in importance but few young people of this era identify with any proper noun found in this paragraph, much less with the revelational B-E link penned by Chambers. The article needs expansion, initially among Baha'is and Esperantists until a critical mass is reached and then systematic and wide spread dissemination to the wider public.--Paul Desailly (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're having this debate. You aren't adding anything to the article except a shout-out for Chamber's Dictionary. What's the point? — kwami (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, Paul is pretty new on WP obviously. This is not a discussion forum about the topic, Bahai Esperanto and such, except as how it is related to in the article. Paul, please take a look at WP:5P, and be welcome to lurk for a time and discuss the content of the articles! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the Future?

Part of the article says "As of July 2011, the Esperanto Wikipedia had the 27th highest count of Wikipedia articles"... but today is June 28, 2011. Granted, this information probably won't change by July, but encyclopedias shouldn't have speculation should they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I assume it was a typo. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Soros

I've always heard that Soros was a native speaker, but when I tried to find a RS for the citation tag, I couldn't find one. Kaufman's bio says he picked up a "smattering" of Eo as a child.[1] Wells' article on Eo in the ELL2 only says that his father was a speaker. Delete claim? — kwami (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Most widely spoken

The lead to the article starts; "Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language."

No where is this claim substantiated or cited in the article. Kwamikagami reverted my removal of it with a less than helpful "inane or easily cited". Prosfilaes said "it's obviously correct; if you want, add a cn tag". I say, if easily cited then it should be. Whether it is "obviously correct" is not the point, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. But I'd suggest it is not obvious, and nothing in the article makes it obvious either.

For a start it is vague. What does "widely spoken" mean? Numbers of speakers? Geographical spread of the speakers? Frequency of speaking? And this would appear to me to be of secondary importance. Why is it in the lead sentence? It makes no difference to the basic fact of what it is.

And what are we to make of the "most" claim? It could be supported if we were to read further on a discussion of Esperanto's dominance among other constructed languages. But nothing in the article goes even anywhere near this. Figures about Esperanto alone tells the reader nothing about what the lead claims.

So all we are left with is the impression that this is a needless peacocking; vaguely inflating the importance of the article subject without actually telling the reader anything concrete or verifiable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "widely spoken" mean? All the above. And it's in the lead sentence, because that's the defining feature of the language. "It's a constructed international auxiliary language" "Which one?" "The most widely spoken."--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a circular definition that doesn't help as long as the article doesn't explain what it means by "most widely spoken". You'd be as well describing it as "most awesome". But more importantly, it is still unverifiable. No article should be leading with a claim like this if it can't be sourced. Even the article itself has nothing to back it up. I would add a tag to indicate this, but it really shouldn't be in the lead if there's nothing in the article about it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is spread out all over the globe and has more speakers and shows more current use than any other constructed language. How is that circular?

It's circular because you are saying A is the answer to B, which is the defining characteristic of A, which is the answer to B. But you haven't demonstrated B to begin with. No one doubts what you are saying, but a reader unfamiliar with the topic has nothing to verify what it says, and nothing is in the article to back up the very first fact summarised in the lead. It doesn't matter how widely spoken Esperanto is, nothing in this article demonstrates or cites that there is no constructed language more widely spoken, and nothing explains what is meant by "widely spoken". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this claim should be cited. However, it's not mere peacocking. Even critical sources acknowledge Esperanto's wide usage, such as Zasky, Jason (2009-07-20), "Discouraging Words", Failure Magazine, But in terms of invented languages, it's the most outlandishly successful invented language ever. It has thousands of speakers—even native speakers—and that's a major accomplishment as compared to the 900 or so other languages that have no speakers. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |quotee= ignored (help) — Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good cite. Can we add this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, footnoted that cite. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that even if it is a fact that it is the most widely spoken constructed language (which I agree sounds reasonable but which also clearly needs a citation), that that has to be part of the definition sentence. I don't think we define English as "the most widely spoken Germanic language" for example. I think normally speaker information comes in the second or third sentence of language articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for following what I've been trying to say! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? In their opening sentences, the Turkish language is described as "the most commonly spoken of the Turkic languages", and the Cree language is "the aboriginal language with the highest number of speakers in Canada". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That shows that some articles do this. That still doesn't mean that this article has to do it, unless a consensus decides that this is the best way to do it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that a) this article already does this b) other articles also do this c) there's no guideline recommending against it...wouldn't we rather need consensus to remove it?

Personally, I'm for keeping it. Its widely-spoken-ness is one of its most interesting facts, especially to people just finding out about it---and especially to people who aren't actually interested in the technical details. Articles written about Esperanto rarely neglect noting the fact that Esperanto does, in fact, have quite a large number of speakers, in contrast to the hundreds of other conlangs out there which have, more of than not, none (even their creators).

In contrast, the fact that English is the most widely-spoken Germanic language is interesting, but not one of the things that people normally dwell on when talking about English. In the case of English, it's mere trivia. I'd argue it's not mere trivia with Esperanto. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The point was that it is an editorial decision and there is no rule suggesting either that it should or shouldn't be in the article. Whether it is inserting or removing the process is the same: someone suggests a change and then it's discussed. I don't have an opinion either way. Just wanted to note that it is not "obvious" that it has to go in, even if the fact is obvious and well sourced. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But we do say that in the lead of English language. Several clauses about it.

This is one of the basic points about Eo, and definitely belongs in the lead. (It's also the best known conlang, but that would be more difficult to verify.) — kwami (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Happy to accept consensus that it is an important defining aspect of Esperanto. Personally, I would relegate it from the lead sentence, but no matter. I had a look around and couldn't find anything better than Robin Lionheart's cite. But at least it's cited now. I'd still say that if it is such an important feature of Esperanto then the article body should discuss it. But sources that compare/rank constructed languages seem thin on the ground. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

please help with new article

Karel Pic 207.218.71.25 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"John" vs. "Johano"

Under the "useful phrases" section, it says "My name is John" is "Mi nomiĝas Johano" in Esperanto.

But proper nouns are usually the same in foreign languages and when they are people's names, they are almost always retained. So shouldn't it be "My name is John" is "Mi nomiĝas John" in Esperanto?

Or even "My name is [John]" is "Mi nomiĝas [John]" to make the variable even more obvious.

I don't want to just change it without discussing it first.

Cheers! IndieSinger (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

People commonly translate given names. A Russian named Ivan will often say his name is John when speaking English. In Esperanto it is quite common to do this. When a name isn't translated, it is often transliterated, so "John" for example might be "Ĝano" or "Ĝan". Translation is more common for international names, though. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I know people commonly do it, but it's not correct to do so as it's a proper noun. In fact, in my years studying foreign languages and then a decade teaching foreign languages, I've never known someone "translate" their name in this way. I would say that it can happen where the alphabets and/or sounds don't equate, but only rarely. Plus, it surely should never be done in an encyclopaedia explaining grammar formation so that the explanation isn't confused. However, I didn't know it was common to do it in Esperanto, though, so thank you for this information. IndieSinger (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's routine in Esperanto. It's like Chinese people taking Western names when speaking English. And I've known plenty of Russians who translate their names, so a Dmitry will go by "James". — kwami (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean correct? It's downright standard. In English we don't write 毛泽东. We don't even write Máo Zédōng. We mangle his name into something we can comfortably spell, Mao Zedong, and then few of us pronounce it /mɑ̌ʊ tsɤ̌tʊ́ŋ/. For ease of international use, Esperanto tends to normalize names more than English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, I've seen it transliterated where alphabets and/or sounds don't equate, so 毛泽东 becomes Mao Zedong but "Mao" does not become "Malcolm". My (German) friend is called Mathias - his name remains Mathias in the UK, we don't change it to Matthew. Similarly, Borja has not become Brian and Guillaume will not become William. IndieSinger (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's "routine" in Esperanto, it makes for a poor example on Wikipedia. At the very least, it requires an explanation. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good example, and it does have an explanation. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Where? You're not seriously suggesting the translation itself is the "explanation", are you? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, just as it is for every other word. — kwami (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're of the scientifically-supported opinion that all languages are merely ciphers of each other?

"Johano" is far too likely to be taken simply as a typo for "Johno". The only clue the text gives as to what "JOhano" is supposed to mean is when it is explained that "o" is added to stems to make nouns. The only way one could deduce that "Johano" was actually another version of "John" is if you already happened to understand how this works in European languages, which is not linguistic knowledge per se, but cultural knowledge. This is not even close to being obvious to the millions upon millions upon millions of English speakers who have never been exposed to any other European language, and even quite large numbers of those who have. I think I was well into my 20s when I found out that "Carlos" was the Spanish for "Charles" (not in the least bit obvious, either through spelling or pronunciation, especially given that "Carl" is a perfectly common English name). Millions of native English speakers go their entire lives without acquiring this knowledge.

It's a perfectly horrible, misleading, error-prone example, and should be replaced, rather than clogging up this particular table with an explanation. The tale's purpose is to give one a quick idea of idiomatic phrases in Esperanto.

P.S. Please rebut with actual reasons, rather than just asserting "it's a perfectly good example". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But his name wasn't Mao. It was Máo. In any case, take Petrarch, Christopher Columbus, Nicolaus Copernicus, etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

His name was neither "Mao" nor "Máo". The two are perfectly accurate representations in Roman characters of his name, with "Máo" being more precise to a given degree than "Mao". See Accuracy and precision. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In case I misremembered my high-school Spanish book doing the same thing, I looked up "Peter" and "Pedro" in GBooks, and the very first book gave this example:

"Peter and John will speak" (Pedro y Juan hablarán)

And that's from 1912.[2] I think it's had time to become established. I don't remember anyone in high school who was confused by this, though some of us, like you, were surprised by names we didn't realize were cognate.

BTW, that example was from a dictionary. They actually define Peter as "Pedro", Bertram as "Beltrán", Guy as "Guido", etc. The entry for "Peter" is:

Peter [pî′-tḙr], Pedro.

And to verify that the same thing happens in Esperanto, I entered "Petro" and "vortaro" in GBooks, and even though I didn't search for "Peter", this was in the first hit:

Peter's hat = la ĉapelo de Petro, &c.[3]

The Reta Vortaro gives translations of its words in various languages, after defining them in Esperanto. For English, guess what: they translate Johano as "John". — kwami (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Which completely ignore the millions of, say, East Asians who have never studied any European language other than English, and aren't used to these pan-European cognates, or even the very concept. You and I have been exposed to these things since childhood, so when we run into it, it's merely surprising, but we're able to slot it into that recess of our brain that learned long ago that these these happen across European languages. We also had teachers to explain to us that they were cognates if we needed that prodding, which is not the case when using Wikipedia, alone, as an adult, and possibly when English isn't your first language.

Further, it's plain as day that "Pedro" is not a typo of "Peter" (what a typo that would be!). You're forced to assume "Pedro" is the Spanish equivalent of "Peter" (or run whining to the teacher, which would also fix it). "John" and "Johano" are so close that one could easily assume it was a typo.

It's also far more common for the Spanish to Spanishify names (i.e. "Carlos Darwin"). I'm Canadian, and didn't learn Spanish. I learned French, and they are far less inclined to Frenchify foreign names in French. In French class, even though my name had a common French equivalent, it was never once used in class, nor any of the times I visited Québec. When I visited South America, however, quite often people would use the Spanish equivalent of my name. Doing that kind of thing is far from universal, and is getting less so in the modern world.

Note, I've not denied at any point that this happens in Esperanto. I'm protesting that it shouldn't be introduced into an overview of Esperanto without explanation, because it's not self-evident, so popping it into a dictionary is just simply missing the point. For millions around the world, the very idea that a name needs to be translated is dumbfounding. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Peter" and "Pedro" are just as close as "John" and "Johano". Your opinion that the diff tween the first is "plain as day" while the second would be thought a typo doesn't seem reasonable to me.

East Asians are perfectly acquainted with the concept. Chinese names are found throughout East Asia, with differing pronunciations even within China. In Japan, there are even "Japanese" and "Chinese" versions of Chinese names, with the Japanese forms written in Chinese characters and the Chinese forms written in katakana. The same kind of thing happens with classical names in India, or Arabic names throughout Africa. Europe isn't the only place in the world that's multicultural. — kwami (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I agree with CüRlyTüRkey. It's not that it should necessarily be removed, it's just that it should be explained. An explanation would already be in place because it's not at all obvious how these things work in e-o. Okay, let's assume that "Petro" comes from "Peter". A syllable that's kind of mute disappears and -o is added. But since Peter = Pedro, does that also mean that Spanish Pedro becomes Petro as well? That would suddenly imply a d > t change! And how about adding -o, does it also mean that "Maria" becomes "Mario"? The reason that John = Jean = Johannes = Giovanni = Ivan = Iannis = Juan etc. is a historical one. These common names in Europe have mutated along with the languages that use them, and therefore, representing Pedro as Peter or vice versa is a matter of translation. As far as I know, it is not very common nowadays to translate given names, except in the case of kings, popes etc. In any case, Esperanto is an artificial language, in other words, it does not have the history that causes these names to change. Neither is it a naturalistic language in the sense that it applies regular sound changes to some proto-language. It should therefore be explained what the reasoning is behind Peter/Pedro > Petro or John/Ivan > Johano. Is it a matter of undoing language differences, and if so, then why surnames like Farmer, Bauer, De Boer and Rolnik aren't translated in the same way? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of detail to put in an intro article, on a subject that even a dictionary doesn't find necessary to discuss. It would be more appropriate in the vocab article. — kwami (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I live in Japan (check my user page). Japan uses Chinese characters, but they do not (normally) use Chinese names. There is definintely nothing even remotely like John/Jean/Juan/Johan or Peter/Pierre/Pedro going on there. You sure won't find common given names in Japanese dictionaries with their Chinese cognates--mainly because such cognates don't exist. They didn't evolve from Chinese names into Japanese ones (as IJzeren Jan was explaining above about European names). Nor in Thailand or any other countries that don't use Chinese characters (East Asia's a big place).

The fact that an English/Esperanto dictionary doesn't bother to discuss it only tells us that the dictionary assumes that if you're looking up a name in the first place, it's because you're familiar with what happens to names in European languages. Why on Earth else would you look up a name in the first place? Context and capitalization weren't enough? Dictionaries, unless they're something like the unabridged Oxford, normally give as little context as they feel they can get away with. These dictionaries are quick references, not scholarly treatises on each word in the language.

I totally agree that an explanation would be too much for a quic-reference table. This is why I think "Johano" should be replaced with a name that doesn't change in any non-obvious way. For instance, "Jacob" changes to "Jakobo" in ways that are explained in the body of the article. Anyone who doesn't understand right away can search through the article to find out what happened. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course this happens in Japan. Both Chinese personal and place names are read in ways one wouldn't expect from their characters, reflecting their pronunciation in Mandarin. Mao Zedong, for example, is written 毛沢東, as in Chinese, but pronounced either もう たくとう ('translated' into Japanese) or マオ・ツォートン. This is the same thing we have with John/Johano. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't even remotely equivalent to John/Johano. There are no Japanese with names like 毛沢東, or any other Chinese name, except by sheer serendipity. Again, see IJzeren Jan's explanation above. Japanese and Chinese names have no genetic relation. (I hope you're familiar with the linguistic use of the word "genetic" here, so we don't have to go off on another irrelevent tangent). It also requires no insertion of strange characters---merely the common Japanese readings of Chinese characters, as no other clue is given as to the pronunciation (and just try and find how many average Japanese are aware that it's "really" "マオ・ツォートン". It's like finding English speakers who know the "real" pronunciation of "Julius Caesar").

Just to make things crystal clear: the Japanese pronunciation of 毛沢東 did not "evolve" that way in the way John/Jean/Juan/Johann evolved from a common source. Only the readings of the characters evolved, completely indepedently of Mao's name. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that "Johano" is incomprehensible to English speakers because it's written with "strange characters"? That's a truly bizarre argument.

As for how many Japanese know that pronunciation of Mao, I don't know. But it is normal to pronounce 北京 pekin rather than *hokkyō. Why you think Asians would be befuddled by this I don't know. I've never heard of any confusion. And then of course there's the point that we're English WP. — kwami (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"So you're saying that "Johano" is...": I made no such claim. As is perfectly obvious, I was talking about the unexplained insertion of the character "a" into the name "John". You knew this, too, so I don't know why you would make such a bizarre statement.

As for the reading of 北京, the reading 「ペキン」, in the Edo Period, apparently it was read...「ホッキン」. Read about it at the Japanese wiki article on Beijing, which has an entire section (the first, no less) devoted to the reading of those two characters. If you strain hard enough, you can find other out-of-the-way and equally irrelevant examples, like "Shanghai" and "Hong Kong", that represent irregular readings. What stands is that no Japanese given name has evolved naturally from any Chinese given name in the way that John/Jean/Juan/Johann/Ivan evolved from a common source. What also stands is that it is not reasonable to expect a Chinese or Japanese person to know that "John" and "Ivan" are actually "the same" name, and you have given no argument to suggest otherwise. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• May I suggest that both sides of this argument start looking for sources describing the standard usage of naming translations or not in Esperanto? Languages differ on how they treat names (hence chinese or english usage is irrelevant) and wikipedia should reflect usage as well as possible - and we should use reliable sources to decide which usages are more common. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether "Johano" is correct or not is not at issue. It is correct, and nobody on either side has said otherwise, so what would references accomplish?

The issue is whether it belongs in that table, given that nowhere in the entire article is it explained where that mysterious "a" in "Johano" comes from when translated from "John". At least three editors in this discussion think it's not obvious from context, and one maintains it is. A mountain of references to prove it's correct only wastes everyone's time by missing the point. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article do we explain where that mysterious "o" in "nomiĝas" comes from, when English "name" has an "a". — kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is easily the most obtuse response in the whole of this discussion. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok so your point is that this is just a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it is obvious from context. No need to choose another name or to make a footnote to suggest that Johano is the Esperanto for John when it is obvious that it is meant as a translation of that word.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a matter of opinion. Otherwise we'd simply slap a ref on it and be done with. However, we are not discussing whether or not the translation is correct, but whether it is the most appropriate one given the context. Three people, including a professed linguist, did not find it obvious. You can now call us liars, or take our words into account. Or do you have a ref stating "all speakers of all languages around the world are familiar with the translations of names from one language to another"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of principle I don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by other causes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." – Robert J. Hanlon

Way to be CIVIL, Maunus. You've now dumped an ad hominem on three of your fellow editors, while doing nothing to advance the discussion. Of course, you thought you'd get away with it because we're all (as per the quote) stupid.

I'm willing to forget this nastiness if you're willing to get back on topic, and stay there. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing is that it's not obvious why someone's name has been translated. I certainly wasn't aware that it was "routine" to do this in Esperanto and doing so left me, as a linguist, confused. IndieSinger (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of an explanation would you prefer? I am not sure about how one would answer the question "why has someone's name been translated". And I certainly don't see how changing John to Zbigniew would solve the problem. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody suggested Zbigniew. Someone did suggest Jacob/Jakobo. What's your objection to that? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a footnote explaining that, unlike most languages, it's routine to translate proper nouns in Esperanto. IndieSinger (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. If it's routine to translate proper nouns in Esperanto, does that mean if, say, John Major was giving a speech and it was being simultaneously translated, the Esperanto speaker would say, in Esperanto, "Johano Majoro states that..."? IndieSinger (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the person. Some individuals' names have Esperantized forms, others do not. Shakespeare and Schiller, for example, are transliterated (Ŝekspiro and Ŝilero), but a current politician like John Major probably will not be. (You tend to get both the original orthog. and either transliteration or transliteration plus translation, one restricted to a parenthetical after the first mention so that people can (a) read the name (if original orthog is used) or (b) recognize the name (if trans. is used).) Much the same thing happens to names when writing in a different script: John Major is Джон Мейджор in Russian and サー・ジョン・メージャー in Japanese. An individual named "John" may choose to keep the English spelling, transliterate into "Ĝan", or translate into "Johano", but the translation is possible because Esperanto has an established form of the name. This is the same thing that happens with other languages, such as a Russian American who goes by the name Dmitry in Russian but James in English. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. It's unfortunate that someone had to visit the talk page to find out about it. So much for it being obvious and self-explanatory. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So, a bit of a summary. I still don't think you can equate changing a name when it's transliterated from one script to another (e.g. "毛泽东" to "Mao Zedong") as this happens so that the receiving audience can enunciate the name. For instance, "毛澤東指出，..." [Google Translate - sorry for any inaccuracy] would not be translated as "毛泽东 stated that..." as that doesn't help the audience at all. So it's transliterated to "Mao Zedung stated that..." If, however, a French newspaper said "Guillaume a déclaré que...", the correct translation would be "Guillaume stated that..." and not "William stated that..." So if, in Esperanto, proper nouns are routinely translated, then this needs to be a footnote as it's not commonplace. And this article serves to inform people about the grammar and syntax of a sentence in a language with which they're probably not familiar, so it's only fair to explain why "John" has changed to "Johano" as this would not be the case in any of the languages with which I am au fait. Also, just to satisfy my own curiosity, how would you put a name into Esperanto if no equivalent existed? Say, "Callum", for example. Would it just be subjected to some regular Esperanto inflections? IndieSinger (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be the same as Russian names into English: you may choose to translate, but only of course if a translation exists. You will generally transliterate if you don't translate. Since Eo and En both use the Latin script, transliteration is more optional. So, "Callum" might be Callum (not necessarily in italics), Callum ("Kalum"), Kalum (Callum), Kalum, or Kalumo. If you assimilate with a final -o, then you inflect as normal. If not, you tend to tack on a hyphenated -on for the accusative, or else rework the clause: mian amikon Callum, say, where only 'amiko' needs to take the acc. cuz 'Callum' is in apposition. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever be the case, the whole issue of representing names in Esperanto deserves it to be explained in the article, or even in a separate article about names in Esperanto. Because indeed, the whole thing is not at all obvious. Well, I am not an esperantist by any standard, but one thing I've noticed is that my own name is mentioned here: "La Venediko (propralingve Wenedyk) estas fikcilingvo kreita en 2002 de Jan van Steenbergen". In other words, no "Johano Ŝtonomontano", no "Jano van Steenbergeno", just my name the way it is. Ergo, the ending -o is not something that is added mechanically the way Lithuanian male names add -as, -is etc. Another case in point is this one: "Jacques René Chirac (esperante Ĵak Rene Ŝirak)" – no Jakobo, no Ŝirako. So whatever be the case, let nobody tell it's obvious!

Well, sure: people wouldn't recognize your name if it were Esp-ized. The only hope they'd have at identifying you would be if your name were left as-is. It would be different if Eo were a major language, but as it is even Jacques Chirac is not well-enough established to warrant an Eo name. — kwami (talk)

Taking Johano as an example, a few questions need answering:

• Is the ending -o is just something that is automatically added, and if so, why wasn't that done in the examples I quoted?
• Where does it come from? Latin? But then, E-o doesn't borrow much from Latin, rather from contemporary languages, doesn't it? Or perhaps from German?
• If John becomes Johano, does the same go for Jean, Juan, Giovanni, Séan, Yann, Iannis, Ivan etc.?
• Are there any official rules for this in Esperanto, or is it just a matter of current practice?

As I explained above, no, it's not automatic. It's a stylistic choice.

I don't know where it comes from. Either German or Latin would fit, or Hebrew for that matter. It's often not possible to ID a single source for Eo words.

Yes, they'd all be Johano, assuming one wanted to Esp-ize them, just as they'd all be John in English and Juan in Spanish. After all, Juan Bautista in es is Jean le Baptiste in fr is Ioann Krestitel' in ru is Johannes der Täufer in de is Johano la Baptisto in eo.

No, just stylistic preference. — kwami (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an Esperanto dictionary that gives a list of names indeed, but it contains several oddities: Antonina > Antoneta, Anastazja > Anastazio, Władysław > Ladislao, Jacek > Jakvo, Jakub > Jakobo, Jordan > Giordano... not very helpful either, if you ask me.

For what it is worth, I know by experience that the issue of representing names in an artificial language can be extremely tricky. In Interslavic, there is always a dilemma between:

• keeping the original spelling of a name (which gives transliteration problems between Cyrillic and Latin) - Jarosław Kaczyński
• adapting it only to the alphabet - Jaroslav Kaczynski
• adapting it to alphabet and pronunciation (which is more or less the same as transliterating into Cyrillic and then back) - Jaroslav Kačinski
• adapting it to etymology as well - Bělgrad vs. Belgrad vs. Beograd, Petr vs. Piotr vs. Петро vs. Пётр.

And what makes it particularly complicated is that none of these solutions works in all cases. Representing Polish w and ó as v and o is never a problem, but representing rz as ž already is. Not even to mention the nasal vowels ą and ę! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is somewhere where Esperanto is totally arbitrary. There is an Esperanto version of my name (my real given name, I mean. It's a common pan-European sort of name, like Michael or John). I've attempted using it when speaking with other Esperatists in Japan, but they always end up speaking to me using the English version of my name with Esperanto pronunciation, without even adding -o except when context required it. This is acceptable in the Esperantujo, and there is no universal rule requiring or prohibiting it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is arbitrary. I suspect that people wouldn't like being told what they have to call themselves, though. Some Eo authors object even to transliteration. Myself, I take the -ĉjo suffix, but then I adopt a local name wherever I go. Simple transliteration would feel odd to me. — kwami (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My name in English is Richard, the usual translation adopted by people for this name is Rikardo, however I have always called myself Riĉardo. In regards to Johano, you will find this in the Esperanto Bible, along with many other Common Esperanto Names, When I was in China, no chinese Esperantist called me Richard, they called me what I introducted myself as: Riĉardo. Esperante: Mia nomo estas Richard, la kutima uzata tradukaĵo de aliuloj por tia nomo estas Rikardo, tamen mi mem ĉiame nomas min Riĉardo. Koncerne Johano, vi trovos ĝin en la Esperanto-biblio, kun multaj aliaj komunaj nomoj. Kiam mi estis en Ĉinio, neniu ĉino nomis min Richard, ĉar ili nomis min kiel, tiel mi prezentis min: Riĉardo--Evildela (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We've already established that "Johano" is both correct and normal (though perhaps not universal) in the Esperantujo. The debate is over whether it is appropriate to use it as an unexplained example on the English Wikipedia—whether it is self-explanatory to a reader who has no prior experience with Esperanto. Further, my own point is that, while an explanation somewhere in the article would be great, I think it is inappropriate for a quick-reference table, so that it should be replaced with something more obvious and straightforward, rather than slapped with an explanatory footnote which would only overcomplicate the table. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That whole "Johano" thing

What happened? Did everyone just give up? We certainly didn't come close to anything resembling a consensus. It seems evenly split between those who are for retaining "Johano" as-is, and those who would either require an explanation or have it changed entirely. Maybe if we start fresh we can get this sussed out, hopefully without anyone insinuating the other is unintelligent along the way. Let's be adults and keep civil and on topic.

My position is:

1. That "John" changes irregularly and unpredictably to "Johano", following no grammatical or morphological rule. It is not obvious or self-explanatory. In fact, it can be confusing, because:
   1. Not all native English speakers are totally aware that these changes happen across European languages, or why;
   2. Millions of English speakers are non-native, and may come from cultures (e.g. speakers of language isolates) where names have evolved in different languages te way "regular" words have
   3. Esperanto is a conlang, so such "evolved" names would not be expected, even by those who are aware of this happening in European languages
2. At the very least, the non-regular change should be given an explanatory note, but:
3. Given the context of a quick-review/overview type of table, as few surprises as possible should be introduced (the reader will already be dealing with "nomiĝas", when they may be expecting something like "Mia nomo estas..."), especially when those surprises follow no known rules. Thus, we should use an example in which there are no unreasonable irregularities. For example: Marc/Marko changes in a way that strictly follows the grammar/morphology as clearly laid out in the article, while demonstrating the totally regular and normalizing spelling conventions of the language.

Have a beautiful day. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been a whole week with no response. Is it tacit (dis)agreement? Indifference? If nobody can even be bothered to show they care, then in one more week I'll just simply change John/Johano to Marc/Marko. If someone disagrees, I hope they'll engage in discussion here, rather than just reverting it as if it were vandalism. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for changing Johano to Marko, that's a good solution by any standard IMO. There doesn't seem to be any reason at all why this particular example would require the name to be John. Secundo, I'd nevertheless welcome an explanatory section (or even article) about the question how names are dealt with in Esperanto. Even some of the explanations provided above could serve as a base for that. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In the Writing system section, some of the examples may not be that familiar to readers. Here are some of my suggestions:

• ĥ: "och", "loch" and "Bach" seem to me to be far more familiar to English speakers
• ĵ: there is a plethora of English examples--no need to go to French (especially as many Wikipedia readers know English only as a second language, and may have limited or no knowledge of French). Try genre, confusion, closure, deluge...
• c: different sources have different pronunciations of "letivocite"---regardless, it's an extremely unfamiliar word to most. You're unlikely to find many English speakers who pronounce "Vaclav" properly". I've had much more luck with "Penderecki", although it's a name most people wouldn't recognize. Tsunami" will get you closer, but far too many pronounce it /suːˈnɑːmi/ (although dictionaries desparately try to give the "proper" pronunciation precedence). I think it would be more helpful to use something like "bits", with a note explaining that this sound tends to be difficult for native English speakers to make when it's not in a final position.

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The point was to explain the letters, not the sounds. No-one has a problem pronouncing /ts/; the problem is in associating the letter ⟨c⟩ with that sound. I was therefore trying to find English words in which those letters had the Esperanto sounds. Penderecki is probably a better example, though. If we need to explain that /ts/ is the sound in bits, that should be in the phonology section, not the writing section. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's the point, then I don't see a strong need for it. The article is an overview of the language, not a tutorial. If the reader has to click through to Penderecki to find out how his name is pronounced just to find out how to read "c", then the article hasn't done its job. I've been a Penderecki fan since I was a teenager, and I never found out how to pronounce his name until after my first kid was born (somebody mentioned him in passing, and it caught me off guard---it never occured to me that "ck" wouldn't be pronounced /k/.

Tangentially, I think you give people far too much credit with /ts/. I've been living in Japan for 14 years now, and I still can't get my own mother to pronounce "tsunami" correctly. She's not some hick, either. She was born and grew up in ol' multicultural Toronto. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not meant as an explanation, just as a way for people to remember. They'll need to remember it just to read the rest of the article. And if it doesn't work for everyone, well, it's the best we can do.

That's because [ts] doesn't occur in initial position in English. We have the same problem with [ʒ] and [ŋ]; telling people these sounds are like bits, Asia, and sing isn't going to help them any if they simply can't pronounce them. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the reason not to use the examples I cited is that certain sounds don't occur initially, then how does it help anyone to tell them "Oh, 'c' is pronounced the same as the 'c' in 'Vaclav' and 'Penderecki' (click through to find out the pronunciation link to click through again to find out how!), only it also occurs initially and in clusters like 'scii'!" How is that even remotely more helpful than just saying it's pronounced [ts] like in "bits"?

A hairsplit: "genre" is very common English, and I don't think I've ever met a native speaker who mispronounced it. How do people pronounce it if they can't make an initial [ʒ]? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't in the pronunciation section, it's in the writing section. It's not about pronunciation, it's about the alphabet. We've already told them there's a /ts/ in Eo; here we're telling them how it's written.

They pronounce it /dʒ/. I suspect that most people who can't pronounce it /ʒ/ don't have genre in their active vocabulary. I know it's a word I didn't use in conversation until after I had struggled with initial /ʒ/, and I didn't even realize there could be an intial /ʒ/ (in any language) until I was in high school. The one exception I can think of is Zsa-Zsa Gabor. For some reason people don't seem to have a problem with that, maybe because it's reduplicated?

As for your mom not pronouncing "tsunami" correctly, IMO she is pronouncing it correctly. The English word begins with an /s/, because there is no initial /ts/ in English. — kwami (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly well aware that it's the writing section. I'm not aware, however, of any other language article that bends over backwards the way this one does to provide contrived "English" equivalents of the pronunciation of letters. I also don't see how this helps when something simpler like "'c' =[ts]" gets the job done more clearly and in less space, without sending readers bouncing from one link to another to find out what was meant.

I'm astounded that a native English speaker would have trouble with initial /ʒ/. That is entirely outside of my experience. Is it because they couldn't pronounce it, or (what I suspect) they didn't know the word and thus didn't know how to pronounce it? Say, pronouncing it /ˈdʒɛnər/?

As for "tsunami", yes that's a common pronunciation, but some dictionaries (like the COD, look it up) don't even recognize it (the COD lists only /tsu:'na:mi/). That in no what explains how "Penderecki" helps solve the problem.

I'll repeat the question: How does this help? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The don't have trouble saying /ʒ/, any more than your mom has trouble with /ts/. The problem is putting it in initial position. You're from Toronto, so perhaps you have more exposure to French? In other parts of the worlds, initial /ʒ/ is as difficult as initial /ts/.

How does it help: it illustrates a letter with this sound in the language our readers already know. It's the same as saying ĝ is like the g in gem. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the American (from California) that I work with how he pronounces g-e-n-r-e. Of course, he pronounced it /ʒɒnɹə/. When I asked him if he had ever heard anyone pronounce it /dʒɒnɹə/, he laughed out loud. Honestly, I think any native speakers who pronounces it with a /dʒ/ is doing so not because they are unable to pronounce it with a /ʒ/, but because they were unfamiliar with the word and thus wouldn't have guessed it should be pronounced that way. This is all tangential, of course.

I want you to put yourself into the shoes of a reader. Now, imagine you are a Trekker who has just clicked through to the Esperanto article from Incubus (I suspect a not-insignificant number of this article's readers fall into that category). You're a smart guy (Trekkers generally are), but you've never had any interest in languages before. Now you are being told "c is found in Eastern European names like Polish composer Penderecki and Czech president Václav Havel", "ĵ [is] a French j, as in Jacques" and "ĥ is like the h in Hanukkah for those who give it its Yiddish pronunciation". What do you believe that reader will have gotten out of that paragraph? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether they recognize the words. If they do, then they'll get something out of it. If they don't, they won't. But that's true of anything we write. We can only dumb down the article so far. I know from experience that people have great difficulty remembering j, so much so that even when using the IPA, many Americans use ⟨y⟩ for [j]. An illustration of English ⟨j⟩ used for [j] is therefore useful, and fortunately hallelujah and Jägermeister are common enough to serve. Similarly, the French name Jacques is quite common. (Perhaps we could change it to Jean Luc for the Trekkies?) And joking over-enunciation of Hhhhhanukkah is all over the place – I doubt there are many people who've never heard it. Which leaves us with ⟨c⟩, which isn't used for [ts] in any common name that I'm aware of. That's unfortunate, but the alternative is to not provide any connection at all, and how does that help the reader?

re genre: Sure, and perhaps he pronounces the /ts/ in tsunami too. But /dʒ/ is common enough that it's listed in the dictionary, and I've heard it often enough.

You don't need to be into languages to know that Vaclav is pronounced with a /ts/. You just have to listen to the news once in a while. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of Vaclav. I see no point in this list; if we can explain the alphabet more accurately and clearly by not digging for an example where the letter in English happens to have that sound (maybe!), then we would be better off not doing so and explaining it with other characters. We certainly wouldn't say that В in Russian has the sound of B in Beta, if you pronounce it the Modern Greek way!--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read of Vaclav Havel dozens of times, but have never heard the name (and who *listens* to the news these days anyway?) and didn't know it was a /ts/ until I learned it from this article -- reversing the intended cause and effect. I've never heard of Penderecki and certainly wouldn't have expected the "c" there to be /ts/. I have to agree with the comments that at least these two examples are very poor and, if that's the best we've got, then we'd be better off with just the "bits" example. PeterHansen (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I overlooked the fact that we don't give the values in IPA. Didn't we used to have it? We should have both: these are merely examples of English words which have the sounds. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to say something like e.g. "ĉ = /tʃ/ = (English) 'ch'". Everything else is just baggage and confusing clutter. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We do say that. The rest I find clarifying, not confusing. But readers can concentrate on what works for them. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean in the table---clean & concise. As the writer, whether you find it clarifying is irrelevant. The person who draws a map already knows how to get where they want to go. It's the reader of the map you have to think of. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it clarifying as a writer. I find it clarifying as a reader. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(smacking forehead in exasperation)

Having written it, you cannot be objective as a reader. Only an objective third party could tell you if it effectively conveyed your intent. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what does letivocite mean? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled letovicite. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Goals?

On my wish-list: the original "official" goals as listed by Zamenhof or some Esperanto international congress. IMHO most intauxial proposals overstresses ease-of-learning, while not providing a way to express extremely complicated concepts such as for science, making the learning pretty pointless, while Esperanto adresses this problem in a way, by its extreme "artificialness" (= orthogonality), although deficiently. So therefore it would be interesting to have a list of goals to see what happened intentionally, and what happened accidentally. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Care to clarify the word "intauxial"? It doesn't exist on the internet apart from this page, nor on GBooks, the OED, etc. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing he is using it as shorthand for "international auxiliary", i.e. proposals for international auxiliary languages.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like international auxiliary IAL, IAL being moderately common for international auxiliary language. —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of speakers

This article's lead section says there are "10,000 to 2,000,000 active or fluent speakers". 2,000,000 is 200 times as many speakers as 10,000. This estimate is so wide and vague as to be practically useless; couldn't we make it more accurate or specific?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 01:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure; you have a few million dollars to give an international research team? We have a number of estimates of pretty poor quality from a number of sources. Read the article, and if you see some argument for narrowing that estimate that works within WP:NOR, bring it back here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would read better if it said something like "The number of Esperanto speakers is highly uncertain, with estimates ranging from 10,000 to 2,000,000 active or fluent speakers". Right now it is worded as if the "10,000 to 2,000,000" number is a useful and worthwhile piece of data, which it patently isn't (except to show that no one knows). 86.160.223.239 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"I think it would read better if it said something like "The number of Esperanto speakers is highly uncertain, with estimates ranging from 10,000 to 2,000,000 active or fluent speakers". Right now it is worded as if the "10,000 to 2,000,000" number is a useful and worthwhile piece of data, which it patently isn't (except to show that no one knows)."

I completely agree!!!!

"Esperanto has a notable presence in over a hundred countries."

If only 10,000 people speak it, exactly how notable of a presence can this language possibly have? Heck, if we don't even know how many people speak it, how can we make this determination?

That's easier then a count of speakers; there's surely a reliable source that has a list of active national Esperanto organizations. In any case, 10,000 speakers is surely an understatement. When located in Europe, the World Congress of Esperanto runs around 2000 participants; I'm highly sceptical of any claim that 20% of the Esperanto speakers come to any one conference every year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To explain the wide range of estimates: The low estimates are generally based on a more strict concept of fluency while the higher estimates allow for less-than-fluent competency in the language. Arguably since Esperanto is an international auxiliary language the number of competent speakers (ability to "get by") is more relevant than strict fluency (ability to rapidly and effortlessly speak about anything one knows about).---Cam (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but come on: there are 82,467 registered users on the Esperanto Wikipedia alone. Clearly Esperanto's footprint, in terms of literary works published, periodicals, internet presence, and membership of Esperanto organizations, is a sure sign that there cannot possibly be so few as 10,000 speakers (unless one applies an absurdly strict standard of fluency, by which I mean one that would exclude the majority of English or Chinese speakers as well). If, in the interest of neutrality, we just wanted to include lower and higher estimates, we should just have "0 to 2,000,000", since there are certainly people out there who don't believe the language exists at all. A more productive approach, since we can't define the number of speakers, would be to speak instead of what we do know. There must be a number for UEA membership, there are the 82,467 Esperanto wikipedians, and there may be other figures on book sales or the like that we could use instead, and that would be verifiable. --Jcrave (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The number of Esperanto Wikipedians includes those people who have a unified account. These people may never have heard of Esperanto, let alone speak it. And people who believe that Esperanto does not exist are, frankly, delusional. The Esperanto Wikipedia or any Esperanto literature is already sufficient to show that 'it exists'. --JorisvS (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A Esperanto or an Esperanto

An Esperanto translation or a Esperanto translation. It would seem to be 'A' because 'Esperanto' is pronounced with the 'S' sound at the start rather then a vowel. Your thoughts? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's news to me that the word is pronounced with an 's' sound at the start. I've never heard it said that way, and all the dictionaries I've just checked have it starting with an 'e' vowel, as expected. 86.160.223.239 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he means with an "S" sound, not an [s] sound, and "S" begins with a vowel. Just an example of the confusion of sound and script? — kwami (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the letter 'S', but what makes you say that "S" begins with a vowel? And what vowel anyway? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 07:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Whence all the discussion? It is simple, really. 'Esperanto' is pronounced beginning in a vowel (an [ɛ], from the <E>), so it is 'an Esperanto translation', as in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your right it is pronounced with a leading 'e' sound per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esperanto, I thought before the 'e' was silent. So the correct grammar would be 'an Esperanto' Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Politically neutral?

I feel like this should be reworded or removed. It seems rather nebulous, and doesn't seem to contribute much. If the intention was a language without biases (ie gender pronouns) that's one thing, but to simply say 'politically neutral' is another. 128.189.236.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "politically neutral" was intended inthe sense that it wasn't a language that was "owned" by any nation or group of nations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PROD Grin Report

I've prodded Grin Report. Discussion there and mostly at Languages of the EU#Esperanto. Pushpov. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

hitler.org

The website hitler.org is used as a reference about Esperanto in Mein Kampf. Is it possible to use a different website for this? If not, we'd have to add this article as an exception, or else it will continue to get tagged by Cyberbot II. --JorisvS (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Use this instead. The page at the hitler.org site is a translation of Mein Kampf—as a primary source, it should be avoided. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That link unfortunately is not accessible. A primary source is fine if all we're saying is that it occurs in that source. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be easily accessible, and there's no reason to include Esperanto's being mentioned in passing if secondary sources haven't picked up on it. This page is not an indiscriminate collection of every passing reference to Esperanto. The reason it's notable is because secondary sources have noted it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the line from Mein Kampf, by the way:

"As long as the Jew has not become the master of the other peoples, he must speak their languages whether he likes it or not, but as soon as they became his slaves, they would all have to learn a universal language (Esperanto, for instance!), so that by this additional means the Jews could more easily dominate them!"

And here's the line in the Esperanto article:

"In his work, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler specifically mentioned Esperanto as an example of a language that could be used by an International Jewish Conspiracy once they achieved world domination."

So, what gets a throwaway parenthetical (a "for instance", no less!) in Mein Kampf gets an entire line devoted to it in this article. The only excuse for even including this is if it were picked up by secondary sources—which it has been, so we use those secondary sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but we should use a standard ref format, not a broken Google Books link. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not "broken", it's just not accessible wherever you happen to be. Here's a formatted version—do with it what you will:

Sutton, Geoffrey (2008). Concise Encyclopedia of the Original Literature of Esperanto, 1887-2007. Mondial. ISBN 978-1-59569-090-6.

The relevant quote is:

"Hitler specifically attacked Esperanto as a threat in a speech in Munich (1922) and in Mein Kampf itself (1925). The Nazi Minister for Education banned the teaching of Esperanto on 17 May 1935....all Esperantists were essentially enemies of the state, serving through their language Jewish-internationalist aims" (pages 161–162)

There's more stuff in there about the Nazis, as well as the Soviet Union, and even about debates in the League of Nations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Verified and changed in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)