Talk:Comparison between Esperanto and Novial

message: This article seems rather POV to me. All differences mentioned seem to point at the opinion that Novial is more regular or easier than Esperanto. Maybe we should mention that word order is more flexible in Esperanto than in Novial. Also, something should be said about word formation: In Novial there are seperate word roots for words like "poor" and "bad", whereas in Esperanto they are formed from existing word roots using the prefix mal-. Marcoscramer 09:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is still incomplete. I believe the sections so far written are purely factual in nature though, so not themselves POV.Nov ialiste 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that what has been written so far is POV. I just noted that the choice of differences mentioned is POV. We certainly need to mention some other differences soon. Marcoscramer 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Esperanto's word order is *not* more flexible: read "An International Language" by Jespersen. Novial certainly tends to use less "des-" (= Esperanto "mal-") for common words. In a section on vocabulary and word-building these can be compared, along with, for example, reversibilty and lack of reversibility, number systems etc. Some professional philosophers and linguists have found Esperanto wanting in its word derivation. Nov ialiste 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, esperanto is a real language, with, like, speakers… What's the use these comparisons, anyway? («Wanting in its derivation», indeed. What a troll!) 82.155.72.33 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: In the alphabet and pronounciation table, the following is written: "KS, ks or GZ, gz; but Esperanto writes it KZ, kz". As pronounciations, [ks] or [gz] is given. However, the only correct pronounciation of Esperanto "kz" is [kz], even if people sometimes pronounce it as [ks] or [gz] when they don't make an effort to speak clearly. Marcoscramer 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my fault, I fixed it now.Cameron Nedland 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KZ

message: Can you fill the blanks?  —Tamfang 06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  correlatives 

message: As I know both language do not have separate form for continuous aspects. Am I wrong?--85.18.136.99 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Esperanto has -adi, but I'm not sure that's what you have in mind.  —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuous 

message: Why is Esperanto being compared with Novial in an article that is listed in the main conlang infobox? Why not instead compare it with Arcaicam Esperantom? Are you trying to make Novial look more spoken than it is? (also this doesn't really read like a Wikipedia article) Kraŭs (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability 

message: As the tables show Esperanto can be made to parallel verbal structures in Novial (and English) but such tables do not reflect the design of the language or the way it is used in what is considered 'best practice'.  As is correctly stated, Esperanto has no continuous form as such.  In practice an adverb would most likely be used, if it was felt necessary to stress an ongoing action. The Esperanto verb has only six forms, i.e. present, past, future, conditional, volitive and infinitive, the first four literally in alphabetical order.  The missing letter 'e' was reserved for the imperfect but dropped before publication, i.e. the imperfect was deliberately omitted from the design of the language.  The tables include expressions for imperfect, perfect, pluperfect constructed with the use of participles as adjectives.  A study of any well written Esperanto original or translated prose will show that participles are mostly used as adverbs or people (i.e. nouns).  The perfect, pluperfect etc are rendered with temporal adverbs.  The conditional has no time reference, but the influence of people's first languages often make them feel one is needed, as a temporal expression may not readily come to mind. The volitive covers imperative, subjunctive and optative and may require more effort as not often directly paralelled in first languages.  Esperanto does not need simple passives forms as the use of changed word order and and the (so-called) 'accusative ending' can create the same effect.  On the other hand the over-use of 'iĝi' betrays the influence of first languages, which favour passive expressions.  For further info consult the Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko.
Muraena~eowiki (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Esperanto Verb