Talk:Esperantido

message: I don't know why this is mentioned. Bonjang is a completely unrelated language, as far as I can tell. How can it be at all an Esperantido, if it didn't evolve or was designed, in any discernible manner, from Esperanto? Neither the roots (from *kat to yotang) nor the grammar show any relation.
The website link doesn't mention Esperanto once.
It is a very pretty language though.
Atomsprengja 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the official site and Langmaker say it is influenced by Eo, though.Cameron Nedland 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonjang

message: Why does Comunleng redirect here? Is it related to Esperantido in any way? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comunleng 

message: Is Esperan notable enough to be mentioned?
It seems just a personal project.
--Error (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete, unless there's community usage. kwami (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Esperan

message: Anon, orthography belongs in the orthography article, not here. There's already a section about the h-system, x-system, etc. We don't need it said twice there and again here. Please discuss it first. Personally, I don't see how all the info about Portuguese etc. is relevant, but perhaps you can convince others. kwami (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  orthography 

message: I wouldn't merge the list here. It's mostly a bunch of red links, which we don't want, and if we remove the links, it's still just a bunch of meaningless names. (I have doubts about some of them anyway.) We might want to just delete the list; I can understand it as a placeholder in eo-wiki, but don't see any point to having it here. kwami (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of me agrees with you. I most certainly wouldn't import the list here in toto. What I was thinking of is something along the lines of a short section on "Minor esperantidos" that would not include the ones already discussed elsewhere in the article and those that you have doubts about. In a few cases, however, I'd say that mentioning them is at least warranted. Hence my suggestion to move at least part of the list here, but not necessarily in the form of a list. —IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu? 10:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could mention Saussure, since half of them are his. And anything with a blurb in eo-wiki might be worth a line or two. I don't think any of them actually have a description in eo-wiki, so there isn't much to say. kwami (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good criterion to me! —IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu? 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: These two Esperantidoj seem to have been invented by single persons and put on Wikipedia without their being at all widespread. Wikipedia is not a place for self-publication. Jchthys (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could argue the same about all of the idos. Esperant' is (was?) used by more than one person, which is more than we can say for Saussure's projects. kwami (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put those on when I worked on this article a while ago when I was looking for unusual examples of esperantidos, so I'd have a sufficient number of samples each.  Now that other esperantido articles are being merged into this one, people should feel free to take out any esperantido that isn't an illuminating example of the kind of changes people make to Esperanto.  Almafeta (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much point to keeping sen:esperanto, actually, but Esperant' is unusual in actually being used, and so (unless I'm wrong there) IMO should definitely be kept. kwami (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sen:esperanto and Esperant' 

message: I'm not sure that words like "hodiu" and "anku" are possible in Esperant', although they are given as examples in this page. In standard Esperanto, obeying the Fundamento, the words ending in aŭ such as hodiaŭ and ankaŭ are single roots, not combined roots. According to Lernu je Esperant', the dialect completely follows the Fundamento, albeit strangely. It does not contain any evidence that "hodiu" and "anku" are permissible, and I suspect that these would be written as hodiaŭu and ankaŭu. I realize that this may constitute original research, but I am a fluent Esperanto speaker and would be happy to provide more references. --n-k, 20:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, ank- and hodi- *are* the roots, though they are seldom used that way. This is one of the things people play with. According to Kalocsay & Waringhien, "-aŭ does not belong to the root, but is only a conventional ending, and is thus as easily left off as the o in nouns." Zamenhof wrote of the "neutral but definite ending aŭ", that is, that -aŭ does not define the part of speech of the root. He suggested in 1892 that it could be replaced with an apostrophe. (Plena analiza gramatiko, 1985:121.) The substitution of -aŭ with other part-of-speech endings, as in anke, apena/apene, morgo/morge, has been "tolerated" by the Esperanto Academy since 1910. (Ibid., p 409:Rim. IV.) kwami (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, those words appear in the Universala Vortaro of the Fundamento as single roots. You've offered sufficient evidence for me to concede that they may as well remain in the article, but as an aside, I feel I should point out that they can never be considered to be in accordance with the Fundamento, regardless as to what Zamenhof and the Akademio later said. Remember, it's "netuŝebla," even by the author. And according to Lernu je Esperant', "Unua regul' grave plejas: CXiamu onia obe' je l' fundament'! Maleblas tro' de tiu dir'." --n-k, 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, here is a link to an Esperant' page that contains the forms ankauxu and hodiauxu. I am fairly certain that I am right, and that even in Esperant' treating these as dual-rooted is nonstandard at best, and could be considered "incorrect." Also, here is a link to the Universala Vortaro. Please observe that the aŭ-words are listed as monoradical. --n-k, 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes in Esperant' 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Sen:esepera. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Sen:esepera until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sen:esepera" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Was there once a section on Internasia, now deleted?  It is now mentioned only among the samples. —Tamfang (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internasia