Talk:Esperanto/Archive 5

message: This was nominated as a featured article candidate by Raul654 in February 2005, and failed nomination.  It's undergone considerable revision since then, so we'll probably nominate it again after requesting peer review and doing further revision. --Jim Henry 16:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: Under History section: 
"As a constructed language, Esperanto's history is both short and well-known"
By well-known do you mean widely known or well-documented? Espermike 07:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the person who first wrote that, but to me it only makes sense if it means "well-documented".  Maybe we should say it that way. --Jim Henry 10:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor question 

message: I think this paragraph is pretty irrelevant and should be deleted or perhaps moved elsewhere:
:Ethnologue also states that Esperanto is a language of France [1] (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ESP). David Blunkett said in the British House of Commons: "My only regret is that I learned a language called Esperanto at school. It was a very good idea at the time, but it got me into certain difficulties at the age of 16 when I used it in Paris." [2] (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010426/debtext/10426-03.htm), although he did not say whether he had been reading Ethnologue.
If nobody objects in a few days, I will delete it. --Jim Henry 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevancy 

message: At , Plek comments that 
:I think this article has some serious NPOV issues. It reads like an Esperanto manifesto, especially the list headed by "More generally, there are five primary reasons for its strength". 
I think there's some justice to what he says, though I'm not sure offhand how best to rephrase this section.  Comments? --Jim Henry 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on the "five reasons for its strength" 

message: In the section on Esperanto in the mainstream media, I wonder why the Charlie Chaplin film "the grand dictator" isn't mentioned.  (It might be that this is not the English name - in German it is "Der grosse Diktator".)  A number of the shop signs in the ghetto are in E-o. - Ar 16:10, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead and add it.  Make sure it is in the article on Esperanto film as well.  Since we have a separate article on Esperanto film, let's avoid letting the mainstream media section get too long and detailed.  I think adding the Chaplin film here (since it's one of the earliest, maybe the very earliest) and deleting some of the less important examples (while making sure they're listed in other relevant articles) would be a good thing. --Jim Henry 16:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaplin film? 

message: In Wikipedia:Peer_review/Esperanto, Mark Dingemanse suggested getting rid of the rough transcriptions (e.g. [choo vee pah-ROH-lahss ess-peh-RAHN-tohn?]) now that we have IPA transcriptions.  I'll do that in a few days if no one objects. --Jim Henry 17:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Englishesque phonetic transcription 

message: After adding material as recommended by the FAC objectors and peer reviewers, the article is now over 35KB.  Any suggestions about which sections could most profitably be abridged or spun off into separate articles?  IMO, the Esperanto in mainstream media section is the most easily dispensible - we might move the whole section into a see also article.  The section on Writing system could probably stand to lose some or all of the extended discussion of ASCII transcriptions, Latin-3, Unicode, and locales. --Jim Henry 22:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the article 

message: Sorry, I really think we should stick to saying Esperanto stress is on the penultimate vowel, not syllable. Of course, it's the vowel that defines the syllable, but saying that the stress is on the penultimate syllable causes people to make mistakes with words like familio, which they expect to be trisyllabic [fa.'mi.ljo] based on analogy with the Romance source languages. More recent Esperanto grammars often avoid this problem by saying "next-to-last vowel", and I've heard several people express appreciation as to how clear that is. kwami 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that makes sense. --Jim Henry | Talk 19:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vowel vs. syllable 

message: Removed the bit about E especially helping with IndoEuropean languages. Yes, Italian would be quite easy because of the shared vocab, but I doubt the improvement of learning time of Russian or Persian would be much greater than, say, Japanese. I found Japanese to be rather easy after picking up Esperanto. And I had studied Spanish for years without much to show for it, so it wasn't just the second-language effect: when I learned a new construction in Japanese, I translated into E, and that made me comfortable enough with it to think directly in Japanese, rather than going through English as I would've done otherwise. The one relevant section of the propedeutic article seems to support this position. --kwami 10:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit