Re: RE: Should Military be used to keep Quebec in confederat
quote="iamcanadian"What I found from experience of learning English as a second language is that everyone butchers it to one degree and another even English Professors.
One reaonsbing it's complicatedness. I'm a native speaker, and even I forget some of the grammar at times. Let's just look at collectives (billy of goats, herd of cattle, school of fish, flock of sheep, library of books, a race of men). I mean, seriously, now, do we really need so many words to mean the same bloody thing?
It is a forgiving language that people don't get hung up over the technical uses, and everyone accepts the content of the information received regardless of the perfection in delivery.
My experience is different from yours in that respect. My father was always critical of my pronunciaiton of th until I "got it right". So now I sound like a native speaker! And what parent will not correct their kid's 'mouses'?
French like my mother tounge is full of the bullshit structures people will criticise and judge you as illiterate by because the information was not accompanied by the correct verb tense and relate garbage that renders French and other similar "perfect" language not worthy of being used on toilet paper, let alone for use to get information across so others can understand.
I agree French has all kinds of rediculous rules. But then again, so does English. In French, it's the grammar. In Englsih, it's the exceptions. As for understanding, English is just as hard. brits comming to Canada can get confused over a 'fag'. Or how about 'billion'? What does that mean? Or if i should ask you to invest in the elevator industry, and asked you to establish an office in Canada, would you establish it in the city or the country? that depends on my meaning of elevator, no? Or what about teh corn industry? If I should say that the corn industry isn't doing so well, does that mean all grains, or only maize? again, it depends on context. And believe me, people do judge English just as much as they do French. If I should turn around and say:
My father, a kernel in armi, builded a house yesterday.
People will understand it (just as they will bad French), but they still won't acknowledge it as good English.
The sooner we get rid of redundencies in means of communications and get to the point the sooner people will understand each other and fairness and equality can apply to all people regardless of race, creed or culture.
Hey, I can agree with you here. So are you prepared to support Esperanto? It meets all your criteria.
Let's compare:
present simple tense of the verb to be (am, is, are) Now you support getting rid of redundancies. Well, in Esperanto there is but one word for it (estas)
In English people get bogged down with mice, geese, oxen, children, men, etc. In Esperanto ALL plurals end in -j, no exception.
In English we need to waste our time learning a whole buch of antonyms. In Esperanto, they can all be produced by the simple addition of the prefix mal-
In English, we need to memorise the feminine of words (woman, girl, hostess, princess, queen, cow, hen, sow, bitch, etc.) Bloody waste of time. In Esperanto yo simply add -in-. Thus we have virino, knabino, gastigantino, princino, reĝino, bovino, kokino, hundino, etc.)
Then we have the issue of spelling and pronunciation:
How the hell does one guess how to pronounce the word colonel? In esperanto, it's all spelt as it is pronounced.
And then we have the issue of grammatical relationships:
Noun/adjective/adverb/
cat/feline/in a cat-like manner/
dog/canine/in a dog-like manner/
sun/solar/in a sun-like manner/
moon/lunar/in a moon-like manner/
monkey/simian/in a monkey-like manner/
bird/simian/in a bird-like manner
In Esperanto the relatinship is always noun-o/adjective-a/adverb-e
kato/kata/kate
hundo/hunda/hunde/
suno/suna/sune/
luno/luna/lune/
simio/simia/simie/
birdo/birda/birde/
Then we have verb conjugation.
eat/ate/eaten/ What the Hell?
In esperanto it's much simpler:
present simple as manĝas
past simple is manĝis
future simple os manĝos
imperative u manĝu
conditional us manĝus
indefinite i manĝi
Now let's compare the present and simple tenses:
I am mi estas
I was mi estis
you are vi estas
you were vi estis
he is li estas
he was li estis
we are ni estas
we were ni estis
they are ili estas
they were ili estis
come came venas venis
drink drank trinkas trinkis
run ran kuras kuris
sleep slept dormas dormis
And then we have limited use for words:
no, not , un-, ir-, im-, in-, non- all mean the same bloody thing, yet are not interchangeable. You must memorise each case individually. In Esperanto, ne can be the independant word no or not, and also a prefix. If it means the same thing, then why have another word. between an inter- mean the same thing in English, yet you cannot say "this is inter me and you", nor can you say "betweennational relations". In Espernato, one word covers both.
In English, I need to consider dialect (billion is a different number in different English-speaking countries, as corn, fag, elevator, highway, etc. all mean different things in different places too.) In esperanto, there are no dialects.
In English, synonyms abound ( highway, artery, autoroute, avenue, boulevard, bowling alley, bricks, drag, four-lane, freeway, interstate, parking lot, parkway, path, pike, roadway, skyway, street, super slab, superhighway, thoroughfare, toll road, track, turnpike ) all with overlapping meanings in some contexts)
In Esperanto, most words are clearly defined with a limited range of meanings.
So now which language do you believe would bring about the most justice between English and Esperanto?
