Talk:Esperanto and Interlingua compared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here.	Constructed languages Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
	This article is an Esperanto core topic.

Contents 1 LFN 2 Clean up 3 Respective movements 4 So-called Neutrality 5 Translation Errors 6 malsanulejo 7 non-Western features 8 quasi-religion of homaranismo

[edit] LFN

An anonymous user has been turning this article into something that would better be called Esperanto, Interlingua and Lingua Franca Nova compared. Now with all due respect to his or her efforts, but if we go on with this, this article will turn into the battlefield of one of those typical auxlang flamewars about whose language is better. I have nothing against LFN, but I don't think its presence in an article about comparing E-o and I-a is warranted. Otherwise we might as well add Ido, Occidental, Novial, Glosa, Europanto, Esperantido, Adjuvilo and about 500 other euroclones, and there you go. --IJzeren Jan 10:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I have made an attempt to "clean up" this article, and I hope it's now good enough to justify removing the clean-up tag. If not, please put it back, I won't be offended. No, honest, really I won't. Well, maybe just a teeny bit, but then thats Wikipedia for you, innit?.

However, I have to confess that I am normally a contributor to the Esperanto wiki, so although I have tried to conserve NPOV, my own inherent bias towards eo might show through, so any Interlinguistas out there, feel free to correct errors in fact, etc. Also, I am not a linguist. Sigh. Le Hibou 00:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Respective movements

I don't know enough about the movements of either language to write on them but it would be interesting to see the way they go about promoting the language. Interlingua doesn't even seem to have an agreement on whether it wants to be the universal IAL, although it looks like they've been doing a lot more of that lately. I noticed just yesterday for example, that the constitution of the EU that the Interlinguists translated (200+ pages I think) has apparently been sent to each member of the European Parliament for the to peruse. There's also their emphasis on science and so on, whereas Esperanto is much more of a from the bottom-up approach where they start with it as a method for meeting people in other countries, and the politics of the EU, scientific journals and whatnot are merely a small part. But those are just my impressions from what I know about the two. Mithridates 04:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So-called Neutrality

I know I'm not welcome to edit this article, being an Interlingua speaker, but it might be worth noting that some people see the perceived 'non-neutrality' of either Esperanto or Interlingua as a strength, not a flaw. Almafeta 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit playing the martyr and contribute. One of the editors above specifically said we need IL editors for this article. kwami 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that the Eo editors have done their best to maintain NPOV. One point that needs to be worked on is the difference in linguistic philosophy. It's been argued that once you admit the basic philosophical differences, the different design decisions follow fairly naturally. But asserting that is one thing, writing it up is another.--Chris 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Its important to be neutral but the best contributers have an opinion. Totally neutral no opinion editors are dead editors(no offence intended.). And I encourage you again to Be Bold.--Jondel 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold with my current series of edits. Let me know what you think.--Chris 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole issue of neutrality is sort of foreign to Interlingua, so all the space in the article devoted to comparing "neutralities" seems odd. I just really looked at this for the first time; maybe later I'll boldly try to rejigger it a bit. --Cam 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

..

Hey, somebody who speaks Interlingua, PLEASE add to the article. There is too much on Esperanto and too few about Interlingua. It would be really nice if every paragraph talking about Esperanto pros and cons had an correspondent talking about Interlinguas pros and cons... Just my opinion! I will, too, do my best to help this article reach its full potential!!! =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.150.61 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation Errors

"interna ideo" means "internal idea", not "internal ideal". Is the english meant to change, or the esperanto to "interna idealo" ?

[edit] malsanulejo

I think something should be said about the different ways to express the same idea in Esperanto. Note that the words hospitalo, kliniko, lazareto, preventorio, sanatorio also exist in Esperanto. Other roots can also be used, b.i. kurac (medically treat). Of course, the roots that are part of the fundamental vocabulary are preferred, but it is depending on the audience, and the skills of the speaker who can adjust to it.

The advantage of having many ways to say the same is that it permits to express an idea fluently, without hindering the comprehension. If the root kurac comes first to my mind, I can easily build kuracejo. If I think of san, I can build resanigejo, what means a construction(ejo) where one makes(ig) people healthy(san) again(re). This flexibility makes Esperanto very comfortable to speak and listen to. The remark about malsanulejo not being precise enough looks out of place. The word would be quite all right on most occasions. --Remush 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-Western features

About "Esperanto's European character is purely accidental; proponents tend to stress its allegedly non-Western features for ideological reasons". Probably the author misunderstood a phrase like: All the features of Esperanto are coming from western languages, but of course, some (many?) features of western languages are also found in non-western ones. --Remush 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quasi-religion of homaranismo

This is really shoking. I changed quasi-religion to philosophy. Using the term religion is quite inappropriate here, as Homaranismo aŭ Hillelismo is valid for believers and non-believers, and is more comparable to Buddhism. Anyway, Homaranismo is not promoted inside the Esperanto movement, and few Esperantists kwow what it is about. --Remush 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)