As I understand it, and none of the others have described it in exactly this way, Zorgi is "to care" or "to be concerned about". It doesn't necessarily have to involve tension or worry or anxiety.
Maltrankviliĝi is "to be worried" or "to be anxious" or "to be upset". It is the opposite of being "tranquil". It covers the emotion of worry, rather than the mental investment.
[EDIT: After getting more knowledgeable in linguistics I must agree with noureddin95 and so I edited my comment above.
Two years ago I've answered:] Well, that's just the matter of the nomenclature. From the point of the root -iĝ- is a suffix, but it may never finish the word just like that and so from the point of view of a whole word it's an infix.
I'm with you, mbalicki- sometimes esperanto uses INFIXES. Just because a group if Esperantists insist on calling them suffixes don't make it so. If it is inserted inside the word, not at the end or beginning, it can be called an infix. If you can't end the word with it, it's not a suffix.
@EaterofPumkin: Well, then I must admit that over the year I've learned some linguistics and so I have to totally take back my previous statement. :D
Esperanto never uses infixes and my previous attempt to justify calling suffixes “infix” came from a basic misunderstanding of what an infix is and what can it do in other languages (thus, why the distinction is quite important).
@JackBond: “Affix” is a general term for a morpheme being attached to a stem. Affixes can be inserted inside a stem (those are called “infixes”) or attached outside a stem (those are called “adfixes”). Adfixes can be attached in front of a stem (those are called “prefixes”) or glued at the end of a stem (those are called “suffixes”).
Esperanto affixes are only adfixes (mostly suffixes but there are also some prefixes), because never does it happen that a morpheme breaks inside the stem. Like it does for example in Tagalog, where -um- infix makes sulat into sumulat, basa into bumasa or kain into kumain.
Mbalicki- I too have studied linguistics (WHICH DOES NOT A LINGUISTIC MAKE!!!)
With that being said, I understand what you mean and as well reverse my biased view of infixes, if for not, at least for the sake in Esperanto where the stem never is broken. Jes, I was wrong, it happens. On that note, I leave you with an infix, Georgia style: abso'f+€%!n'lutely
Why Zamenhof hasn't chosen short roots to the common words in future international language? Also, listen = auskulti. Why isnt just "aus" or something like that? I think that language of future have to be short and fast for writing and speaking, and these roots will disappear, even if all those "Esperanto purists" will hate this and scream "what about basic 16 rules???".
There are many factors here.
Choosing many more one-syllable roots would mean that more words would be have very similar pronunciation which should probably be avoided in the language for international, interlinguistic communication. Vocabulary of Esperanto is deliberately borrowed from other languages, so that it can be easier for many people to be familiar with it with ease.
If you're advocating for shortening roots, mind the example of Volapük, created few years before Esperanto. It was the first language, constructed for the purpose of becoming world's second language, which gained worldwide recognition and interest of many people. But eventually almost every Volapük-club was transformed into Esperanto-club. What was one of the main flaws of Volapük? Words, based on international vocabulary or other languages, were by design created as short as possible, which meant that ultimately they were distorted to the point of being unrecognisable.
As Viktoro Sole had put it satirically in his feuilleton Blogo de volapukisto (Kontakto, nro 263 2014:5):
Preskaŭ ĉiuj povas kompreni unuarigarde esperantajn vortojn kiel estas fiziko, lingvo kaj edukado. Tre konataj vortoj, kiuj tute ne laborigas nian memorkapablon. Tamen, provu enkapigi la jenajn: füsüd, pük kaj dugäl. Tio ja meritas la penon! Se oni volas bicikli por trejni siajn muskolojn, oni ne iru ĉiam laŭ alsubaj deklivoj. Esperanto estas tia vojo, kiu pigrigas vin. Provu la alsupran volapukan manieron kaj via cerbo multe pliboniĝos.
I have read many projects of "upgraded esperanto" (including the zamenhof's project), and almost in all of them people say that "esperanto has too many sounds". With all these sounds, it won't be a problem to make short word. Also, you can always chose a shorter word from another european lang, not neccessarily romance, latin-based. It can be less popular, but It will be shorter. Anyway, I think, with spread (hopefully) of EO, many mal- and other long words (and maybe words like patrino, most langs use something like mother/mutter/mama) will disappear. Evolution cant be stopped :)
From the understanding I've gained from other posts, "ne zorgu" means "don't concern yourself over it" (or "it's not a big deal") and the original phrase means "don't fret over it" (or "don"t stress yourself out").
As an example of when this distinction might matter, consider a case where someone says "I have an important test coming up!"; a reply of "ne zorgu" might imply (from my understanding) that the test shouldn't be treated as important.
You're wrong, because trankvila used about a person doesn't mean “calm, indifferent, unexcited”, but “calm, comforted, untroubled”.
In the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro you can find the definition of trankvil·a :
Havanta neniajn zorgojn, nenian timon antaŭ la estonteco, nenian bedaŭron pri la pasinteco.
Having no worries, no anxiety for the future, no regret about the past.
Well then, by that definition then trankvila seems to correlate more closely to peaceful. Excited still seems like a good antonym for peaceful in that case too.
I referenced http://reta-vortaro.de/revo/ to try and understand the word better and that definition seems to be a little different than the one you quoted. (its a little too long to post here). My grasp of Esperanto is still pretty weak by my estimate, so at my level, reading an Esperanto vortaro to understand an Esperanto word can leave one very frustrated.
In the end, I am just a learner, and I appreciate your help in trying to more clearly understand the translation of the sentiment expressed, and get a better understanding of Esperanto as a whole. :-D
Because that wouldn't be a correct translation, although in effect it conveys a very similar meaning.
Ne maltrankviligxu: don't be upset. Trankviligxu: be calm/tranquil. The meaning is similar, but the Esperanto sentences are not the same any more than the English sentences are.
If one was translating a book, then a looser translation might be appropriate to be more colloquial or to fit in a certain style, so it might be acceptable to use a different but synonymous phrase. That is not the case with this kind of language course.