cx gx hx jx sx ux now work!
The X-System now works! :D It doesn't convert on the fly, but it does accept cx, gx, hx, jx, sx, ux instead of ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ as alternative spellings. Thanks a_david!
La X-sistemo nun funkcias! :D Ĝi ne konvertas literojn dum vi tajpas, sed ĝi ja akceptas cx, gx, hx, jx, sx, ux anstataŭ ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ kiel alternativaj literumoj. Dankon al a_david!
I'm not going to use it, though. Sentences with "x" don't look as good as with original characters. :)
In my opinion the makers of the fonts we use are just too lazy to do it the proper way. From the couple of seconds of research I've done it seems there are generally speaking 3 ways to write the ĥ, which are these.
The top one is how most computer fonts seem to do it, which I agree looks a little... lacking.
The second option just looks silly, and even worse than the first. (or maybe option one only looks better because I'm used to it)
The third is the way I would do it if I were to write any Esperanto by hand. It looks much more elegant, and conforms better with the other letters. Because otherwise, compared to the other circumflexed letters: ĉ ĝ ĥ ĵ ŝ the ĥ looks like the odd one out.
Stop showing off and put that hat back on your head, ĥ!
Yeah, at least modern standard Dutch speakers (it may have been slightly different in Van Gogh's time and dialect) pronounce the v unvoiced (like an f) and the a is more like in the word "awe" than in the English word "van".
In Esperanto spelling, the English pronunciation of Van Gogh would be best presented "ven goŭ", and the Dutch would be "fan ĥoĥ"
La ĥ-sono estas sama al hispana "j". Do, por mi estas nenia problemo prononci ĝin kaj agnoski ĝin bela :-)
Neither am I. If you want to wtite and speak in Esperanto, you have to do it like it is!
I would agree with this for most languages, but Esperanto is a designed language. I think it was a very poor design choice to include special characters (characters outside a..z) and I think the X-System is a nice solution to make the language digitally usable.
The diacritics that Zamenhof created were brilliant, in my honest opinion. All characters within the language are always pronounced within words exactly as they are pronounced individually. There is no ambiguity. Limiting characters simply because they fit nicely within the English language is an arbitrary requirement I'm glad he ignored. He had the forethought to provide [EDIT: the h-system] for transcription of the language with mechanical means (remember... no computers back then): printing press typeset and typewriters. Again, brilliant.
[Edit: X-system was a 2007 decision by Akademio de Esperanto "when due to a special need the h-system fixed in the Fundamento is not convenient"]
X-system existed long before 2007 - in 2007 Akademio de Esperanto made their statement perhaps, but people were using it for a long, long time before that.
It seems that people need some sort of "official ruling" when it comes to language use, which is why I posted the edit. You're right though. I'm pretty sure I saw it in an '80s copy of Richardson's book. I'm sure it predates that.
If you feel this way, you might consider looking at Ido, which is a "descendent" version of Esperanto (one might think of it as Esperanto 2.0). Structurally, it is very similar to Esperanto, but some significant differences exist. Among these are that there are no diacritics, and gender in nouns does not "default" to male. IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, then this would mean that, in Ido, the feminine form of nouns is not relegated to a "shadow meaning" through the use of the suffix "-ino". This (I THINK) is accomplished by redefining the "people nouns" gender neutrally, eg, "servisto" means "waiter of unspecified gender," "servistino" mean "waitress," and a new male suffix "-ulo" (which--I think--means "guy" in Esperanto) is used to create "servistulo." If I'm correct about all this--and I haven't yet examined Ido carefully--then Ido might merit some study. I need to emphasize here that I have not studied Ido closely--I pretty much only know what's written about it in Wikipedia--and I therefore may be mistaken on some of the above points. I have noticed that certain of the Duolingo Esperanto exercises seem to go out of their way to instruct that "ido" means "offspring." In any case, first learning Esperanto would be an excellent step toward later studying Ido. There was a time when Idists and Esperantists would not have anything to do with each other, but one would hope that time has passed. Kiu konas? (or is it "Kiu scias?")
Ido has always meant "offspring" in Esperanto. Initially, those supporting what we now call Ido, called it "reformed Esperanto" (calling the standard form "primitive Esperanto"), and slightly later "Ilo" (from "internaciona linguo").
I recently looked at the home main Ido group. They give a history of the rejection of the reforms that I would describe as not only biased, but inaccurate.
Such reforms have as much likelihood of succeeding as those of the Simplified Spelling Board (which preceded Ido by just a couple of years). Turns out that more than a century later, we don't use spellings like dred, furtiv, and slipt (a did a quick check of some spellings recommended by the board that are standard; they were well established by 1850, long before the Board).
I don't think learning is a good first step if one wants to learn Ido. (On the other hand, I can't think of a good reason to learn Ido.)
Finally, it's definitely "kiu scias." Koni is used as in "knowing someone," never for bodies of information.
I read what you wrote, and in it I don't actually see any good reasons for learning Ido, just a list of what you perceive to be the improvements of Ido over Esperanto.
I'll even concede that some of the changes offered in the Ido reforms were good ideas offered too late. After 1905, such changes were impossible without splitting the Esperanto community. Ido sources blame the Lingvo Komitato, but it was the Esperanto community that rejected the changes (a lot of the leadership defected to Ido).
Given the small size of the Ido movement and the lack of a body of Ido literature, I just don't see a reason to learn it. People voted with their feet as to whether Ido was worth learning. Still, it's clear that Duolingo would be fine with an Ido course. Good luck.
JohnD63, thank you for your quick reply (to my reply to your reply to my first post in this thread--My God, I need a drink!). You obviously care a great deal about Esperanto, and I applaud that. Your note of the small size of the Ido membership and body of literature is not without significance, but I'm sure that you're aware that the same could be noted about Esperanto, and it often has been over the years by Esperanto's detractors. That being the case, is it really a valid point to be made against Ido, but not against Esperanto?
Beyond this, I suspect you are unduly discounting how many people may be put off and discouraged by the "default to male" aspect of Esperanto's nouns. This is my third major attempt (over the last twenty-five years) to learn Esperanto. The first two attempts I abandoned because I perceived the gender bias to be a fundamental flaw that was not overcome Esperanto's numerous other strengths. I'm hoping that this time my knowledge of Ido's existence will allow me to get past my major concern about Esperanto, and I am also hoping the knowledge of Ido's existence will help others who have a similar concern about Esperanto's nouns (and the diacritics, and the accusative case). But then, who am I to talk? I make disparaging comments about the existence of Klingon as a language.
Perhaps I should clarify a significant point of my own bias. To me (and to a lot of other people), a very profound element of the importance and value of both Esperanto and Ido is in their simplicity. There is immeasurable worth in being able to demonstrate to a student how (relatively) easy it can possibly be to acquire a second and a third language (this value is the reason I was one of the many waiting with baited breath for Esperanto to make its debut on Duolingo). Once the student sees this merit--first hand and up close--by actually learning an auxiliary language (or two), then the student also gains an innate and hands-on understanding of several of the essentials of human language and communication. I can't conceive of any other way the extent of this advantage could possibly be obtained (as fully and as expeditiously) than by first learning Esperanto and then by following this with learning few structural changes that Ido incorporates. The pedagogical possibilities here are staggering, and in a world facilitated by the internet, the use of one does not preclude use of the other.
I realize I am far from the first to harp on this potential, but it seems to me that this same potential is largely being ignored (or at least greatly underutilized) by linguists.
And now it's time for me to return to studying. Good luck to you also. (How would one say that in Esperanto?)
JohnD63, you really can't think of a good reason to learn Ido?
Obviously the necessity of accommodating the diacritics in Esperanto is an issue of importance to many of the participants in this thread. You had to have noticed that: you've been replying to several of them. My own feelings about the diacritics are mixed; I would like not to have to deal with the inherent complication they pose, but I also see the point of those admire the manner in which they give a distinctive look and "flavor" to Esperanto, and if the diacritics of French and German can (one way or another) be accommodated, then so can those of Esperanto.
Many Esperanto learners stumble over and become frustrated by Esperanto's use of the accusative -n. This is another feature eliminated in Ido, and it is also an issue on which my feelings are mixed. I greatly admire the flexibility the accusative -n affords Esperanto, but I recognize that the inclusion of an accusative case creates an impediment to many learners that might not be necessary, given that several languages get along very well with little to no manifestation of the accusative.
Then there's the issue of the "default to male" nature of Esperanto's nouns. Ido overcomes this by defining the root of almost all nouns as gender neutral, thus avoiding the inherent relegation of the female gender to linguistic secondary "shadow status." Of course, I feel silly even bringing this subject up. After all, several languages have utilized this practice for millennia, so why would anyone possibly care about bowing to tradition on this point? Wait a minute, on second thought, perhaps in this day and age a lot of people would care.
Since Ido is largely intelligible by those who have studied Esperanto, I don't see how you can possibly maintain the position that studying Esperanto would not be a good first step in learning Ido. Why not pick up two auxiliary languages for relatively little over the price of one? This is especially true given the enormous linguistic advantage to be gained by seeing first hand how easy acquiring a second and third fully functional human language can possibly be.
JohnD62, I suspect you and I are going to disagree on many points. Frankly, I'm looking forward to it. ; )
I agree it is a good move, it makes it easier to type if someone doesn't have Tajpi or something similar. But for me, I would rather get used to typing it the way it is ment to be. I think it is sad that there isn't a keyboard layout in windows for Esperanto.
If people want to know. I use Tajpi for windows. Klavaro for iPhone
There are Windows keyboard layouts for Esperanto, Microsoft just doesn't ship them by default. I created a bunch of keyboard layouts to help me type various languages natively in Windows, they work without any extra software and without having to use the X, they are indistinguishable from Microsoft-shipped keyboard layouts. You can download them from http://learnlangs.com/keyboard_layouts/ .
To type Esperanto, get the "US keyboard for DE Romance EO", which is based on the US International keyboard layout but adds support for easily typing Esperanto, German, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Alternatively, get the "Every accented letter DE" keyboard layout, which is based on the German keyboard layout but allows you to type just about every letter from every European language and even Chinese Pinyin letters like ǚ. Here's what I can do with the letter A, in two keystrokes or less: āäǟáàâǎæ.
You can build or modify keyboard layouts using the Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator. Have fun!