Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

dp · 2004-07-21 20:01:53

it is a little bit strange that i start tis, because i do know quite no esperanto, but it would be really cool to have docs in esperanto

anyone using arch and speaking/knowing esperanto, parol bonvole :-)

Xentac · 2004-07-21 20:26:20

I can't wait for the abusive, condescending geeks to start calling other people geeks for talking about esperanto. I used to be able to read and write it (and hence, speak it), but I'm way out of practice now.

I don't know how much of a draw it really would be. How many people don't know english and don't understand some other language that some arch users speak natively, but do know esperanto?

dp · 2004-07-21 20:31:23

Xentac wrote:

How many people don't know english and don't understand some other language that some arch users speak natively, but do know esperanto?

good question

... and i'm only surprised a little about you to know esperanto

Xentac · 2004-07-21 22:09:47

Dankon dp. Nun mi denove deziras lerni esperanton.

Mia gramatiko estas malbona.

jlvsimoes · 2004-07-21 23:20:32

reading it it looks like a mix of italian / spanhish / portugueses

dp · 2004-07-21 23:56:32

Xentac wrote:

Dankon dp. Nun mi denove deziras lerni esperanton.
Mia gramatiko estas malbona.

preciz pro ke, mi plac^as esperanto - mi kompren all vorts - sed verki est absolute diferenco, so do not expect this words to be any correct esperanto :-)

dp · 2004-07-21 23:59:41

jlvsimoes wrote:

reading it it looks like a mix of italian / spanhish / portugueses

http://www.esperanto.net/info/baza_pt.html

http://www.esperanto.net/

neri · 2004-07-22 00:12:34

dp wrote:

it is a little bit strange that i start tis, because i do know quite no esperanto, but it would be really cool to have docs in esperanto
:-)

Well, can I vote to have a Latin version, too?

-neri

dp · 2004-07-22 00:20:49

neri wrote:

dp wrote:
it is a little bit strange that i start tis, because i do know quite no esperanto, but it would be really cool to have docs in esperanto
:-)
Well, can I vote to have a Latin version, too?
-neri

esperanto is like latin in the old roman empire: it's neutral, no conquered culture liked it really but as the caesar told that all must speak it, all understand it - the only difference to esperanto: you are free to learn it and are not killed if you do not learn it, it's fun reading it and trying to write it and nobody is conquered of course ;-)

latin is a dead language, but esperanto as it's successor has a value today

good comparison anyway :-)

... and if you find someone to know latin, it would be really "special" (einmalig, einzigartig) to have docs also in latin :-)

KalephOne · 2004-07-22 02:06:06

I'm interested in learning esperanto (and japanese, russian, french, but that's for later ) and have found this site www.cursodeesperanto.com.br - it provides a tutoring app for windows and linux. I'm downloading it now.

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-22 02:27:43

Latin is not a dead language. It's very useful, as many languages come from it (spanish, italian, french, etc).

sarah31 · 2004-07-22 02:57:22

dp,

better get studying. so far you are writing a latin and esperanto translation.

have fun.

Dusty · 2004-07-22 16:08:16

Anybody can submit a translation for any language, but Dennis and I require there be at least two people willing to keep it up to date.

I've been meaning to translate the docs into Java, but I figured C would be easier since I could just clone the source....

Dusty

dp · 2004-07-22 16:47:11

sarah31 wrote:

dp,
better get studying. so far you are writing a latin and esperanto translation.
have fun.

esperanto, when i know enough to write whole sentences without big mistakes, i will start, ...

... but latin? no way, sorry - it's to less a value to be worth investing time refreshing my highschool-latin for it --- and additionally we will have trouble explaining in latin what a proxy, a cdrom ... is :-)

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-22 16:56:15

dp wrote:

sarah31 wrote:
dp,
better get studying. so far you are writing a latin and esperanto translation.
have fun.
esperanto, when i know enough to write whole sentences without big mistakes, i will start, ...
... but latin? no way, sorry - it's to less a value to be worth investing time refreshing my highschool-latin for it --- and additionally we will have trouble explaining in latin what a proxy, a cdrom ... is :-)

The proxylum and the cd-romius. And of course caesar Juddis Vinnus.

mcubednyc · 2004-07-22 19:33:48

dp wrote:

latin is a dead language, but esperanto as it's successor has a value today

What is the value? I don't understand. I can see the value of learning French (Balzac, Rimbaud, Sartre), German (Goethe, Mann, Marx), Russian (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekov), Spanish (Cervantes, Borges, Marquez), English (Dickens, Twain, Eliot -- T.S. & George, Shakespeare), etc. But Esperanto? What is there to read?

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-22 20:25:47

mcubednyc wrote:

dp wrote:
latin is a dead language, but esperanto as it's successor has a value today
What is the value? I don't understand. I can see the value of learning French (Balzac, Rimbaud, Sartre), German (Goethe, Mann, Marx), Russian (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekov), Spanish (Cervantes, Borges, Marquez), English (Dickens, Twain, Eliot -- T.S. & George, Shakespeare), etc. But Esperanto? What is there to read?

If you come to think about it, everytime you think, you're using language, sort of talking in your head, so maybe knowing a better language, more structured language, would help you to think in a better way. Just a theory, don't have any proves for it.

dp · 2004-07-22 21:36:16

mcubednyc wrote:

dp wrote:
latin is a dead language, but esperanto as it's successor has a value today
What is the value? I don't understand. I can see the value of learning French (Balzac, Rimbaud, Sartre), German (Goethe, Mann, Marx), Russian (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekov), Spanish (Cervantes, Borges, Marquez), English (Dickens, Twain, Eliot -- T.S. & George, Shakespeare), etc. But Esperanto? What is there to read?

it is a neutral language and excellently structured - it was designed to be of use

and there is already some lit in it:
http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Lite … aturo.html
http://www.fact-index.com/e/es/esperant … ature.html

Dusty · 2004-07-22 22:08:32

kakabaratruskia wrote:

If you come to think about it, everytime you think, you're using language, sort of talking in your head

I'm not sure that's true for everybody. I know it's very true for me, I carry on conversations in my head all the time (sometimes I hold a mental party.... Is this multithreading?) However, I've reason to believe that some people don't think in language or words. Some use pictures, for example, or symbols or I don't know what. Some don't think at all...

Does this explain why we have very few thoughts or memories from the period of our life before we learn a language?

so maybe knowing a better language, more structured language, would help you to think in a better way. Just a theory, don't have any proves for it.

It's a really interesting idea, I'd like to erm... think about it. One problem though, you have to use a language for a long time before you start thinking in it. By the time you learned a more structured language so thoroughly that you no longer thought in the native tongue...

Dusty

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-23 00:39:51

Dusty wrote:

kakabaratruskia wrote:
If you come to think about it, everytime you think, you're using language, sort of talking in your head
I'm not sure that's true for everybody. I know it's very true for me, I carry on conversations in my head all the time (sometimes I hold a mental party.... Is this multithreading?) However, I've reason to believe that some people don't think in language or words. Some use pictures, for example, or symbols or I don't know what. Some don't think at all...

I was thinking this. Deaf people can't think with words, but maybe they're a little bit retarded (in the sence that they can't think with words). It would be interesting to ask a chinese how does he think, if he thinks as symbols, or as words. If you analize, all occidental lenguages (at least the ones I know), are only phonetic, not written. Our written languages are only transcriptions of sounds into paper, but you must decode it (read it) before you understand it. You can't get the meaning of a word, just by looking at it. On the other hand, oriental languages I think (don't speak any), are dual. If you see a symbol, you get an idea, and if you hear a sound,you also get the idea, but they are separated. They don't need each other. Maybe someone from china could tell if this is true.
I think that language is what differences us from animals, or primitive men.

Dusty wrote:

One problem though, you have to use a language for a long time before you start thinking in it. By the time you learned a more structured language so thoroughly that you no longer thought in the native tongue...

I think this is true, so we will probably never be any more inteligent, by learning more languages, but maybe learning better your native language, especially more words, will help you relate more concepts with sounds, thus making you think more precisely.

Dusty · 2004-07-23 01:37:32

kakabaratruskia wrote:

It would be interesting to ask a chinese how does he think, if he thinks as symbols, or as words.

I have one friend in Hong Kong that thinks in sounds/words, but she may not be representative of the population. We've had this discussion. It's an interesting one... For example, what happens to thought that cannot be expressed in your native language? in any language?

I think this is true, so we will probably never be any more inteligent, by learning more languages, but maybe learning better your native language, especially more words, will help you relate more concepts with sounds, thus making you think more precisely.

Yes, definately... lazy grammar and vocabulary is lazy thought, I think.

Also learning other (non-native) languages helps, because some thoughts are not expressed in all languages (such as the famous "mu" from Zen).

You sound like you would enjoy the essay "Thinking as a Hobby" by William Golding... you can find it on google if you haven't read it.

Dusty

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-23 03:30:01

Thanks for the info. I'll try to read it.

Edit1: I've read it, and in fact it is interesting. I have to admit that I'm still a grade-two thinker. Maybe some day I'll improve. If you know more stuff like this, please tell me about it. I'm interested in becoming a grade-one thinker, and I think I should read.

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-23 03:34:10

Dusty wrote:

I have one friend in Hong Kong that thinks in sounds/words, but she may not be representative of the population.

It must be really weird to think with images. I can't do that, even if I try. I think I never will, maybe I'm already screwed.

dp · 2004-07-23 07:09:44

kakabaratruskia wrote:

Dusty wrote:
I have one friend in Hong Kong that thinks in sounds/words, but she may not be representative of the population.
It must be really weird to think with images. I can't do that, even if I try. I think I never will, maybe I'm already screwed.

i would say that also you think in images, sounds and words - but not all together the same intensity - this way, you think to think only in words, but your brain is (must be) working with all the cortical centerers, that it has --- a deaf person can maybe (depends on the level of deaf-being) not think in words, but as the capacity of the brain overall in "considering" something is more or less the same with a deaf and a normal person, it's brain is thinking more intensively with the other centres in the brain

you may think that you think only in words, mostly because you are a person that uses speech as most-important part of it - others use visual system as the most important thing in thinking and think in pictures/"dreams" and so on .... 92% of the brain action is to communicate with itself - only a little is input and output communication - and this internal communication of the centres of the brain is the "thinking", only that we realize only a part of it as "thinking" and the other is unconciously passing by without us to be able to realize it

Dusty wrote:

...(sometimes I hold a mental party.... Is this multithreading?)...

we all have "mental parties" from time to time :-) at least me is having them too from time to time - i suppose that it happens, when important information is analyzed successfully (triggered by something great, like a sound, a quote, a smell, a picture, a i-dont-know-what), but multithreading is dangerous: if the brain is doing too much multithreading, it can end in epilepsy - you can imagine this this way: if you speak with yourself, do you speak with more voices or only one?

any language i know (de_ch, de, fr, en) and any language i know the structure of (it, ...) i think has a horrible structure for thinking: it has a lot of specialities and wrong structure, and the only reason why i'm using the ones i know and not learning to sort my thinking out or/and learn a more complex but structured one is, that i'm lazy (having no time for something means also lazyness in a way), but as in this way, i think that quite a lot of us are lazy for that, i'm not totally unhappy with this laziness

fortunately, our brain is not that unflexible to not being able to learn a new language at least in the first half of ones life - so i hope to be able to overcome my laziness sometimes ;-)

seeing a word, a cascade is opened and we imagine something behind it - we are used to this way of thinking: if you see a irregularly written word but still recognize it, you learn the new form and make new connections in your brain remembering this new one by connecting it with the existent one - to interlink words is to learn a language

exactly the same one can do with pictures or sounds, but if you grew up with words mostly, it's more difficult, because the brain uses a fall-back to words sooner than it would link the pictures or sounds with for themselves --- think of gestures: if you know them, you know a new language, that consists of unwritten unspoken words - you have symbols connected in your brain, not words (or with words, but then you are not able to communicate very fast with gestures, because translation of symbols to words costs also time)

zeppelin · 2004-07-23 11:26:37

Esperanto idea is dead, because everyone knows (some) English these days.

Languages are TOOLS.
Tools gets replaced by better ones (english these days is what I call "earthian")

imagine this:
Aliens contact us, if they are clever they would talk to us in English. I 'm a native Greek, but that's the truth.

English is these days, the EARTHIAN.
that could change in the future, but for now IT IS.

so esperanto and other like small english can kiss my as$

Arch Linux

#1 2004-07-21 20:01:53

Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#2 2004-07-21 20:26:20

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#3 2004-07-21 20:31:23

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#4 2004-07-21 22:09:47

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#5 2004-07-21 23:20:32

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#6 2004-07-21 23:56:32

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#7 2004-07-21 23:59:41

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#8 2004-07-22 00:12:34

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#9 2004-07-22 00:20:49

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#10 2004-07-22 02:06:06

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#11 2004-07-22 02:27:43

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#12 2004-07-22 02:57:22

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#13 2004-07-22 16:08:16

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#14 2004-07-22 16:47:11

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#15 2004-07-22 16:56:15

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#16 2004-07-22 19:33:48

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#17 2004-07-22 20:25:47

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#18 2004-07-22 21:36:16

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#19 2004-07-22 22:08:32

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#20 2004-07-23 00:39:51

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#21 2004-07-23 01:37:32

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#22 2004-07-23 03:30:01

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#23 2004-07-23 03:34:10

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#24 2004-07-23 07:09:44

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

#25 2004-07-23 11:26:37

Re: Docs in Esperanto -including a deep analyse of langs/thoughs

Board footer