Estas bezonata nova dissendolisto, kie oni instruu Esperanton al
anglalingvanoj. Hodiau mi kreis tian dissendoliston. Ghi nomighas
<angl-esper-instru>. Plena titolo: "Esperanto for English-speakers".
Jes, mi scias pri la kurso de Marko Rauhamaa. Ghi funkcias tre bone. Sed la
mondo estas granda. Ju pli da E-kursoj estos en la Reto, des pli bone!
Ne chiu esperantisto povas profesie gvidi E-kurson. Sed chiu povas de tempo
al tempo korekti taskojn de lernantoj, respondi al iliaj demandoj, kuraghigi
ilin. Nia grupo estas por amatoraj instruantoj.
Kiel funkcios tiu dissendolisto? Chiu deziranto abonos ghin kaj prenos
lecionojn el http://www.egroups.com/docvault/angl-esper-instru/. Poste li
sendos siajn taskojn al angl-esp...@egroups.com. Iu ajn esperantisto,
kiu partoprenos tiun grupon, korektos la taskojn kaj resendos ilin al la
grupo (ne private al la lernanto!). Kaj tiel plu.
Lau tia sistemo, chiu tasko estos kontrolita tre rapide (se iu instruanto
forestas, tiun laboron faros alia). Ech lernantoj rajtas kontroli taskojn de
jam lernitaj lecionoj. Instruante, oni lernos mem. La grupo povos enteni
kiom ajn multe da lernantoj, char multaj lernantoj preferos lerni pasive,
nur observante lernadon de aliaj.
Kune kun la instruado la instruantoj respondos al interesaj demandoj de
lernantoj, kaj iliajn respondojn legos chiuj! Do, efikeco de la instruado
estos multe pli alta, ol dum privata instruado. Kaj chefe, dum la instruado
kreighos amikaj rilatoj, amikeca etoso de esperantista kolektivo.
Sed estas grava rimarko. Mi ne shatas x-skribadon. Zamenhof konsilis skribi
literon h anstatau ^, kiam ne eblas tajpi ^. Tial mi shanghis chiujn
cx-kombinojn al ch. Por tio ne necesas aparta permeso. H-skribado estas
Fundamenta.
Mi invitas vin alighi al la laboro! Se vi deziras partopreni, sendu
malplenan mesaghon al angl-esper-in...@egroups.com.
Nikolao
You see, you're using again these arguments that Dr. Zankey said this so
we've all got to do it that way.
That's the kind of thinking that makes this language a fossil from a
by-gone age which people have to struggle to update when it doesn't have
to be that way.
If you really feel that way, Nikolao, you should be consistent and only
use the words that Dr Z. used, and not have any modern ones or own
coinages, both of which you use regularly.
The x method is quicker and less confusing than the h method and by
proscribing one rather than the other you are missing the chance to see
which one the new user gravitates towards naturally when unshackled by
prejudice. I noted a learner coming on here for the first time the other
day had picked the x method out of all the methods he must have seen
here.
The science of grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If
people are comfortable with x method, then that should be treated with
equal rights with both the hat method and all the other methods.
Perhaps you would like an entry into people's electronic passports as to
which method they prefer?
Uncle Davey
PS. This isn't in Esperanto, but it's about Esperanto, so I'd like to
ask Ivo Bellefeuille, Sebo Hartwig and all the other hellites not to go
into a tizzy about it.
That's an interesting point -- selection by newbies, or the natural
evolution of orthographic expression.
As a new user, I went through the experimental process of trying them all,
and ultimately settled on eks-metodo as the most readable, type-able,
sortable, searchable, and convertible. The tents are cute, but I just don't
have the time and energy to manage the digital gymnastics required to
propagate special-treatment diacriticals throughout my text and content
processing systems.
After all, we are talking about a hobby, here. I would switch in a flash if
there were a compelling economic reason to do so. Failing that, the topic
falls into the "agree to disagree" category, along with "tomato-tomahto" and
beer-drinking preferences.
In a decidedly unscientific experiment, I just searched on AltaVista for "cx
+gx +esperanto" and got 1034 hits. A search for "ch +gh +esperanto" yielded
668 hits. A more refined search pattern would get different quantitative
results, but I would guess the proportions would hold.
--
---- gxero
>
>The x method is quicker and less confusing than the h method and by
it is less confusing but not quicker :
cx gx hx jx sx ux
ch gh hh jh sh u
so the x-methode is slower .
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/3856/idiindex.htm
ei ihola en noko - ekc oßckupe\ iv adai\umaia
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/nymindex.htm
"wer fu"r alles offen ist kann nicht ganz dicht sein."
But x's position on the keyboard means that it is probably quicker
anyway. Despite the lack of semivowel marker on ux. X method could
leave out ux as well, I've seen some people here write that way.
Uncle Davey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
I take it that even the much vaunted unicode, which doesn't work on my
system at the moment anyway, requires people to press about three or
four keys at once to get the desired letter?
>
> After all, we are talking about a hobby, here. I would switch in a
flash if
> there were a compelling economic reason to do so.
Exactly.
>Failing that, the
topic
> falls into the "agree to disagree" category, along with
"tomato-tomahto" and
> beer-drinking preferences.
Sometimes it reminds me more of a certain debate that took place in a
distant archipelago regarding which part of an egg should be opened
first.
>
> In a decidedly unscientific experiment, I just searched on AltaVista
for "cx
> +gx +esperanto" and got 1034 hits. A search for "ch +gh +esperanto"
yielded
> 668 hits. A more refined search pattern would get different
quantitative
> results, but I would guess the proportions would hold.
That was very interesting. I wish I'd thought of doing that.
> I take it that even the much vaunted unicode, which doesn't work on my
> system at the moment anyway, requires people to press about three or
> four keys at once to get the desired letter?
If you use EK to type Esperanto, you can choose your own typing method.
You can then use one or two key presses for the Esperanto letters.
--
======================================================================
Bertilo Wennergren
<bert...@hem.passagen.se>
<http://purl.oclc.org/NET/bertilo>
======================================================================
Vilcxjo Harmon
>Tamen...forigi la "x" sistemon simple cxar la organizanto ne sxatas la
>aspekton???
>
Tio estas normala afero. Kiu shatas x-skribadon, organizu sian E-lernejon en
la Reto.
>Kial ne esti iom pli fleksebla?
>
H-skribado estas ekzemplo de perfekta fleksebleco, char ghi konformas kun
internaciaj kutimoj.
>Vilcxjo Harmon
>
Nikolao
Oh no it doesn't.
In Spanish and English, ch is like in your Esperanto.
In French, ch is like sh in your Esperanto.
In Italian and Romanian, ch is a k in your Esperanto.
In Polish, Welsh , and in German when preceded by a hard vowel, ch is
your hh, and in German when preceded by a soft vowel in
non-Bavarian/Austrian dialects are being spoken it is a sound which
doesn't exist in Espie at all and which I denote in Synthetica as q.
In Swedish it's something else again, correct me Swediewegians if I'm
wrong.
In Polish your ch is cz, in Hungarian cs, in Czech, Slovak and most
latinate South Slav languages it is c with a haczek.
German and Greek don't have the sound, and use combinations of other
letters with t and s to get to it.
In English and no other language I know of is sh represented this way.
If you want that sound in other languages you have to write ch (fr) sch
(ger) si (welsh) sz (Polish) or various diacritics for other Slav langs,
s with a wiggle under in Turkish and Romanian and s on its own in
Hungarian, since sz represents a sibilant s in that language.
I could go on and on, but my parking ticket's running out so I have to
move my backside.
Anyway. H method is not international, Nickyboy. No way.
Internationally confusing, yes. Best go for x method.
Uncle Davey
(Davey's on dxe road again, wearing different clodxes again)
>H-skribado estas ekzemplo de perfekta fleksebleco, char ghi konformas kun
>internaciaj kutimoj.
>
absolutley not ; ch is the esperanto sound hx in Dutch , German , ....
>Best go for x method.
>
Ghi ne plachis al Zamenhof. :)
>Uncle Davey
>
Nikolao
La samo direblas ankau por la x-metodo. Ke rimarkinda koincido!
>
> >Best go for x method.
> >
> Ghi ne plachis al Zamenhof. :)
Eble ne, sed li estas malvivo jam de 1917, se mi ne eraregas.
Okay, let's imagine you want to speak about the cultivation of fruit and
you want to say 'The following strawberry hybrids are aphid-resistant'.
Let's say you want to render the term 'strawberry hybrids' with the
compound noun which I would spell 'fraghibridoj'. (Oder kommt das
ueberhaupt nicht in Frago?) If you want to keep your h-method to please
someone who's been dead nearly a century and who should have as much say
on the development of Esperanto today as Pushkin has on the development
of Russian today or Luther on the latest German spelling reforms or
Shakespeare on twenty first century English, then you have to pronounce
this word fragxibridoj, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Onklo Dacxjo
Eugenio
Interese.
Mi komencis lerni la pangxabon kaj la transkriba metodo en latinajn
literojn uzata en la unuaj lekcionoj uzas similan solvon kun la '-'.
Kiel oni diras en esperanto:
!@#^&*(){}[]|\/_-=+?
Geamike
Onklo Davey
> Kiel oni diras en esperanto:
> !@#^&*(){}[]|\/_-=+?
Vidu: <http://www.rano.demon.co.uk/askio.html>
Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>
> "Uncle Davey":
>
> > Kiel oni diras en esperanto:
>
> > !@#^&*(){}[]|\/_-=+?
>
> Vidu: <http://www.rano.demon.co.uk/askio.html>
Dankon. Mi bukmarkis.
Uncle Davey