Re: Who castrated Esperanto?

On Feb 19, 2:33 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:39 am, craoibhi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Feb 19, 6:13 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 5:56 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:28 pm, craoibhi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:04 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The following dictionary has words such as "aŭtobiografio" and
"ateismo"

And?

The whole unique benefit of Esperanto is the small size of its
vocabulary, without any loss to the range of ideas that can be
expressed, yet here we have words imported from the Romance languages
for meanings that could be expressed with the morphemes in the
original specification.

Esperanto for god is 'dio', for example, not "te".

Thus your version of E-o is on the level of Basic English? So it's
even worse than we thought!

Who is "we", Your Majesty the King of Usenet Peter I of the Daniels
dynasty?-

The many people here who recognize the pointlessness of the E-o and
all similar projects.

Your attitude is unscientific to say the least. I am not an
Esperantist, but I think your sort of convulsive anti-Esperantism is
indicative of a lack of curiosity that is singularly puzzling in a
scholar.

Frankly, your sneering and sniggering attitude towards all and sundry
would be much less exasperating and inexcusable if you weren't relying
on ignorant, immovable prejudice about so many things.
.

Quantcast