Talk:Esperanto/Introducing yourself

Comments

 * So far, I like it. One suggestion: you instroduce the concept of direct and indirect objects, and you give a rule for forming direct object, but you do not yet give a rule for forming indirect objects.  Those of us who have studied languages before are at the edges of our seats with anticipation...

Has anyone any comments on this lesson? Especially those with no knowledge of Esperanto, is this first lesson clear enough to follow (especially the grammar)? --Gabriel Beecham 12:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are structuring things along the lines I have been using for German, and I started out there by copying the Spanish language textbook well set up by Thomas. So I would say "good start"! What to actually present in each lesson is a difficult decision, and my feeling is, you may shift things around as you progress. I do believe you should start simple, but make lots of ties (as you are doing) to English grammar as an English speaker can relate to these connections and some learners (like myself) need to see rules to understand why things are said as they are in the foreign language. I'd say you have a good handle on these concepts. - Marsh 20:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--:Interesting, indeed fairly facsinating, and good choices of words introductory words (Or perhaps it's just that I like reading and cities). Fairly useful, for a very basic introduction, but as an English speaker learning Spanish and hoping to learn Esparanto, I've found that I've had to go to several other sites to find much what I'm looking for. It might be helpful if you gave certain common or useful words such as "no" "on" "in" "as" (or all ases) "yes" "who" "what" "when" "why" "how" and "how many/much", perhaps as your next lesson. Thanks though, nice introduction, and useful lesson. 6:24, 9 December 2004 (EST)

Does anyone have ideas for the review section? -travisg 23:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'It is being "verb'ed", so to speak.'
I am familiar with nouns being "verb'ed" in an entirely different sense, idiomatically speaking. e.g. Google is a company that built a search engine; "Google" was "verb'ed" when people started using the word to mean "search using Google's engine." This usage is quite different - we mean to say that the verb is being applied to the direct object.

Disclaimer: My first language is (USA) English. Ingcake (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice introduction. I would just like to pick up on one point. At the beginning of the section headed "Grammar", there is an indication that the rules are without exception. However by the time we reach the bit on adverbs there is clear mention of exceptions being present. This seems incongruous. I have a suggestion to remedy this. Instead of saying that most adverbs end in "e" and there are exceptions to this, why not say that adverbs are of two groups - those that remain root-based (or you could use some other technical description here if you like) and don't need modification e.g. morgaŭ, and those that are derived, e.g rapide derived from the adjectival root rapid. In that way you don't even need to refer to exception! I personally don't view adverbs as having exceptions but simply of two main classes - unmodified root (or you could say non-derived)(the aŭ class) and the derived type (the -e class). Thank you for considering this. Stelalumo (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Errors
I'm new to Esperanto, and I am finding this book fascinating! Keep it up. When you say "Please note that not all adverbs use this rule, but the overwhelming majority of them do." do you mean that not all adverbs end -e? A brief explanation would be beneficial here. I thought that since this is a sythetic language, there are no exceptions to the rules! :) --Ralph walden 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no exceptions; the rule is that to turn a root into an adverb, you add and -e. That's always true, but not all adverbs are formed from roots. There are some words that are purely adverbs, like ("almost"). There is no "" root that this comes from (what would "" or "" mean?).


 * But you're right - this really needs a bit more discussion. There is just too much crammed into this one lesson, and nothing is getting treated well. --Indiana (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to say "there is no verb conjugation in Esperanto." Vidi, vidas, vidis, vidos, vidus -- that's conjugation, buddy. If you are going to use grammatical terms please use them properly. Rikat (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would have been more constructive to edit the phrase in question to "there is no verb conjugation in Esperanto for number or gender", rather than to criticize and do nothing else. --Indiana (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The pronouns section seems to be incorrect. I think mi can only mean "I" not "me". I'm pretty sure min is "me". --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * can mean "me". If you point at a picture of yourself and say "that's me", that would be "". This is not an inconsistency in Esperanto, but due to a quirk in English. In English you can use either "I" or "me" as the predicate for the copula in certain conditions: for example, when announcing yourself you can say "it is I" or "it is me". --Indiana (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring
This first "lesson" is way too grammar heavy. How about starting with a sentence like "My name is (Bob). I'm from (USA)." rather than starting with a long grammatical reference? Amazingly people can learn languages without knowing anything explicitly about grammar. Introduce the nouns, verbs, etc later, or introduce them more gradually. Pengo (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - I looked at what was being introduced in the first lesson ("Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs, Personal and possessive pronouns, Verbs - Present Tense, Objects") and went cross-eyed. This really needs to be scaled down and separated substantially. --Indiana (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)