Talk:Esperanto

Zamenhof was not Polish.

The Creation section currently starts with "Esperanto was created...by L. L. Zamenhof, a Polish-Jewish ophthalmologist..."

Zamenhof was not Polish and he asked people not to call him Polish. ("...sed ne nomu min 'Polo', por ke oni ne diru, ke mi--por akcepti honorojn--metis sur min maskon de popolo, al kiu mi ne apartenas". (...but don't call me Polish so that people will not say that I--to accept honors--put on a mask of an ethnic group of which I am not a part.) He described himself as "Ruslanda hebreo" (Russian Hebrew). 2600:1700:7260:AB20:5C69:424C:3954:FDBF (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No action should have been performed without appropriate citations for the quotes provided by the IP user. The issue of Zamenhof's nationality – even the applicability of a national classification – is contentious. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish language banned in 1870s. Relevance?

The Polish language was banned in the 1870s. What significance does that have on Esperanto? I think it does not have much significance at all. Zamenhof was already developing Esperanto at that time. He had already determined that the world needed a common language for peace and unity.

The only published connection Esperanto has to the banning of the Polish language is in a Medium post by Gian Pablo Antonetti who also posted an instructive Esperanto video at Wikimedia Commons: File:Stela speaking the Esperanto language.webm. Gian Pablo Antonetti is not a known expert in Esperanto, which means that WP:MEDIUM takes effect and we cannot trust his Medium post to be reliable. It's basically his own opinion in the form of a blog.

The other citation for this fact, https://www.bstok.pl/bialystok/, does not mention Esperanto at all, nor does it mention Zamenhof. It is not helpful here.

That is why I removed the bit about the Polish language being banned. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is still useful for context, in my opinion, since it illustrates the attitude of the Russian Empire towards multiculturalism. This showcases the atmosphere under which Esperanto was created, more than an abstract "Russian Empire was an oppressive empire, language-wise as in general life" could. A footnote might be more appropriate. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The context would be useful if a good WP:SECONDARY source can be found. Antonetti's Medium.com post won't do it. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on Polish elements

Aleksander Korzhenkov says on page 5 in his 2010 book, Zamenhof: The Life, Works and Ideas of the Author of Esperanto (ISBN 9781595691675), that this has been a problem since the 1910s when Adam Zakrzewski and other Poles tried to portray Zamenhof as a Pole, hiding his strong Russian Jewish identity. Korzhenkov says that Zamenhof identified as a Russian Jew, and that his two native languages were Yiddish and Russian. He learned Belarusian and Polish in childhood, along with French and German from his father. The Zamenhof family was Litvak Jewish in ethnicity, but in 1863's January Uprising when the Poles were trying to kick out the Russians, the Zamenhofs stayed faithful to the Russian side, and were subsequently rewarded with a Russian civil service job for Zamenhof's father.

Korzhenkov continues by saying that early Esperantists wrote 700 articles about the language for the 1905 World Esperanto Congress, and only one of these mentioned that Zamenhof was Jewish. Korzhenkov says that this was part of a campaign by Poles to claim the language as having a Polish birth, and erase any Jewish taint. Zamenhof plainly stated that his invented language was designed to be neutral—balanced between the languages—so that no nation can claim it.

I can see in this article that the Polish aspects have been over-emphasized in keeping with the revisionist writings of Zakrzewski and other Poles. Zamenhof was never a nationalist favoring the country of Poland. He was a global thinker, an internationalist as it were. He wanted peace and commonality among the peoples of the world. He never promoted Polish culture or Polish nationalism. The fact that he lived many years in Warsaw is incidental to the story of Esperanto. He developed the language in various cities, including Moscow, Vienna, Płock (in Poland), Warsaw and Veisiejai (in Lithuania.) He never connected the language to Warsaw or Poland. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note the talk page of the article about Zamenhof, which is full of repeated discussions about this issue, e.g. § Ethnicity/nationality: a proposal. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is highly disputed in countless sources then I agree believe that placing a nationality/national identity is not necessary (see Copernicus article). There are many claims for and against this, especially that Zamenhof's legacy in Russia is meagre and that Zamenhof was both a citizen of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Poland formed in 1917 (citizenship preferred in lead sections). Erasing his legacy in Poland would be most unwise (see Zamenhof's funeral eulogy) and simply writing "Russian-Jewish" is an overstep. Furthermore, I find Korzhenkov to be quite biased on the topic, even if there is an overemphasis on the Polish element (which cannot be denied). The current page after reverts does not address nationality. Merangs (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is the best option. We can just not mention his nationality, especially if it's not that it important (what is more important is the context in which Esperanto was created, as well as the place where its creator grew up). His Jewishness is key, his nationality isn't; especially in a Russian Empire that was multicultural, but where nationalism (and language) was a constant source of conflict between people(s), plus antisemitism. This is an encyclopedic entry; Wikipedia doesn't have to take a position if it's not relevant to the topic – and I argue it isn't. TucanHolmes (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

So we go from "created by the Russian-Jewish ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887" to "created by the ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887." How is his being an ophthalmologist relevant to the topic? It's not even discussed in the text (there's only a mention), so why have it in the lead? It would be a bit like writing "Albert Einstein was a Swiss patent officer."

His being Jewish, however, was important. He created a unified standard for Yiddish -- an important project in his younger years -- and all 3 of his children were murdered in the Holocaust. But that should be cut because the state that controlled the city he lived in changed a few months before he died?

I suppose we could argue that his children were Polish-Jewish, so the Polish element is certainly relevant. But we state that Esperanto contains calques from Polish without mentioning that it contains as many, if not more, from Russian. So the Polish element is both underrepresented and exaggerated, while the Russian element is almost cut out entirely. It shouldn't be that hard to just say what we know from RS's without pandering to nationalist idiots. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly the ophthalmologist label has nothing to do with Esperanto. The fact that Z was Jewish is important, though, and should not be hidden as it has been in the past. The old label "Warsaw-based" was inappropriate because his invention of Esperanto was not due to his location. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to copy my response to user Binksternet from his talk page as I believe it is relevant, hope that's alright - 'I agree with your comment on "he did not promote Russian interests or Polish interests or even Jewish interests", and as such "generating" a nationality or national identity in the Esperanto article is not necessary if this topic is so sensitive, contentious and debated. In a way, I do not think that us, a handful of Wikipedia users, even should approach this topic with contradicting bibliography and force an outcome as it will just create more hostility.' Regarding the profession, if it is not key then it can be removed. The lead section should be a summary of facts, not an in-depth analysis nor a battleground of information. Merangs (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Add link to the China Esperanto page

The article mentions China.org.cn uses Esperanto language, proposed to add a link to it.

http://esperanto.china.org.cn/ Lflucena (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, can be added to the External links section. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made this change. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Swap "Official use" and "History"

I believe these two sections should be swapped, since the History of Esperanto leads up to its official, modern-day use. (Maybe it should be moved down even further, past "Internet"?)

Also, the "Official use" section should be organized, either by subject (education, military, news, etc.) or by region (Europe, Americas, East Asia, etc.). TucanHolmes (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe subject to be the best categorization system. My proposed categories (subsections):

• International organizations
• Education
• News/Media
• Military
• Micronations

TucanHolmes (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic properties subsection ordering

The "Linguistic properties" section is generally ordered by increasing scope. I would expect "Vocabulary" to fall between Orthography and Grammar. Similarly, I would expect "Simple phrases" to precede "Sample texts". Dotyoyo (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Slavic middle plane

Claude Piron's 1981 paper "Esperanto: european or asiatic language?" is cited to support the statement that Esperanto's grammar has more in common with Asian languages than with European ones. The paper's section titled "The Middle Plane" highlights several language features that are traditionally considered individually, but together can be construed as an additional linguistic structure that might be worth mentioning in this Wikipedia article.

This information could be added to the "Linguistic properties" section, in the "Classification" subsection, or in a new subsection called "Syntactic and semantic middle layer" or "Slavic influence".

Specifically, the paper's section "The Middle Plane" covers these aspects of the language:

• (1) Word order and style
• (2) Syntax
  • (a) sequence of tenses
  • (b) obligatory reflexive
  • (c) distinction between modifying and predicative complements
  • (d) use of adverbial form with infinitival or clausal subject
  • (e) infinitive as prepositionless complement of noun
  • (f) asymmetry or constraints placed on the use of prepositions followed by infinitives
• (3) Various non-Western aspects (distinctions of nuance)
• (4) Obligatory distinction between transitivity and intransitivity
• (5) Turns of phrase
• (6) Semantic associations of roots, independent of source language
• (7) Forms taken by loanwords
• (8) The writing system (abbreviations, and lack of coarticulation effects)

Dotyoyo (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Piron is that he is a language activist, and so his ideas should be checked against other secondary or tertiary sources. We can include this with an attribution to Piron, but we shouldn't give his ideas undue weight or prominence. Esperanto was designed to be an intermediary language, with a synthesis of different elements from its source languages, which makes attributing certain features to specific (groups of) source languages difficult, especially when these languages are in a continuum or a Sprachbund. It is for example often unclear whether a given feature is supposed to be classified as "Slavic-influenced" or more generally "Central European-influenced". TucanHolmes (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)