Former good articleEsperanto was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 4, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 25, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 3, 2007Good article reassessmentListed
September 4, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 26, 2004, July 26, 2005, July 26, 2012, and July 26, 2014.
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has been created or improved during the international competition CEE Spring 2022. Additional information: Authors: .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}I'ma editor2022Dyarb7Rwelean Topic: Society Country: Poland

Slavic?[edit]

There are a lot of mentions of Slavic influence peppered on the page, but I don't see (in-text) citations for the Slavic influence anywhere (besides one article on the influence of Polish on Esperanto's phonology and certain calques). Where is the source on Slavic influence? Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there has been no response, I will remove references to Slavic influence (as opposed to the influence of other European languages). You are welcome to undo these edits if you cite a proper source. too_much curiosity (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is definitely Slavic influence in Esperanto, some words are vaguely Slavic or Slavic-inspired, the consonant system is a compromise between various Central and Western European languages (including Slavic languages), and the whole language certainly feels like Latin with a Slavic flavor (spoken Esperanto is often associated with spoken Romanian or Portuguese, which is itself often associated with spoken Russian). I agree that we need more sources to back it up, but it definitely needs to be included ASAP. I'll try to find some more reliable sources. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful! Thank you for your help :) too_much curiosity (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word ĉu, for example, is said to be Polish czy. (I wouldn't know.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An anonymous user reverted a series of my edits. Please contribute to the talk page before adding references to Slavic reputable sources and claims. too_much curiosity (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't get me wrong, it was Kwamikagami who did it, not me. I was only trying to backtrack on his changes. 152.165.60.191 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh sorry about that! Thank you for clarifying. It was hard to track the changes given the reverts and undos. too_much curiosity (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any sources at hand, but there are a number that mention the slavic influence in semantics. Plena vortaro, for example, is pure slavic -- you don't say a "full dictionary" in romance or germanic languages, and vortaro itself is a direct calque of russian slovar. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I kept the mention of calques in there.
I just thought it was a bit of a stretch to say that there was a large Slavic influence or that "the semantics are largely Slavic" (which is phrased pretty grandly and my understanding is that it's not really reflective of what's studied in semantic typology). I think it's better to stick to general "European" influence with Romance influence until sources are found (which I would be very interested in reading!). too_much curiosity (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources I've seen -- the ones I own are in storage -- say that the vocab is largely romance and germanic, but that the phonology and the semantics of those words is often slavic. Much like the yiddish component of modern hebrew. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please provide your source before editing. Volf (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not the one editing. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do think it's more productive to retain added uncited claims that aren't dubious most of the time, it would be nice to know what the sources are for others to use writing the article. Remsense留 07:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sources would be good. I've come across more than one saying basically the same thing, and the one we do have here keeps getting deleted. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the claims that are uncontroversial are:
  • Esperanto was inspired by European languages.
  • Esperanto's vocabulary was largely inspired by Romance languages.
I think that the Slavic claims are more dubious given my knowledge of Esperanto and linguistics. While I've personally refrained from editing while this is hashed out, per WP:BURDEN, Volf is correct that this content must be verifiable to be restored.
Here are why I believe the claims made about Slavic in the page are dubious:
  1. Saying the semantics "derives from Slavic" is misleading and not in accordance with language used in linguistics. It is not reflective of the study of semantic typology. It is a grandiose, general claim without clear meaning or explanation. It is better addressed by saying "many expressions are calques of Slavic languages like Polish" or "idioms are borrowed from Polish". It is better for claims to be precise (WP:BECLEAR).[Note 1]
  2. Esperanto phonology is broadly European. It is missing many of the features that are unique to Slavic phonology like palatalization and are prominent features of Belarusian and Polish phonology (which were known to Zamenhof). Only the affricate /dz/ is unique to non-Slavic languages.
  3. Paul Wexler is considered to be--and apologies for my sass--a crackpot. He is not respected among Yiddish studies scholars or linguists. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, his claims should not be included here, and should be moved to his page.
^ As an aside, is no reason why the infobox and lede shouldn't use a general claim like "broadly European". Since these are the parts of the page first viewed and skimmed by readers, it is critical that this portion be accurate. Any nuanced claims can be looked at by more interested readers later on.
too_much curiosity (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current claims of Esperanto's Slavic influence are a magazine article and a Polish book with no hyperlink to read online. The Polish book fails WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NOENG.
The magazine article is used to justify grandiose claims. Here are some examples from the article:
  • "That’s why some practitioners of Esperanto claim that Polish pronunciation of Esperanto is the most natural and closest to the Esperanto standard. But this is of course rather a matter of individual taste." (emphasis my own).
  • "A similar ‘subliminal’ influence of Slavic semantics can be seen in the meaning and functioning of some words."
These do not translate to grandiose claims of "much of the semantics are Slavic".
The only grandiose claim in the article is the claim by Żelazny: “The Esperanto phonological system is almost entirely Polish.” However, the article does not explain why it is Polish compared to other European languages. It certainly does not justify the claim that the phonology is "Slavic". Per WP:EVIDENCE, this source on its own is insufficient for these large claims. Claims about the Polish accent, however, should certainly be included in the page. too_much curiosity (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "based on European" comment is ambiguous to the point of being nearly meaningless. Gaelic, Basque and Hungarian are European, but not the basis of Eo.
Basic vocab is about 2∕3 Romance and 1∕3 Germanic, subsuming the Greek component.
Early Eo did have palatalization. Z dropped it later for international accessibility, e.g. nacjes > nacioj. The stress pattern in nacioj is Greek, one of a very few apparent Greek influences (if not just coincidence). Apart from /h/ instead of /ɣ/, as in Yiddish, the consonants are otherwise those of Belarusian -- including the near allophony of [v] ~ [u̯]. Belarusian actually does have /dz/.
I've seen claims that the diphthongs may be influenced by Yiddish rather than just Belarusian. Either way, Eo phonology parallels Z's native languages in its details.
The semantics is similar to cases of relexification. E.g. plena means what its translation in ~Russian means, not what its Romance cognates mean. Da is completely Slavic. How extensive that pattern is I don't know, but it's enough to be notable.
The morphology of course has been abstracted away from its source languages, though the agglutination was inspired by Russian. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful! Your notes are convincing, but can these claims be sourced? To clarify, I'm not against the inclusion of these claims in the page. My comment above is meant to show that these claims are not reasonably assumed and must include sources per WP:VERIFY.
I will revert the page to be accordance with WP:BURDEN. I welcome any future changes or reversions that include appropriate sourcing.
However, I believe we must remove the Wexler note since it is currently WP:PROFRINGE and since it is not a sufficiently notable theory. too_much curiosity (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have my old sources accessible.
Claiming it's just "european languages" is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless and that the vocab is "largely romance" is misleading.
I've tagged those for clarification and failing verification. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. You're right that those could be worked on as well. I'll look for some sources on that. Do you remember the names of the sources? too_much curiosity (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, no. All packed away in another city, for those I own myself. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ge-nouns[edit]

Someone of no account replaced my example gepatroj with geviroj … but does anyone use that word, rather than homoj? —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

« A country that uses it officially », really?[edit]

@Peasandbrocks: @Justinkunimune: What is that supposed "Republic of Palma" anyway? If it exists, Wikipedia doesn't know about it. AFAIK, and eo:Esperanto confirms it,[off 1] the only "country" ever to have recognised Esperanto as an official language is the defunct micro-state Neutral Moresnet, a contested territory of 360 hectares (900 acres) which existed from 1816 to 1920 between Prussia OT1H, and the United Netherlands then Belgium OTOH.

I'll let you judge whether or not a 360 ha disputed territory with no diplomatic representation and defunct since about as long as it existed deserves being listed as a country where the language is official. If it doesn't, better omit that "nation" parameter.

Once upon a time (9 December 1920), Esperanto was proposed as an official language of the League of Nations by eleven delegates but France vetoed it in the name of « the already existing universality of the French language ».

  1. ^ «Kvankam neniu ŝtato akceptis Esperanton kiel oficialan lingvon, Esperanto tamen eniris en la oficialan instruadon en pluraj landoj kiel Hungario kaj Ĉinio, krom esti unu el la oficialaj lingvoj de formortinta eŭropa mikroŝtato, Moresneto.»

— Tonymec (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo correction request[edit]

French "Jaques" should be spelled "Jacques" EclecticSantaRosa (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EclecticSantaRosa,  Done— Remsense诉 21:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories