"In this article you realise/recognise Esperanto, the constructed language basic to the Latin, (which) has been invented by L. L. Zamenhof."

Can I say it like this?

  • was invented. Not has been invented. recognize=acknowledge, admit. But we're not supposed to do editing, really.
    – Lambie
    Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 18:16
  • oh, yes. Thaks for your help.
    – demsp
    Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 20:05

1 Answer 1


Hmm, what are you trying to say?

To realize (American spelling, realise is British spelling) something is to become aware of a fact or idea. You might say, "I realized that Bob had entered the room" or "If you read this book you will realize that math is not as hard as you thought."

"Realize" can also mean to make something real. Like, "After years of hard work, the new product was realized." i.e. it went from being an idea to being a real product.

Neither of those definitions seems to make sense in this context. You can't "realize Esperanto". You might realize something about Esperanto, like, "I realized that Esperanto is very systematic." Perhaps you could say that the inventor of Esperanto realized it in the send of my second definition, but a student cannot realize it in that sense. It's already been realized.

To "recognize" is to identify or perceive something. Like, "I recognized Bob's face", that is, I saw a face and I knew that it was Bob. Or, "I recognized the difficulty of the problem." I saw the problem and I understood that it would be difficult. To say that someone "recognizes Esperanto" would mean that he sees something written or hears someone speaking and he knows that the language is Esperanto. Like, "I heard the man say, 'sic transit gloria mundi', and I recognized that that was Latin."

If your intent is to say that the article will enable students to know that something said or written is Esperanto, than this word would be appropriate. If you mean that the student will be able to understand Esperanto, that goes beyond "recognize". You'd want to say something more like "know" or "understand".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "basic to the Latin". If someone says "A is basic to B", what they usually mean is that A is an essential part of B. Like, "words are basic to language". But Esperanto is not basic to Latin. Latin existed millennia before Esperanto. I don't know a lot about Esperanto. Perhaps you mean that it is based on Latin?

Finally, the construction of your sentence creates the ambiguity that it is not clear whether you mean that Mr Zamenhof invented Esperanto, or Latin. Okay, I think most readers would guess that you mean he invented Esperanto, but in other sentences this could be more confusing.

  • Thank you. So, example "Let me introduce the Esperanto - the constructed language, which was invented by L. L. Zamenhof. The Esperanto alphabet is based on Latin" is more correct?
    – demsp
    Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 20:04
  • Yes, much better. You should say "Let me introduce Esperanto ...", not "the Esperanto". Proper nouns do not normally get an article. And maybe you should ay "a constructed" instead of "the constructed". Esperanto is not the only constructed language. (There's Volapuk, for example, probably others.)
    – Jay
    Commented Nov 5, 2018 at 21:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .