allen@osu-eddie.UUCP (John Allen) (01/26/85)
> Allen is correct that the languages of international communication of the > past were thrust on people rather than chosen by them, and that Esperanto > doesn't have the political, military, economic or scientific might behind it > that Latin, French, English or Russian have had. [Prentiss Riddle] This is not entirely correct. While many of these languages have been "thrust" on people, at least one of them, French, was chosen by many people because it was the language of culture. > True, but that is one of > Esperanto's chief advantages as a potential interlanguage: it is politically > neutral. The assumption here is one that is commonly made by people who support a world language; "...that misunderstandings and international quarrels and wars are *caused* by differences in language." [_Linguistics_and_Your_Language_ by R. A. Hall, Jr.] That this assumption is false can be shown by wars like our Revolutionary War and Civil War, where both sides spoke the same language, or by Switzerland, where four different languages are spoken and the people get along without hostility. "An even more important factor is that it is built on a s i m p l i f i e d European base." [Prentiss Riddle] This is probably Esperanto's most lauded feature and it's greatest fault. Any natural language has various constructs that allows you to express essentially the same meaning several different ways, but each of these different ways give a slightly different shade of meaning. They also have words that have approximately the same meaning but have different connotations. "What you gain in simplicity, you lose in richness and directness of expression." [R. A. Hall, Jr] "Well, most educated people in the world today have a definite need to learn a language other that their native tongue." [Prentiss Riddle] While I agree with this, I do NOT agree with Prentiss's implication that this second language should be Esperanto. I feel that I can get many more benefits by putting the same amount of effort into learning Russian, Chinese, or any of the other commonly spoken languages, because these languages have the literary and scientific publications that make it necessary to learn a second language. If I learned Esperanto, then I would still have to learn one of these languages if I wanted to read these publications, and my time spent learning Esperanto would have been essentially wasted. "As for the loss of those picturesque natural languages..." [James Jones], I don't object because they are picturesque. I object because literature in these languages might be lost because it was not deemed worthy enough to be tranlated into the "world language". I also object because language can tell us something about how the human mind operates. If you only have one language to study, and a simplified one at that, then it is very hard to draw generalizations about how the mind works. -John Allen
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (01/31/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR BUG POISON *** > If I learned Esperanto, then I would > still have to learn one of these languages if I wanted to read these > publications, and my time spent learning Esperanto would have been > essentially wasted. Although I agree with the thrust of your posting, I cannot believe that any time spent learning any language (except maybe BASIC) is wasted. I wish I had time to waste learning LOTS of languages. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Support Bulgarian gajda players.
urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (01/31/85)
I think we were failing to transmit articles yesterday. Apologies to those who might have already read this. In article <69@osu-eddie.UUCP> allen@osu-eddie.UUCP (John Allen) writes: >>(quote re Esperanto's political neutrality) >The assumption here is one that is commonly made by people who support a >world language; "...that misunderstandings and international quarrels and >wars are *caused* by differences in language." >[_Linguistics_and_Your_Language_ by R. A. Hall, Jr.] The value of Esperanto's political neutrality doesn't rest on this assumption; assuming that it is important that *all* nations adopt an interlanguage as a second language, it is necessary that you be able to "sell the product". In today's world, there is already substantial resentment among third-world countries that they must speak English (that awful language of colonialism) in order to get their message across. A neutral language could be "sold" as a working language to these countries without generating the same amount of heat. >>"An even more important factor is that it is built on a s i m p l i f i e d >>European base." [Prentiss Riddle] >This is probably Esperanto's most lauded feature and it's greatest fault. >Any natural language has various constructs that allows you to express >essentially the same meaning several different ways, but each of these >different ways give a slightly different shade of meaning. They also have >words that have approximately the same meaning but have different >connotations. "What you gain in simplicity, you lose in richness and >directness of expression." [R. A. Hall, Jr] I'm not sure I believe this. First, Esperanto *does* appear to be able to express many of the nuances of human thought; good translations of Shakespeare and Tolstoi exist, for example. Second, I'm not sure that simplicity implies a lack of depth. For a weak analogy, consider the game "go", whose rules are extremely simple, but which nevertheless contains considerable depth. Esperanto may have fewer words of vocabulary than English, but you can still write an infinite number of interesting and novel sentences in Esperanto. Does the word "metaphor" suggest ways in which this might be accomplished? >...(I don't believe that) >this second language should be Esperanto. I feel that I can get many more >benefits by putting the same amount of effort into learning Russian, >Chinese, or any of the other commonly spoken languages, because these >languages have the literary and scientific publications that make it >necessary to learn a second language. First of all, from the pedagogical point of view, you certainly get much more bang for your buck learning Esperanto. In four months of *very casual* studying from a textbook *alone*, you can get to the point where you can productively read a news journal in Esperanto, albeit with a dictionary at hand. In four months of studying Chinese casually from a book, I wouldn't expect to be able to even use a dictionary yet. Secondly, there is already a growing number of journals in Esperanto in a number of fields, including computer science ("Interkomputo", from Hungary. Do you read Hungarian?). Thirdly, your argument is "well, as soon as all these *other* professionals take the time to learn this language, and produce scientific and literary work in it, then it will be worthwhile for *me* to learn it." We'll call you when we're ready :-) >(re: national languages) I object because literature in >these languages might be lost because it was not deemed worthy enough to be >tranlated into the "world language". I also object because language can >tell us something about how the human mind operates. If you only have one >language to study, and a simplified one at that, then it is very hard to >draw generalizations about how the mind works. I've re-read the first sentence in that paragraph several times and still don't understand it. Literature from *any* language (modern French, Classical Greek, Medieval Welsh) is "lost" to *me* whenever it isn't translated into *my* language. If everyone speaks Esperanto as a *second* language, surely that *increases* the amount of literature from *all* cultures that is likely to become available to *everyone*. Or am I completely missing your point? To re-emphasize a point, the purpose of Esperanto is to be an *auxiliary* language, not to replace any national or ethnic language. In general, I have trouble telling whether your objections are to Esperanto in particular or of an official international second language in general; do you really think that English answers any of your objections (other than "people already use it") *better* than Esperanto? It's hard to learn, hard to write and speak, has multiple dialects, is politically "loaded", and the majority of its native speakers (Americans) tend to think that to only literature that exists is the stuff that's been considered "worthy of translation" into their language--they certainly consider themselves at an "advantage" or "privilege" in international activities, since "everyone else has to learn a language but me." Mike
holly@dartvax.UUCP (Holly Cabell) (02/05/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LIGNE CON TES MESSAGE *** When talking about Esperanto, one must remember that it is a relatively young language. While it has been spoken for some time (no date available), it has not been widely used. Therefore, it has not developed any 'dialects' or 'subgroups' that other languages have developed. I think that with enough use, Esperanto may well create it's own dialects, but since that happens in all languages, and (for the most part) has not ruined them, it will not ruin Esperanto. One other point brought up is that, when it becomes more popular, people will form subgroups and not be able to understand other subgroups or even the main group. However, the fact that Esperanto is an Inter- national language means that everyone will be able to understand each other, for the most part(see point one). --John Cabell [the.world]!dartvax!holly
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (02/08/85)
> .... I think that with > enough use, Esperanto may well create it's own dialects, but since that > happens in all languages, and (for the most part) has not ruined them, > it will not ruin Esperanto. > > One other point brought up is that, when it becomes more popular, > people will form subgroups and not be able to understand other subgroups > or even the main group. However, the fact that Esperanto is an Inter- > national language means that everyone will be able to understand each > other, for the most part(see point one). > I don't think anyone is saying it will "ruin" Esperanto, just that it will ruin its universality. Just because it was developed with the intent of being an internation language, that will not stop the universal effects of time and space in creating separate dialects. Mere intent does not confer a quality to something! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob