neal@druny.UUCP (Neal D. McBurnett) (01/14/85)
If you want to be able to converse with as broad (not large) a group of people as possible, I would recommend learning Esperanto first. Disclaimer: English is more widely known, but you already know it. Esperanto would, however, be a more popular mode of communication in, say, Bulgaria. If you are specifically interested in one other language and never plan to learn another, you should probably focus on that language. If you plan to focus primarily on non-indo-european languages, again, Esperanto will only help you in that it will give you a very clear understanding of the vagarities of English grammar. However, as I think was demonstrated by the responses to my request for the origins of lots of unusual Esperanto roots, a good knowledge of Esperanto would give you quite a head start on the indo-european languages. Studies have demonstrated that it does not slow you down very much to learn Esperanto first, and then the language of your choice. Then you know two languages, and you can find people to talk to people in scores of countries! One very reasonable proposal seems to be to teach Esperanto in the schools as an alternative to Latin. The only problem I see is that the classics would not be easily read, but I'd rather the children were able to read the one hundred periodicals now published in Esperanto world-wide with an emphasis on peace, rather than the Helenic wars! Of course, the biggest practical problem will be getting enough qualified teachers. Excuse me if I'm overstating the point, but I've gotten quite excited about Esperanto in the last few month! -Neal McBurnett
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/15/85)
> -Neal McBurnett: > the classics would not be easily read, but I'd rather the children > were able to read the one hundred periodicals now published in > Esperanto world-wide with an emphasis on peace, rather than > the Helenic wars! If we do not study history, we will be doomed to repeat it. I'd suggest learning Latin instead. --JoSH