Last night saw the screening of the first programme in a series on language, presented by one of our most articulate TV presenters, Mr. Stephen Fry.

The programme mentioned Esperanto twice - once as being the most well-known of the constructed languages.

However no attempt was made to distinguish Esperanto from the other constructed languages. The uninformed viewer might well have seen Esperanto as on a par with Klingon, which was given an inordinate amount of time in the programme.

We learned that there is no word for a baby's bottle in Klingon though it has a word for a Phaser. A Level 4 speaker had taught Klingon to his very young son, but the infant in question lost all interest in the language by the time he was 3 years old - showing more common sense than the father.

The programme also revealed the attitudes of language professionals - who delighted in existence of a multiplicity of languages, showing a distinct favourable bias towards the current Babel situation, confirming my prejudice that Esperantists are wasting their time in any efforts to recruit this group.

The programme also did nothing to address the question of whether one language might be more effective than another, presenting some obscure African language as though it were on a par with English (again a linguist's bias).

Personally I see little virtue in the fact that a whole variety of languages have different ways of expressing an idea (I am thirsty - J'ai soif). The acid test for a language is the scope of the richness of expression, not the difference in formal mechanism, and also the language's ability to handle new concepts.

sudanglo:Last night saw the screening of the first programme in a series on language, presented by one of our most articulate TV presenters, Mr. Stephen Fry.

The programme mentioned Esperanto twice - once as being the most well-known of the constructed languages.

However no attempt was made to distinguish Esperanto from the other constructed languages. The uninformed viewer might well have seen Esperanto as on a par with Klingon, which was given an inordinate amount of time in the programme.

Well it just about is. Both have a split in the community between people interested in learning the language, using it, and people who like it or other intricacies of it, and people bordering on fanatical lunatics.

A Level 4 speaker had taught Klingon to his very young son, but the infant in question lost all interest in the language by the time he was 3 years old - showing more common sense than the father.

You do know you're coming off sounding like a pretentious merchant banker here?

The programme also revealed the attitudes of language professionals - who delighted in existence of a multiplicity of languages, showing a distinct favourable bias towards the current Babel situation, confirming my prejudice that Esperantists are wasting their time in any efforts to recruit this group.

Maybe some of them might like Esperanto too. They just won't become finvenkists.

The programme also did nothing to address the question of whether one language might be more effective than another, presenting some obscure African language as though it were on a par with English (again a linguist's bias).

More effective in certain situtations, maybe, but it's too harder call. Phrases like "more effective language" imply that there is a visible/observable difference in how effective one language is over the other. There's no human who can really make that call ATM, since that requires fluency in both languages being compared, being able to figure out the intricacies of the human brain, and so forth.

So basically, if you're an übermensch, you've probably got more authority on the subject. Show me such an übermensch and I'll start caring.

Personally I see little virtue in the fact that a whole variety of languages have different ways of expressing an idea (I am thirsty - J'ai soif). The acid test for a language is the scope of the richness of expression, not the difference in formal mechanism, and also the language's ability to handle new concepts.

So?

===

Really, I can't imagine why you've written this, apart from to bitch about linguists and how you can't agree with them because they don't share your biased views (or they're just expressed in a way that gives that impression), and to give yourself a chance to say Esperanto's superior to something rather.

Sudanglo:We learned that there is no word for a baby's bottle in Klingon though it has a word for a Phaser. A Level 4 speaker had taught Klingon to his very young son, but the infant in question lost all interest in the language by the time he was 3 years old - showing more common sense than the father.

Ah, BTW, this sort of thing actually happens a lot in predominately-one-language speaking countries where a child has a parent who speaks another language, but no real connections to that language speaking community.

That's for natural languages too! Sometimes kids just feel it's not cool to speak the lesser used of their parent's languages.

So it doesn't come down to common sense, since even when it's perfectly logical that a kid should end up perfectly bilingual, it just doesn't happen. Seems to be quite a common occurrence.

You seem to have forgotten why Esperanto exists, Ceiger. It cannot be placed in the same category as Klingon, which is pure linguistic indulgence.

I doubt that any Klingonist seriously imagines that it is anything more than a bit of fun. And, of course, in no way aims to be an equitable solution of the Babel problem.

sudanglo:You seem to have forgotten why Esperanto exists, Ceiger. It cannot be placed in the same category as Klingon, which is pure linguistic indulgence.

I doubt that any Klingonist seriously imagines that it is anything more than a bit of fun. And, of course, in no way aims to be an equitable solution of the Babel problem.

Doesn't mean criticising people for putting Klingon and Esperanto in the same category and calling some father lacking in common sense is justified, especially if both groups see Esperanto as being "a bit of fun". God forsake a FATHER trying to have FUN with his SON! I think many sons across the world wish their father could give them that sort of dedication. I'd give up after a few weeks!

People are allowed to like Esperanto for being Esperanto and not because they have some one-track-mind that thinks about nothing but world domination for the sake of the verda stelo.

Also, was the context of the documentary MEANT to be about IALs? Or was it just constructed languages? Because just because Esperanto's being mentioned doesn't mean they have to harp on about reforming the world linguistically. It's like if I mention Tibetan or Arabic, doesn't mean I want to end up in a never ending conversation about all the ex-slaver monks who got kicked out of their homes or about terrorism non-stop.

There was only a section on constructed languages, and Stephen only mentioned Esperanto in passing before introducing a bit on Klingon, including an excerpt from a version of Hamlet.

The programme also touched on language acquisition by children, how stroke victims reacquire language by creating new neural pathways, the evolution of language from Proto-Indo-European, whether sign language was a real language or not and whether apes can really use language.

So it was an interesting romp through a number of linguistic topics, and there is more to come next week. Although it was a bit irritating that Klingon was treated so seriously, overall it was worth watching. Stephen Fry is always good to hear, he has a great facility with language himself.

Kilngon - at least Startrek kept close to reality. When you watch other US productions (Stargate) you maight think that the whole universe is speaking English without any problem. Then no wonder people in America think that Jesus spoke English himself...

sudanglo:
You seem to have forgotten why Esperanto exists, Ceiger.

And you try to constrain sombody to vindicate/excuse for something. What gives you the right to act with such non-respectful manner? LLZ made the language available for everybodies own intentions. There excists no administration of estates of the Esperanto language toolbox. Some people are interested in Esperanto history, someones are interested in Esperanto's future. And others simply wanna use Esperanto "raw/plain" without any additionally wrapping.

sudanglo:
It cannot be placed in the same category as Klingon, which is pure linguistic indulgence.

Arika Okrent already did explain that in a respectful manner to Esperanto community.

sudanglo:Personally I see little virtue in the fact that a whole variety of languages have different ways of expressing an idea (I am thirsty - J'ai soif). The acid test for a language is the scope of the richness of expression, not the difference in formal mechanism, and also the language's ability to handle new concepts.

Care to elaborate a bit on this? From what I've just read, it seems like you're saying any language that differs from English has no virtue.

How does one say "I am thirsty" in Esperanto?

razlem:How does one say "I am thirsty" in Esperanto?

Mi estas soifanta, mi havas soifon.