erinja:

qwertz:@erinja: Doesn't change anything regarding: Every human is capable of everything.

I hope you will apologise to Sudanglo, qwertz. It is a rule in the forums not to misrepresent what other forum users have said. You called Sudanglo "disrespectful" after misrepresenting what he said. I know that you would not break this rule on purpose. But before you make rude comments about someone's opinion, you should read the person's message carefully to ensure that you understood it correctly.

I didn't call Sudanglo "disrespectful". Sorry about. I tried to express that he wrote something what could be received like some kind of "disrespectfulness". How someones would be capable to define what other people need? And what give someones the right to publish such assumptions? I can't see any rudeness by myself. That's an international forum. Probably politeness beliefs are different all around the world.

Okay, I don't break out some lobe of my crown doing that/ Ich breche mir jetzt dabei keine Zacke aus der Krone:

@Sudanglo: I'm sorry about, if my direct East-German attitude did offend your English beliefs of politeness. Everything fine now? Yes, I know: No. But sorry about. I will not to go down on one's knees before so. Some generalisation now: No East-German will do that. Same like Polish folks. Called it wrong understood pride. Be sure, it isn't. We live community sense. If something disturbs we will tell regarding person. Do someones remember to RiotNrrd's statement | 2011-12-03 21:22:29 ?

"We are all students. We are all teachers."

erinja:
It is clear to me that you did not understand Sudanglo's message.

Sudanglo never said that people aren't able to write novels.

He said that most people don't need to be able to write a novel.

I'm sorry about. Even if I don't know about what in detail.

erinja:
Either you did not see the word "need" in his sentence, or you didn't know the meaning of this word. A dictionary helps if you are unsure.

I know excactly what need means.

erinja:
We are talking about the difference between brauchen (to need) and können (to be able).

Most people have no need to write a novel. Therefore they do not spend time studying the language to a level where they are able to write one.

Sorry about. That's speculative. Let it say me out of my position: According my beliefs I have no right to determine other folks "needs" and "to be able"s. Hopefully I put out the explosion danger with that sentence.

erinja:
Yes, if they had the desire, they could study to reach that level, and they could reach that level, but they have no need, so they don't.

So, you can see what will happen in future?

erinja:
Maybe someone can translate this into German for you if it is not clear.

That's not necessary. I complete understand your statement.

I'm sorry about triggering some of disconcertment.

2011-12-04 15:14:38 :

qwertz:

sudanglo:
Most people wouldn't need to be able to write a novel.

At what is your assumption based? I.e. at German schools its part of German native language teaching to write novels/Aufsätze. Of course that's more intensive done at Gymnasium/College as at Hauptschule/primary school.

So, what are you talking about, please? Self-positioning? Every human is capable of everything. Please try to grasp that in some way. Thanks.

Okay. I see. That could received written like some rudeness. Sorry about. I used that strike out feature to cancel that. But I wonder why sudanglo didn't complain by oneselves? That were some "report spam" button feedback bouncing action, isn't? I prefer direct communication. Its more easy to handle.

Vestitor:This is probably a good case for why this thread might have worked better in Esperanto. National language misunderstandings can lead to unwitting conflict.

You need a common language to have effective communication and a lack of misunderstandings. If someone speaks Esperanto poorly, then it leads to just as many misunderstandings as national language communication.

Unfortunately if someone speaks Esperanto poorly and they also some other foreign language(s) poorly, then you have no hope of effectively communicating unless you speak that person's native language fluently. And even then you might not communicate effectively with that person, depending on the person's beliefs and personality.

I guess there's little hope then. Or maybe that's a bit too pessimistic.

I remember once that I went to the barber's. My Dutch was poor and the Moroccan barber spoke no English. We tried German, and failed, then found some French in common. There's always a way. Patience and choice of words is key.

On the other hand, the reason I wouldn't post in many of the other foreign language forums is that I'd be at a grave disadvantage (i.e. completely lost). And unfortunately a lot of people are confident enough to assume that their English is good enough to make the grade, even when it isn't.

I blame the British Empire, and latterly the Americans

Getting this discussion back on track... I'm totally in the 5+ years camp. I have not personally accumulated even half a year of studying esperanto, but I have studied Spanish for 7 years and German for several. My conclusion has been that communication is exceedingly complex. For Esperanto, by reducing language complexity (and vocabulary size), many concepts are less well defined and thus their expression is less predictable. It's much more difficult to make certain nuances with the basic language, so that requires developing or knowing more advanced patterns (like expressing things using set phrases). Just because these concepts are not in a list somewhere doesn't mean people don't need to learn how to express them in esperanto if they're using esperanto for specialized or nuanced communication. If there's one thing that I've learned in my career as a software engineer, it's that there is no silver bullet. Esperanto has succeeded marvelously in lowering the bar for achieving basic communication that is correct. However, I count fluency as being an *expert* in esperanto: being able to have nuanced conversation over a wide variety of topics, and that would take at least 5+ years no matter how simple the language is. I think this quote is relevant:

"Researchers (Bloom (1985), Bryan & Harter (1899), Hayes (1989), Simmon & Chase (1973)) have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology. The key is deliberative practice: not just doing it again and again, but challenging yourself with a task that is just beyond your current ability, trying it, analyzing your performance while and after doing it, and correcting any mistakes." ( http://norvig.com/21-days.html )

Has anyone here tried to have a fight in esperanto with their spouse yet? That's the true test for fluency in any language.

Well I conquered everyday speech of this language in about 6 months, maybe a bit more. Now I'm just building my vocab and refining my speech patterns. However I found that I would record good model text, with words I didn't know. Then when walking to work, play them back maybe once or twice a day for a week, and as a result I would learn all the words and the context to use them in. I don't even think about what to say anymore, it just comes out. Unless it’s an advanced topic I haven’t covered in the past. That’s something I can’t say of four years failed Japanese study… though I can still count in Japanese

alkaline:For Esperanto, by reducing language complexity (and vocabulary size), many concepts are less well defined and thus their expression is less predictable.

I'm curious to know some details on this. What sorts of expressions were easier to figure out how to say in Spanish and German than in Esperanto?

On fights with a spouse, I've never been married, but I've been in a long-term relationship that was conducted in Esperanto, start to finish. Good times and bad, every kind of discussion including arguments, in Esperanto.

I'm in almost complete agreement with everything Alkaline wrote. There is indeed a roughly defined time-frame in which to become an expert in any given field. Which means knowing the subject so well that you are its master rather than the other way around (e.g. Mozart and composition).

On the other hand, there are obviously some things that are simpler to learn than others. Which means a more rapid route to expertise; though does this level out once the fundamentals of anything are mastered?

Esperanto is a body of knowledge, skill and practice, like any other language. Like other languages it also has a fair set of rules to learn and memorise before they become a reflex action. So some claims of ultra learning rapidity are likely exaggerated (this has already been acknowledged here).

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is to compare the actual environments during acquisition. A person learning Spanish can be in Spain, forced to speak Spanish to get about and do anything at all. Almost total immersion, yet still spend about one or two (maybe even three?) years developing average conversational ability. This is hardly ever the case for Esperanto, for obvious reasons. There is no way the immersion can compare with that of national languages for the majority of learners (and even most advanced Esperantists?). And if, on average, someone progresses to basic conversation In Esperanto in even half the time it takes in Spanish, there is clearly a case for saying that it must take much less time to acquire. (Though the question of total mastery should remain an open question).

So I ask it now. What is the average number of years advanced Esperantists feel they have required to become 'advanced', implying here 'language mastery'?

alkaline:Has anyone here tried to have a fight in esperanto with their spouse yet? That's the true test for fluency in any language.

Actually I would disagree that this is a good test.

There is something about the way that language is stored in the brain that means that in moments of high emotion the native speaker can be reduced to incoherence even in his own language.

many concepts are less well defined and thus their expression is less predictable

Really? Esperanto doesn't define all its concepts from scratch. It hi-jacks much of the meaning of its roots from the national languages.

The English speaker who wishes to talk about banks in Esperanto in relation to the current banking crisis does not have to put up with any fuzziness in the meaning of the Esperanto word 'banko'.

Though he does have to note that some of the meanings of 'bank', eg bank of a river, require a different word in Esperanto. But he quickly learns that in general unconnected or disparate meanings of the same word tend to have separate translations in Esperanto.

Furthermore many a learner of Esperanto will quickly become aware that Esperanto's word-building system permits the expression of different shades of meaning in connection with the same concept and can be used to achieve a precision which requires circumlocution in his own language.

In any case, it is quite unfair to compare command of one's mother tongue with mastery of Esperanto. Esperanto does not exist to play the same role. Its purpose is not to function as a surrogate national language, but to facilitate communication on an international stage.

You only have to experience the levels achieved by foreigners in English, after a massive investment in time and money, to see that Esperanto (which can be picked up by cost-free self-study) makes sense.