I was thrilled to read this report from Mondeto.

I hope this non related to the Esperanto learning post will give some new insight into Esperanto instead of just the Peace but should be gotten more people to realise the preventive measure.

Because of bilingualism is mentioned at this website. Excists some kind of "danger"(better = sloppy communication behaviour) that being bilingual also could mean not having full featured native language. That phenomenon really excists. I felt somewhat frightened I realized that during passive hearing of some colleague talks to their same bilingual friends. They are proud of being capable of that language code switching. But they isolate themselves unconsciously. That capabilities which someones doesn't uses, that will wither or never evaluate.

Turkish-German new form of communication used by children of Turkish expats

Anyway, that remembers me to that video again which is some kind of multlingva meditation "propagando". Its one of my Esperanto favourites apart La verda viruso.

I can't help myself from thinking about it as of some kind of activity which we call 'grant-eating'...

EoMy:I was thrilled to read this report from Mondeto.

I hope this non related to the Esperanto learning post will give some new insight into Esperanto instead of just the Peace but should be gotten more people to realise the preventive measure.

It thoroughly irritates me when Esperanto is associated to peace, as if there was any sort of correlation between the idea of speaking a common language and the absence of conflict. In the U.S., the official (and most used) language is English, yet it is one of the most violent industrialized countries in the world. In El Salvador, my country, the official (and most used) language is Spanish, yet San Salvador (the capital) is one of the most violent places in the world. So, to me, a common language is by no means a guarantor or even central to peace. It wouldn't be a bad idea to "de-ideologize" Esperanto and push it for what it basically is: a relatively easy tool to be used for clearer communication in all areas of life. However, I did enjoy that article when I read it on Facebook a few days back.

@Qwertz: Bilingualism and multilingualism have their down sides, as does monolingualism. I have seen both cases: some in which the multilingual speaker masters none of the languages they speak, and some where the multilingual speaker masters several (although rarely all) the languages they speak. Given this, I doubt that the number of languages used is in direct (or sole) correlation with the ability to wield multiple languages. Other factors, social, domestic, biological, psychological, pedagogical, etc., probably weigh-in on this equation as well.

Diablo:It thoroughly irritates me when Esperanto is associated to peace, as if there was any sort of correlation between the idea of speaking a common language and the absence of conflict. In the U.S., the official (and most used) language is English, yet it is one of the most violent industrialized countries in the world. In El Salvador, my country, the official (and most used) language is Spanish, yet San Salvador (the capital) is one of the most violent places in the world. So, to me, a common language is by no means a guarantor or even central to peace. It wouldn't be a bad idea to "de-ideologize" Esperanto and push it for what it basically is: a relatively easy tool to be used for clearer communication in all areas of life. However, I did enjoy that article when I read it on Facebook a few days back.

I was thinking of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and any way of exploiting it (e.g. excluding words of violence, not including those topics or themes in the vocabulary), but it's probably safer to keep them there since the alternative could be someone who's committed violence not having the thought processes to help them understand the ramifications of their actions or the severity of them.

In the end, language can't do squat for peace, only a healthy human mind can (and total peace might not even be ideal for intelligent beings, thinking of the plot of Serenity ).

ceigered:I was thinking of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and any way of exploiting it (e.g. excluding words of violence, not including those topics or themes in the vocabulary).

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is pretty discredited these days anyway. The current thinking is that language is a reflection of our thought processes and not the other way around.

trojo:

ceigered:I was thinking of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and any way of exploiting it (e.g. excluding words of violence, not including those topics or themes in the vocabulary).

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is pretty discredited these days anyway. The current thinking is that language is a reflection of our thought processes and not the other way around.

I agree. Besides, one of Esperanto's main (and most pragmatic) selling points is its ability to express the nuance of every imaginable concept. Excluding words that denote violence would cripple this amazing characteristic.

People learn Esperanto voluntarily. Thus they have something in common by their own choice. But we should also note that the interna ideo was essential to Esperanto at least in the mind of Zamenhof. It may be that, to be an effective tool for peace-making, Esperantists will need to recover the interna ideo and be more enthusiastic about it.