Forigite

Who is Esperanto for, Hyperboreus?

It's for people in countries with a reasonable standard of living who want to communicate internationally.

It's not for some aboriginal person scratching a living in an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle.

Should such a person speaking a language that works very differently to the indo-european languages have need for a global lingua franca and there were no Esperanto, then he would have to learn English - poor sod.

Taking your apple example, actually, Esperanto offers several different ways of expressing the idea, all of which would be intelligible to another Esperantist.

Mi vidis, ke li manĝas pomon
Mi vidis lin manĝi pomon
Mi vidis lin manĝanta pomon
Mi vidis lian manĝadon de pomo
Mi vidis lian poman manĝadon.
Mi vidis lin kiam li manĝis pomon.

Setting aside the different nuances here one might say that in general the design features of Esperanto allow a considerable flexibility in expression.

Hyperboreus:"La problemo rilata al tiu kazo estas grava." Why "al"? If I hadn't read this expression before, I would have said "La problemo rilata tiun kazon estas grava" and I am not sure if this would be proper Esperanto.

It would be correct, since rilate plus accusative definitely is.

Hyperboreus: The thing with e.g. "Persono fiera pri sia hejmo plibeligos ĝin.". Again I would have commited the error of saying "Persono fiera sian hejmon plibeligos ĝin."

Here this would be at least close to an error, at least a very uncommon way of putting it - simply because persono fiera does not express any kind of action, which is needed in order for a direct object to make sense.

Also I am convinced that there aren't any easy languages or complicated languages. All languages are idempotent, do the same stuff and are hence as easy or as complicated as any other.

Come off it, Hyperboreus. If Esperanto weren't much easier than the natural languages, there wouldn't be so much point to it.

We might as well pack up our bags and leave the world to learning English.

Anyway, no need to theorize. There is hard evidence that after a fixed period of learning Esperantists are able to communicate more effectively in Esperanto than in a foreign natural language.

Furthermore, it is probably not even true with regard to natural languages that they are all equally difficult.

It is, I understand true, that Klingon is much more difficult than Esperanto. If it can be true that artificial languages are not equally difficult (I am only admitting Klingon as a language for the purposes of argument) why can't it be true of natural languages.

What principle of human psychology, or brain function, would guarantee that all languages are equally difficult?

Edit: and as regards all languages being equally potent - try discussing computers in some Central African tribal language.

pdenisowski:
Reminds me of Dave Barry :

I attempted to learn Japanese by reading a book called "Japanese at a Glance" in the plane from San Francisco to Tokyo. This is not the method recommended by experts. The method recommended by experts is to be born as a Japanese baby and raised by a Japanese family, in Japan.

LOL.

Forigite

Hyperboreus:

sudanglo:Who is Esperanto for, Hyperboreus?

It's for people in countries with a reasonable standard of living who want to communicate internationally.

It's not for some aboriginal person scratching a living in an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle.

Now this is really sad. I thought that Esperantists were a non-racist, open-minded and open-hearted lot. I am quite disappointed that Esperanto is for an economic elite ("standard of living", unfortunately the majority of people do not have a "reasonable standard"), it is not for aboriginals (arent't you an aboriginal from England?) and not for the poor ("scratching a living").

You totally missed his point, and I feel that you are trying to make him look racist. What he said is in no way racist? or perhaps what I'm about to say is also racist? There is nothing racist about the "economic elite" all that means is that those who need to trade borders have a greater use of Esperanto. I'm sure the tribes man could track a monkey through a jungle, while I can't - does that make him "jungle elite" should I be offended. Should I call rasim! No because he has that need and I don't. and scratching out a living isn't racist again to me, he'll I work as a computer programmer and I scratch out a living everyday, I sometimes envy the guy living in the jungle.

Now back to the point, When I was in China, I meet several university students with a 4 year diploma in Esperanto studies, one had never left the country and had fluent Esperanto. Now my wife, had studied English for 6 years in China, before meeting me she lived 6 years in Australia, and only just reached the point that we would consider fluent when I meet her.

Forigite

Hyperboreus:What was the point of saying:

It's for people in countries with a reasonable standard of living who want to communicate internationally.

It's not for some aboriginal person scratching a living in an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle.

Esperanto was intended to be a language for international communication.

If a person has no need to communicate internationally, this person does not need Esperanto.

If you are an aboriginal person from an isolated tribe in the Amazon, and you are working hard every day to stay alive (this is "scratching a living" in sudanglo's message), then you have no time for Esperanto. You have no need to communicate internationally. You probably don't have access to any methods of communication even if you wanted to communicate internationally. Esperanto is not for you.

Esperanto is for many different kinds of people but if you have no realistic need to travel beyond your home region, or to communicate with people beyond your home region, and you are struggling to stay alive, then Esperanto is not useful for you and it's not worth your time to study it.

If you live on a tropical island and you have no plans to leave, you don't need to learn how to build a snowman.

Forigite