Have a point
af Hyperboreus, 8. apr. 2012
Meddelelser: 51
Sprog: English
cFlat7 (Vise profilen) 16. apr. 2012 05.10.18
erinja (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 01.28.14
However, we have priorities in life. And it is certainly my opinion that in some cases, Esperanto should be lower on someone's list of priorities, when it comes to learning a language.
Surely you would agree that if you don't speak the primary language of the country you live in, you should study that language before studying another language (any other language, including Esperanto)?
Hyperboreus (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 02.34.06
erinja (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 02.58.10
It has to do with familiarity with concepts that people need to speak a foreign language. And there are some concepts that are almost impossible to learn unless they have been ingrained in you from young childhood, and I think that numbers are one of those concepts.
In the opposite direction, I doubt that many Westerners would be able to correctly speak Guugu Yimithirr, which expresses position only in terms of cardinal direction, rather than left, right, etc. We aren't used to keeping track, at all times, of which direction is north, south, east, west. It is easy for us to say "My friend is in front of me" but we lack a sense of cardinal direction, to correctly say "My friend is east of me" or "My friend is south of me", as we would have to say in Guugu Yimithirr. It's not that the speakers of this language are superhuman; it's not that they're smarter than anyone else. But they grew up with these concepts, and we didn't, so I think that people who didn't grow up with this idea would only be able to apply it in the most rudimentary sense (and probably get it wrong a lot of the time).
You'll probably be annoyed that I brought up this one as well. But some things are just really hard to learn as an adult, and it has nothing to do with someone's intelligence or their cognitive capabilities.
opalo (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 05.49.13
Obviously an English-speaker knows not to translate English expressions literally. It seems to me that, in addition, it's best to avoid seemingly international expressions which only work in European languages. The fact that Esperanto is so European in appearance and vocabulary shouldn't be taken as a licence to inflict further difficulties on non-Europeans who want to read it. Is that really controversial? I don't believe so.
As to the question of new concepts, it is risky to make patronising predictions about what people can understand or handle on the basis of the language they speak. Just as the rich number system of English does not prevent English-speakers from being innumerate, the lack of words for numbers in a language does not prove that the speaker of that language does not understand that there is a difference between, say, 196 and 197, any more than not knowing what "taupe" and "mauve" are means that one could not tell the difference between colour swatches.
erinja (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 09.52.14
opalo:Tust as the rich number system of English does not prevent English-speakers from being innumerate, the lack of words for numbers in a language does not prove that the speaker of that language does not understand that there is a difference between, say, 196 and 197If the scientific studies can be believed, it actually looks like speakers of the language in question (Pirahã) actually do not understand the difference between 196 and 197, and that they find it extremely difficult to learn this difference (as you would presumably find it very difficult to learn to keep track of cardinal direction at all time, so that wherever you are, you could instantly tell me which way is north).
I agree that Esperanto should be kept as international as possible. But it does inherit a few idiomatic things from European languages, and it's probably too late to get rid of those things now.
sudanglo (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 10.39.46
that would be ridiculous, since obviously people all over the world have the same cognitive capabilities.But I read somewhere that the scores on IQ tests have been steadily rising since the early 1900's.
Anyway, this is strictly an empirical question, and the assumptions of the politically correct brigade cannot decide the issue.
cFlat7 (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 13.01.37
erinja: ...as you would presumably find it very difficult to learn to keep track of cardinal direction at all time, so that wherever you are, you could instantly tell me which way is north).Unless I'm lost in the woods, for example, I can always instantly tell you which way is north. Some people I know though find this a difficult to do.
RiotNrrd (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 18.49.38
sudanglo:But I read somewhere that the scores on IQ tests have been steadily rising since the early 1900's.Not possible. IQ tests are standardized such that the center (or the peak of the bell curve) is always 100. It was 100 in the early 1900's, and it's 100 now. People might know more, nowadays. People might even be better problem solvers these days (although I sort of doubt that). But it all washes out. If everyone on earth added 20 points to their IQ score, the average would still be 100. If everyone added 100 points to their score, it would STILL average at 100. The average score is 100 by design, and if the average goes up, then the test(s) are just rescored (or restandardized) to make the average 100 again.
On the other hand, IQ tests are controversial, and some (or many) claim that they only measure one definition of intelligence, in a very narrow fashion, and that they aren't actually as useful or meaningful as one might hope. I don't disagree with that.
Hyperboreus (Vise profilen) 17. apr. 2012 19.23.08