sudanglo:Let's get this in perspective - a simple rewrite will suffice.

* What is Latin?
* Where can my kid go to speak it with someone?
* What kind of job will it get them?
* Why should they take this course?
* Bill O'Reilly says Latin is catholic language. Are you trying to turn my kid into a catholic?

Yet in my younger years, Latin was taught in the schools to the cleverer kids.

Apples and oranges. Questions like these were answered to the satisfaction of all involved milennia before Esperanto was first described.

I think that many people still do see study of Latin as a useless language.

I have heard arguments that studying it increases your knowledge of English vocabulary. But in fairness I have to say that this applies equally to nearly any Romance language.

I think that the best argument I could make for Esperanto is that French or Spanish are more useful if you actually learn them to the point of being able to use them effectively, but since most students aren't able* to learn them effectively, Esperanto gives you the better chance of being able to learn a language that you will be able to speak and use (albeit in more limited circumstances).

* I say "aren't able" but I don't mean that they are intellectually unable; I mean that they are unwilling to put the time and effort in, that is required to be able to speak and use these languages, so a language with a lower bar to entry will provide a greater chance of success. It doesn't really help that in most situations the student doesn't care whether they actually learn the language because they don't see a use for it; they just want to pass the class and fulfill their requirement.

I did Latin at school (20-odd years ago) and took it as the language on the general studies test instead of French or German. Its value for European languages is more as a 'root' language which helps you understand large parts of the origins and structure of your own vocabulary, and other parts of language, rather than for just learning vocabulary.

Spanish, German and French are no doubt the core languages for a large part of Europe (and most of Latin America), but this is not the point. If that argument is taken to its conclusion Esperanto might as well just fade away while we concentrate on better teaching and learning for the existing natural languages. The point of Esperanto must be to overcome the problems of both having to learn multiple languages, in a simpler format and with greater communication coverage.

Now, the last one is not evident, but probably because of most of the reasons outlined in this thread: barely taught in schools; poor general image; dominance and widespread use of of English as the lingua franca.

Esperanto could learn a few things from the world of PR. Maybe every time an Esperantist travels about in non Esperanto circles it should be considered normal to ask the majority of non-Esperantists more than just: Do you speak English? Or French, or Spanish. Ĉu vi parolas Esperanton? should be asked as part of that list as if it is an obvious candidate.The more excuses and justifications made for something the more people tend to see it as requiring them.

You can argue for Esperanto in the schools without any reference to it's practical usefulness or the number of speakers.

You can argue just on the basis of it's educational value - that it broadens the pupil's perspective away from a monolingual universe and gives him insight into what he is actually saying when he uses his own language. (it's the Latin argument in spades)

However in the case of the primary school experiment in Australia, a principal argument that has been used, if I remember correctly, is that through Esperanto you get a window on other cultures and they have got the pupils to connect through the computer with similar classes in schools in other countries.

I can't see that happening successfully with a foreign national language because of the well-known problems in getting anywhere in communicative terms with the language without considerable investment in time.

Vestitor: The point of Esperanto must be to overcome the problems of both having to learn multiple languages, in a simpler format and with greater communication coverage.

I think the argument for why it's worth learning Esperanto is different in the US than it is in Europe.

Americans have to be convinced that it's worthwhile to learn *any* foreign language, period.

Most Americans have never been in a situation where they've had to read a menu in a foreign language or navigate the streets of a city where they don't speak the language.

Most Americans don't even have a passport. It's hard to argue that Esperanto keeps you from having to learn multiple languages, when many Americans feel it's an unnecessary waste of time to learn even one foreign language, because "English is the international language".

This might seem rude, but I don't mean it to. If most Americans don't have a passport, are not travelling anywhere and aren't going to be facing the communication issue then they are out of the equation. It only matters for those in the situation of needing simpler communication in a multi-language sphere. I don't think that under the circumstances you describe Erinja, that the situation ought to be considered from the general American experience at all if they are not immediately faced with this problem.

Vestitor:This might seem rude, but I don't mean it to. If most Americans don't have a passport... ... then they are out of the equation.

Well, Vestitor, it is a little rude, but, on the other hand, I can't say that I really disagree with you.

Esperanto is an international language, and Americans by and large do not operate in an international sphere. We may be considered a global superpower, but as a populace we are remarkably provincial.

The only way I can see Esperanto becoming widespread in the US is if it were made commercially attractive to do so. Say China decides that Mandarin really is just too difficult to ever become a world language, so they decide to switch to Esperanto as a trading language, and they say they'll give preferential treatment to any businesses who deal with them in Esperanto. Sure, they'll deal in English as well, but, all other things being equal, they say Esperanto will always win out over English.

You would see an immediate adoption of Esperanto by US corporations. And most likely it would appear to happen practically overnight. Dollars have a strongly motivating influence.

But, barring something extraordinary like that, Americans are going to stick to English because they really have no reason not to. Which, as you say, for the most part puts us out of the equation.

The language that Americans should learn first is English - the Queen's English!

Of course you have a valid point Vestitor. Someone who has no need to communicate with anybody other than speakers of his or her mother tongue, does not appear to need the International Language Esperanto. This would apply not just to Americans.

However, it might be useful from a propaganda point of view to shift away from promoting Esperanto as a lingua franca and start emphasizing the educational value of Esperanto in the school curriculum.

Later when ten's of millions have learnt it at school we can start again to argue that Esperanto presents a solution to the 'language problem', returning to our moutons (or whatever the idiom is).

Vestitor:This might seem rude, but I don't mean it to. If most Americans don't have a passport, are not travelling anywhere and aren't going to be facing the communication issue then they are out of the equation.

That would be true if you discounted language learning as being useless for any purpose other than communication when travelling abroad. Unfortunately many Americans seem to think that you don't need a foreign language abroad OR within the US, and I disagree with that.

You never know when you might need a language, and Americans put themselves at an economic disadvantage when they refuse to learn languages. You don't know where life will put you, and it would be presumptuous to decide at the school level "This child will never need a foreign language". A person with a remarkably provincial background can easily end up in a position of power, or as an international traveller, or as an engineer who needs to read technical documents in another language, or as an owner of a small business who would like to start exporting their products.

I think that if you always rely on others to learn your language, something is lost, and you don't understand them as well as they understand you. In my opinion this leads to financial loss, political loss, and cultural loss.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans, regardless of their travel or non-travel, have times in their lives when they need to talk to people with limited or non-native English. We have immigrants everywhere, including in small towns in middle America. If you have a business in such a small town, what do you gain by refusing to learn a few words of the language of your potential clientele? What do you gain through the inability to talk to foreigners who might buy your products?

We hurt only ourselves by refusing to learn. Engineers are often exempt from university language requirements but what do you gain through inability to read scientific papers or instructions in another language? (I have been in jobs where I needed to use specialized software that was only in another language). In politics and diplomacy, do you gain something by the inability to understand side conversations that other politicians are having in a language other than English? Do you gain something by being unable to read another country's media?

As a child you learn many things that may or may not be useful to you later; we're taught a wide range of subjects. I think a language should be one of those basic subjects. You don't know who will grow up to need it or not need it but I've personally had plenty of instances within the United States where even minimal passive knowledge of a foreign language was helpful to me. Even if you're taught the "wrong" foreign language (= not the one you end up needing in the future), you have learnt the skill of HOW to learn a foreign language, so you can teach yourself what you need later on.

Forigite