Postitused: 119
Keel: English
erinja (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 0:40.40
On the ease of Esperanto, interestingly, I've found that non-Esperantists are the ones who proclaim its ease the most loudly - especially if you go to a forum full of people who treat language learning as a hobby. Someone will post something like "I'm looking for a language easier than Esperanto", and the reactions are a bunch of shocked "EASIER than Esperanto???!!!"
I think modern Esperanto materials do try to be a bit more realistic on the ease factor - they try to call it easiER than other languages, rather than straight-off easy.
I know someone who has been involved, off and on, in promoting Esperanto, who makes a big deal of always saying "relatively easy".
Unfortunately, that "relatively" isn't easy to convey. Esperanto is MUCH easier than most other languages. But it still requires effort, it isn't like learning Pig Latin by any means.
I think modern Esperanto materials do try to be a bit more realistic on the ease factor - they try to call it easiER than other languages, rather than straight-off easy.
I know someone who has been involved, off and on, in promoting Esperanto, who makes a big deal of always saying "relatively easy".
Unfortunately, that "relatively" isn't easy to convey. Esperanto is MUCH easier than most other languages. But it still requires effort, it isn't like learning Pig Latin by any means.
jchthys (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 5:16.55
The way I like to put it is: with Esperanto, you still have to "un-learn" your native language. If you've never spoken a foreign language before, you still have to come to terms with the fact that the way your native language doesn't always make sense, and you have to learn to say what does actually make logical sense. Where Esperanto differs from other languages is that you have far less to learn in terms of the structure of a new language.
tl;dr If you already know a foreign language, Esperanto is relatively easy because you already know what a foreign language is like; you've "unlearned" your native language, so to speak, and have little to learn in the way of new idioms.
If you don't already know a foreign language, then Esperanto is relatively easy because unlearning your native language is pretty much your only barrier to break through, and you don't have to spend lots of time learning the "Esperanto" way of doing things.
If I were to learn Finnish, I would not only have to unlearn English: I'd have to learn not only Finnish words but also a great deal of Finnish syntax and "the way you say things in Finnish"—the myriad of little rules about what is idiomatic and what's not.
With Esperanto, things are a bit different. Sure, I have to learn the words. As someone familiar with many European roots, that's not a huge problem, and it's made easier because of part-of-speech endings. But besides that, Esperanto is very simply—and most importantly, very flexibly—inflected. If I can think of a way of saying it that makes logical sense, I can say it. I can mix and match word roots and suffixes. I can create new words on the fly if I want, and there are no native speakers* to say, "That just doesn't sound right."
(True, there is a minimum of syntax regularity and idiomatic ways of saying things—for example, using VOS word order instead of SVO all the time would be weird—but I believe that it's an order of magnitude less than it is with other languages.)
================
* Denaskuloj certainly exist. But there's no evidence that they've begun to form ideas about idiomaticity that non-native speakers of Esperanto don't have; they simply become acquainted with the flexibility of the language from birth.
tl;dr If you already know a foreign language, Esperanto is relatively easy because you already know what a foreign language is like; you've "unlearned" your native language, so to speak, and have little to learn in the way of new idioms.
If you don't already know a foreign language, then Esperanto is relatively easy because unlearning your native language is pretty much your only barrier to break through, and you don't have to spend lots of time learning the "Esperanto" way of doing things.
If I were to learn Finnish, I would not only have to unlearn English: I'd have to learn not only Finnish words but also a great deal of Finnish syntax and "the way you say things in Finnish"—the myriad of little rules about what is idiomatic and what's not.
With Esperanto, things are a bit different. Sure, I have to learn the words. As someone familiar with many European roots, that's not a huge problem, and it's made easier because of part-of-speech endings. But besides that, Esperanto is very simply—and most importantly, very flexibly—inflected. If I can think of a way of saying it that makes logical sense, I can say it. I can mix and match word roots and suffixes. I can create new words on the fly if I want, and there are no native speakers* to say, "That just doesn't sound right."
(True, there is a minimum of syntax regularity and idiomatic ways of saying things—for example, using VOS word order instead of SVO all the time would be weird—but I believe that it's an order of magnitude less than it is with other languages.)
================
* Denaskuloj certainly exist. But there's no evidence that they've begun to form ideas about idiomaticity that non-native speakers of Esperanto don't have; they simply become acquainted with the flexibility of the language from birth.
keithwood57 (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 5:37.42
erinja:On the ease of Esperanto, interestingly, I've found that non-Esperantists are the ones who proclaim its ease the most loudly...From the article, 'The Universal Language' on Lernu site:
"Esperanto has a very regular structure, which means it is easy to learn. "
(Emphasis mine.)
http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film
erinja (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 11:56.42
Great example, Keith.
The film you linked to (it's an external link from the lernu site, meaning that it isn't our content) leads to a documentary film that wasn't made by an Esperanto speaker. Therefore it presents Esperanto from an outsider's perspective; it's actually a non-Esperantist calling it "easy to learn" in that case.
You do have sites made by Esperantists that say "easy to learn", but most people today, especially the younger generation, tend to moderate their wording a bit more.
The film you linked to (it's an external link from the lernu site, meaning that it isn't our content) leads to a documentary film that wasn't made by an Esperanto speaker. Therefore it presents Esperanto from an outsider's perspective; it's actually a non-Esperantist calling it "easy to learn" in that case.
You do have sites made by Esperantists that say "easy to learn", but most people today, especially the younger generation, tend to moderate their wording a bit more.
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 11:59.32
This issue of how, in ease of mastery, the gap between national languages and Esperanto becomes narrower as one progresses to higher levels of command, is one that does not often seemed to be discussed in Esperanto circles.
How important an issue it is, rather depends on the role that you see Esperanto as fulfilling.
If Esperanto is to be just a means of facilitating face to face communication when there is no common language, it might not be very important. In such a situation not knowing the 'right' word or expression for say, financial cliff, or ratchet spanner, might not be too serious (you can make something up which will serve to convey your meaning in context).
However if Esperanto is to meet the claim that it is suitable for all purposes, including say commercial contracts, or technical instructions, or the dubbing of TV police dramas (which of course implies a level of development comparable to the national languages) then the issue becomes more relevant.
How important an issue it is, rather depends on the role that you see Esperanto as fulfilling.
If Esperanto is to be just a means of facilitating face to face communication when there is no common language, it might not be very important. In such a situation not knowing the 'right' word or expression for say, financial cliff, or ratchet spanner, might not be too serious (you can make something up which will serve to convey your meaning in context).
However if Esperanto is to meet the claim that it is suitable for all purposes, including say commercial contracts, or technical instructions, or the dubbing of TV police dramas (which of course implies a level of development comparable to the national languages) then the issue becomes more relevant.
T0dd (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 13:34.29
sudanglo:This issue of how, in ease of mastery, the gap between national languages and Esperanto becomes narrower as one progresses to higher levels of command, is one that does not often seemed to be discussed in Esperanto circles.As I expressed earlier in this thread, I think that once one is at the intermediate level (which is where I place myself), one has learned most of the grammar and has a good familiarity with how the language works. From there, the way forward to "advanced" is mostly about vocabulary. I include under the heading of "vocabulary" the learning of phrases and expressions needed to convey important ideas for which there is no single word. I agree that this is, to some extent, speaker-specific. That is, if I want to be able to speak fluently in my field, which is philosophy, I need to have a good command of the Esperanto equivalent of the technical vocabulary of philosophy. I don't need to know much about the specialized jargon of commercial contracts or architecture.
How important an issue it is, rather depends on the role that you see Esperanto as fulfilling.
If Esperanto is to be just a means of facilitating face to face communication when there is no common language, it might not be very important. In such a situation not knowing the 'right' word or expression for say, financial cliff, or ratchet spanner, might not be too serious (you can make something up which will serve to convey your meaning in context).
However if Esperanto is to meet the claim that it is suitable for all purposes, including say commercial contracts, or technical instructions, or the dubbing of TV police dramas (which of course implies a level of development comparable to the national languages) then the issue becomes more relevant.
It's probably "easier" for me to learn philosophical jargon because it's linked to my interests and what I already know. My ability to talk about commercial contracts or architecture in English is no doubt very mediocre, but it isn't usually a problem.
But without even getting into the domain of specialized jargon, there is a level of speech that is required for true fluency in any language, and it involves knowing a few thousand words (on a guess) that one might actually use only once in a while. For example, it just occurs to me that I don't know the Esperanto word for "bassoon." --I now know it's fagoto. It's not just musicians who know what bassoons are, but the rest of us may only mention them a few times a year. That makes them easier to forget, especially if they're not cognates of words we already know. In any language, not just Esperanto, you just have to sweat through the learning of these low-frequency words. There's really no way to make it "easy".
jchthys (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 15:11.48
And remember that one can be fluent in a language without having C2 mastery—e.g. of advanced and specialized vocabulary. One can feel very comfortable as an Esperantist long before knowing the PIV inside out.
robbkvasnak (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 16:53.54
We now speak Esperanto at home - along with Portguese (I'm learning) and German (my husband is learning). We try to avoid English since we have to speak it all day outside the home but once in a while we watch American television (educational). He has been in the USA for 18 years and wrote his dissertation in English - but I still sense when he doesn't understand words and expressions in American English - like he recently didn't know what a "chopper" (helicopter) was. I am having the same problem with everyday Portuguese - words like "side dish, butter knife, thumb drive, etc."
And our Esperanto dictionaries look like they have been through a chopper - a meat chopper - because they are so dog-eared.
In short - languages ain't easy due to the plethora of things in the world. But the basic grammar of Esperanto - well - of the 10 languages I speak, nothing beats it! It is pretty straight forward and clear.
If someone can't get that after 9 years, I would definitely not what that person to be the traffic cop at the next intersection or the controller guiding my plane to land.
I have taught Esperanto to learning-impaired students and was amazed at the ease with which they soon managed complicated sentences with several clauses. That is my take for today.
And our Esperanto dictionaries look like they have been through a chopper - a meat chopper - because they are so dog-eared.
In short - languages ain't easy due to the plethora of things in the world. But the basic grammar of Esperanto - well - of the 10 languages I speak, nothing beats it! It is pretty straight forward and clear.
If someone can't get that after 9 years, I would definitely not what that person to be the traffic cop at the next intersection or the controller guiding my plane to land.
I have taught Esperanto to learning-impaired students and was amazed at the ease with which they soon managed complicated sentences with several clauses. That is my take for today.
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 28. november 2012 21:13.52
But without even getting into the domain of specialized jargon, there is a level of speech that is required for true fluency in any language, and it involves knowing a few thousand words (on a guess) that one might actually use only once in a while. For example, it just occurs to me that I don't know the Esperanto word for "bassoon." --I now know it's fagoto. It's not just musicians who know what bassoons are, but the rest of us may only mention them a few times a year. That makes them easier to forget, especially if they're not cognates of words we already know. In any language, not just Esperanto, you just have to sweat through the learning of these low-frequency words. There's really no way to make it "easy".Agreed Todd. But there is a special difficulty in the case of Esperanto.
1. It is not easy to casually pick up these words from fluent speakers, or by watching films on TV, or through ones reading.
2. There may be no agreed form of a word (or expression) for something quite commonplace, in the sense that it would not be regarded as a specialized piece of jargon. Not infrequently, there may be no word at all, and no obvious kunmetaĵo, so requiring the user to research the European languages for a suitable form.
Following the links in a recent post of yours, I note that the earliest recording in a dictionary of 'ĝinzo' was as late as 1979 (at which time the word for 'jeans' - pantalono - had probably been stable in most European languages for some time). But that was not even the end of it as it was clear that for some years afterwards there were competing forms.
Ĝinzo is perhaps a good example where a kunmetaĵo is not forthcoming. Drelika pantalono seems rather vague considering that Wells gives the meaning of dreliko as, canvas, denim, ticking, drill and PIV says dreliko is used for sacks.
creedelambard (Näita profiili) 29. november 2012 7:52.41
sudanglo:Ĝinzo is perhaps a good example where a kunmetaĵo is not forthcoming. Drelika pantalono seems rather vague considering that Wells gives the meaning of dreliko as, canvas, denim, ticking, drill and PIV says dreliko is used for sacks.That actually goes back to the origin of jeans though. Stop me if you've heard this before: Levi Strauss, a dry goods salesman who had moved to San Francisco when the California gold rush broke out, started making pants out of denim fabric originally destined to make tents. Miners were constantly ripping their pants due to the harsh conditions in the mining fields and wanted something more sturdy. About 20 years later he and a partner patented the idea of riveting the pockets onto the pants, and the Levi's jean as we know it was born.
That's the way I heard the story, anyway. But it doesn't surprise me that if there's alternative to "drelika pantalono" that sounds more like "jeans," people would use it. (I have to wonder if dreliko is intended to cover the spectrum from tent fabric to the lightweight cloth that shopping bags and the like are made from.) Especially since I once heard that you can go almost anywhere in the world and shout "Hallelujah, mama, JEANS!" and while people might think you're crazy, they'll recognize all three words. A true Rule 15 word if there ever was one.