I think Chomsky's remarks are a testament to the irresistible temptation to pass judgment on everything, even those topics you are relatively ignorant of. Zamenhof actually had no real knowledge of Spanish. (!)

But we can't judge the man based on one mistake. I've researched Chomsky's biography and beliefs, even attended one of his lectures, and can attest that he is quite knowledgeable both linguistically and politically. At worst, he's a cut above the inane, loudmouthed political commentators that populate the US television networks.

Anyway, re: Mark Pagel, I think a more correct assertion would be that EO has not caught on because the general public never thought it was needed. It would take a considerable change in perspective politically for EO to become widespread. People would have to leave their comfort zones and drop patriotic notions that their native language/culture is "better" than the rest. As a firm skeptic of "historical progress" I don't forsee this ever happening.

An international auxlang is perhaps not strictly necessary -- the current worldwide Tower of Babel is inefficient and clumsy, but it does get results. But that doesn't mean auxlangs are not useful.

(pardon my english, it's not very good)
Are all the people who think Esperanto isn't usefull english speakers? (UK, US)
Maybe Esperanto isn't as necessary for an english speaker because of the globalization today, but if we could use an easier language to communicate it would be very good for a lot of people, at least here in Central America. English is quite complex for a spanish speaker, especially i's pronunciation. Also, there is a social burden in making an effort to learn the language of the people that are trying to control your country and government.
I don't know about you but I can really use Esperanto to speak to a lot of people I could not speak to in my native language. Also, the idea of Esperano is not only to make people understand each other but to learn to respect each other's culture, which I think is really important. like Midland said:

Zamenhof's answer might have been that an international language is needed for world peace

Tempodivalse:I think Chomsky's remarks are a testament to the irresistible temptation to pass judgment on everything, even those topics you are relatively ignorant of. Zamenhof actually had no real knowledge of Spanish. (!)

But we can't judge the man based on one mistake. I've researched Chomsky's biography and beliefs, even attended one of his lectures, and can attest that he is quite knowledgeable both linguistically and politically. At worst, he's a cut above the inane, loudmouthed political commentators that populate the US television networks.

In the documentary made from the professor Everell (which I found both by the name "the grammar of happiness" and "the Amazon code" ), so certainly chargeable of partiality, more linguists talk about Chomsky and his behavior like an arrogant boss of the field. He is also accused of boycotting Everell's studies on the matter, banning him to come back to that tribe and to share these ideas among universities. It also shows an experiment made by linguistic researchers which proves Everell's right, and the answer of Chomsky is that the experiment is invalid and useless because there's nothing to talk about, the topic doesn't exist. Very reasonable, he he.
By the way that tribe seems to be on the right way to lose all of its culture.

sudanglo:Mark Pagel studies linguistic evolution at the University of Reading (UK). And in an article in this week's New Scientist about the plethora of programming languages his opinion is referred to thus:

Pagel draws parallels with Esperanto, the prototype universal human language. The reason it has never caught on is that it simply isn't needed.


Now to be fair, it is not absolutely clear in context whether the 'it' refers to Esperanto or to a universal programming language. But the implication is fairly clear. Mark Pagel has spotted the reason for the world shunning Esperanto.

How could we have missed such a simple explanation?

I think many did not know that UNESCO recommended Esperanto in 1954. Did the professionals in the UNESCO sleep through the time and just simply signed the documents ?

Besides, French Chamber of Commerce did a research and found Esperanto to be the best business language.

Many Esperantists are still arguing from the linguistic point of view rather than a wider perspective.

To be fair to Chomsky though, his apparent lack of knowledge on which languages Esperanto derives from doesn't really undermine his view that Esperanto isn't a language. Nor IMO does it cast doubt on his general credibility. He knows that it is artificial and that it derives from other languages - "parasitic on other languages" is the term I think he used. That would seem to be enough for him to judge whether Esperanto meets his definition of a language. Now whether his definition has any merit, that's another matter. I'm not clued up enough in theoretical linguistics to have much of an opinion there but my suspicion is that he is at least vaguely correct, in the sense that Esperanto - like any artificial language - differs in some fundamental ways to national languages. I would think that to a linguist of the Chomskian sort these differences will seem more pertinent to the question than to a layman, for whom the term "language" simply describes something we use to communicate with. But I doubt whether the differences are significant enough to justify a statement like "Esperanto is not a language", without some careful qualification of the terms. Otherwise it's just dogmatic blathering, of the kind these ivory tower academics seem to be able to get away with all too easily.

But to get back to the topic, I agree with Tempodivalse that the issue is probably more to do with the perception of the need for an auxiliary language, rather than the actual need; the latter being difficult to judge meaningfully and subject to varying interpretations of "need". Esperantists as a group seem to be heavily invested in the idea of an oppressive language situation in the world, where "muroj de miljaroj" between peoples need to be torn down by "sankta amo", etc. This doesn't seem to be a particularly widely shared perception, and I think that probably goes some way to explaining why Esperanto never has and probably never will catch on en-masse.

Calvo - Thanks for you input. You stand where I think I do. Many English speaking people have the knee-jerk atittude that they only need English to get around. That everything is then geared to their understanding and that they miss the nuances and meanings that they culturally don't understand doesn't seem to bother them. Too bad - because this is my fear for the society that most of those people live in - it is becoming totally English. Fortunately, I live in an area where many English speakers strive to learn Spanish. For people in my region it is a valuable resourse. Furthermore, since it is the language used by many intellectuals, artists, lawyers, buissiness people, etc. it has a high prestige. Now they are discovering how important Chinese and Portuguese are (ah! the power of cash!)
Northern Europeans, whose languages are similar to English find English to be useful and international - though I have meet many, many Germans who claim to speak English and... well, I can say that I am polite to them. Unfortunately for northern Europeans, their pragmatics lead them to use a register in English that sounds very arrogant and off-putting for Americans.
Rich people around the world, who have the resources to study English for extended periods also favor English. BUT - that being said - just check out some of the English contributions here from people who do not live in English-speakng countries. That speaks volumes. I teach English to a group of Turkish people - many of whom have PhDs and have lived here in the US for up to 20 years. They are still struggling.
I think that if the general English-speakng public where faced with the task of really trying to learn another language - take Mandarim, for example,the language of a culture that would like to surpass the English speakers' - then suddenly attitudes would change.
So! I will make myself a cup of coffee and go out into the garden to read El Nuevo Herold which is printed right here in Miami (I live close to Miami) and then una siesta (for English speakers:: una = a - y'all know the word "siesta" since it already "English"). Ciao

Truthfully, I can't add much to the discussion here that hasn't already been said. I see a vision of Esperanto - world-wide facilitated communication - and thus have worked to learn it. (A journey I am still on.) I wouldn't argue that it is "needed" as the world has always struggled to learn the current lingua franca (an odd term if you think about it). However, I have to ask, why? Esperanto would be much easier. Nonetheless, the current, and historical, "rah, rah, ours is better than yours" attititudes get in the way of praticality.

se:I think many did not know that UNESCO recommended Esperanto in 1954. Did the professionals in the UNESCO sleep through the time and just simply signed the documents ?

Besides, French Chamber of Commerce did a research and found Esperanto to be the best business language.

Many Esperantists are still arguing from the linguistic point of view rather than a wider perspective.

Thank you for this site, it's really substantial.

no language is needed; just look at fish. they seem perfectly happy without it, don't they? there will probably be some sort of fish long after the human race is extinct.

Pagel might be right.

The fact that there have been a variety of lingua franca's over the centuries (English being the latest) may not actually prove that there is any desire for a universal language.

It just may be that in specific circumstances there are particular benefits from knowing a certain language - prestige, financial benefit, job security, access to knowledge/education etc - but nobody feels the need for a universal language.

Maybe the Esperantists are flogging a dead horse, tilting at windmills, whatever. May be the ideal was always a lost cause.

The way then to get Esperanto accepted more widely is to invest it with some practical advantage or snob value.