In any case if you really want Esperanto to "come out of the shadows" then it needs to be a real language that encompasses the full range of human expression

It seems plausible to me that when English is used as a lingua franca between two non-native speakers of English, then vulgarities are quite rare, and in any case accompanied by mispronunciation and bad grammar the effect is more likely to be comic rather than shocking.

Although some might argue that Esperanto has a life of its own as a real language, nevertheless its primary purpose is to be a lingua franca, not to fulfill all the sociolinguistic functions of a national language.

Even with 50 million speakers, it is difficult to imagine Esperanto as divorced from its primary function, and used frequently for bad language. It's not what a lingua franca is for. Its function is not to provide a lexis for pimps and prostitutes and other assorted low lifes.

Such crude terms as you can find so marked in an Esperanto dictionary are there for rendering literary translations, and good-natured joshing. They are not validated by any societal association. Their emotional force, their taboo value, will necessarily be far weaker than their 'translations' in some national language.

But this in no way disqualifies Esperanto from fulfilling its lingua franca function any more than the absence in practice of crude language invalidates English when it is so used.

sundanglo:its primary purpose is to be a lingua franca, not to fulfill all the sociolinguistic functions of a national language.

True enough that's not its purpose. But the language's purpose is a completely different thing to what's required of it to become mainstream. We should be careful not to conflate the two.

sudanglo:Its function is not to provide a lexis for pimps and prostitutes and other assorted low lifes.

Isn't it? Funny, I always thought it was meant to be a language for everyone, not just respectable people.

sudanglo:Even with 50 million speakers, it is difficult to imagine Esperanto as divorced from its primary function, and used frequently for bad language.

Actually I don't find that at all hard to imagine. Of course it's only speculation but with 50 million speakers, or however many as would be required for the "finka venko" to have happened (which, incidentally, I think would be a fair bit higher than 50 million) I suspect you would indeed see a far greater incidence of profanity and off colour language than is currently the case.

Anyway I don't really see how using Esperanto for bad language "divorces" it from its primary function. Regardless of how unnecessary you may perceive it to be, bad language is still a form of communication, and Esperanto is meant to facilitate communication.

sudanglo:It seems plausible to me that when English is used as a lingua franca between two non-native speakers of English, then vulgarities are quite rare, and in any case accompanied by mispronunciation and bad grammar the effect is more likely to be comic rather than shocking.

Comic to the ears of a native speaker. Both non-native speakers won't even notice the bad grammar and mispronunciation and will perceive the vulgarities as such without spotting any comic element. The international lingua franca is neither Queen's English nor BBC English nor American English. It is bad English.

nornen:

sudanglo:It seems plausible to me that when English is used as a lingua franca between two non-native speakers of English, then vulgarities are quite rare, and in any case accompanied by mispronunciation and bad grammar the effect is more likely to be comic rather than shocking.

Comic to the ears of a native speaker. Both non-native speakers won't even notice the bad grammar and mispronunciation and will perceive the vulgarities as such without spotting any comic element. The international lingua franca is neither Queen's English nor BBC English nor American English. It is bad English.

Why so many presumptions regarding non-native speakers of English speaking with bad grammar? I would say I speak near perfect English. I would also propose that my grammar is better than many native speakers of the language, and I'm from Norway so English my L2.

Let's say I get angry at my German friend, then I will swear to him in English, it won't sound the least funny to a native speaker. Important function to fulfill, which also Esperanto needs.

I had a Norwegian lover for seven years. He mostly swore AT me in Norwegian - though he didn't swear that much - but I did acquire quite fluent Norwegian and I still maintain it to this day. (Though I am sure that I make little slip ups like vikungen in English.)
What is funny is how pretty nasty expressions in American English are understood as being harmless in Europe. I saw a very handsome young man in France wearing a t-shirt with the inscription: "I want a cream pie! Give it to me!" And another your man in Germany with a t-shirt that proclaimed: "I fuck my girlfriend".
Probably, in an L2 expletives are not perceived as they are in an L1.
And then, there are silly mistakes. In front of a police parking lot in Strasbourg/Straßburg I saw a sign in English that said: "Get off before presenting your papers". Hmmmmm. A rather provocative thought, hehe...

I would say I speak near perfect English. I would also propose that my grammar is better than many native speakers of the language, and I'm from Norway so English my L2.

The joke is: What's the fastest way to tell a foreigner apart from a native-born American? Answer: The American will speak worse English.

To put it in more linguistically-oriented terms: The registers used by Esperanto are likely not going to be as diverse as those used by other languages. This is because, in a quasi-finvenko situation (as envisioned by most finvenkistoj), EO would be used primarily for political, business, scientific, and educational purposes - which on their own comprise a more "formal" set of registers. More "informal" registers - village siduloj talking to each other, schoolkids in a classroom, pillow talk between lovers, vulgar graffiti - would be found in social contexts where the local language is more likely to be used (unless, maybe, a foreign diplomat with poor English decides to go kerb-crawling in SoHo).

Swearing in Esperanto can be much more expressive than the puny reserve of five expletives English offers you, but it's hardly going to have the same effect because such "registers" are rarely encountered in EO and most speakers are not well-familiar with them - and hence, fail to have the appropriate emotional reaction.

vikungen:Let's say I get angry at my German friend, then I will swear to him in English, it won't sound the least funny to a native speaker.

Vær så snill å sverge på Norsk!

Tempodivalse:Swearing in Esperanto can be much more expressive than the puny reserve of five expletives English offers you, but it's hardly going to have the same effect because such "registers" are rarely encountered in EO and most speakers are not well-familiar with them - and hence, fail to have the appropriate emotional reaction.

In my experience that is true; when I see/hear foul words in English, I feel significantly more uncomfortable than when I see/hear the Esperanto "equivalents", even though I wouldn't use either myself.

Tempodivalse: Swearing in Esperanto can be much more expressive than the puny reserve of five expletives English offers you, but it's hardly going to have the same effect because such "registers" are rarely encountered in EO and most speakers are not well-familiar with them - and hence, fail to have the appropriate emotional reaction.

English has tons of swear words! You can't possibly think the English language lacks creativity! Just because many imaginationless people spam ''fucking'' and ''bloody'' doesn't mean its bad words repertoire is as limited.

Christa627:I feel significantly more uncomfortable than when I see/hear the Esperanto "equivalents", even though I wouldn't use either myself.

That's got nothing to do with Esperanto itself but with the fact that it isn't your mother tongue, as simple as that. Swearing is culture-driven. Such words affect you because you grew up with them, you know the social meaning and expected behaviour behind them. When we speak a foreign language our ''shame-button'' is off. We can curse and say things in a foreign language we would probably never say in our mother tongue, and that is because we only perceive the language as a tool that uses a code to communicate, nothing more than strings of words put together to convey an idea. We don't know the cultural meaning behind those words yet because we haven't lived that language and because we aren't fluent enough. Once you learn to feel that language and have been bathed with its culture swear words will no longer appear as harmless to you and you will start to perceive them from the native speaker point of view.

Suzumiya:

Christa627:I feel significantly more uncomfortable than when I see/hear the Esperanto "equivalents", even though I wouldn't use either myself.

That's got nothing to do with Esperanto itself but with the fact that it isn't your mother tongue, as simple as that. Swearing is culture-driven. Such words affect you because you grew up with them, you know the social meaning and expected behaviour behind them. When we speak a foreign language our ''shame-button'' is off. We can curse and say things in a foreign language we would probably never say in our mother tongue, and that is because we only perceive the language as a tool that uses a code to communicate, nothing more than strings of words put together to convey an idea. We don't know the cultural meaning behind those words yet because we haven't lived that language and because we aren't fluent enough. Once you learn to feel that language and have been bathed with its culture swear words will no longer appear as harmless to you and you will start to perceive them from the native speaker point of view.

I totally agree with both of you. But perhaps not only the ''shame-button'' is off when you use a foreign language, even if that is the most obvious experience we have. When Namibia got its independence, English was introduced as the official language. That was done in a country, where only some few percent of the population knew English well. Nowadays English is generally perceived as a rude language.

I have heard people in Windhoek giving this example: If you come back after lunch to your working place, where some of your collegues are sitting around a table eating, and you say "So, you are still eating", then the reaction will be "Yes, but we are about to finish", if you used English. If you used Afrikaans instead, then the answer would be "Yes, please sit down, we have enough for you too".

There are of course many reasons for that difference. English is official in the country, therefore percieved even a bit as the language of employers. People are frustrated by their situation of speaking a language they don't master to people who don't understand well. People have learned English from television films, which are full of rude language, and have their pragmatics pattern from them. But perhaps also, that some softening words, which are there even in the English they use, do not resonate as if the listener had experienced them since childhood.