メッセージ: 23
言語: English
tommjames (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月20日 11:13:57
Demian: First, you say the world doesn't need an IAL. Then, you say the world doesn't need an IAL besides English.No, I said the world has never felt the need for an IAL, not that there isn't a need. And by IAL I'm referring more to a constructed language - something that was deliberately designed to be easy, as opposed to something like English. I only mentioned English because it has been performing the function of an IAL, albeit to a limited degree.
Demian:How is it possible that someone wished there were a simpler, more neutral way to speak to people from other linguistic backgrounds without seriously considering an IAL?Note that I said nothing of neutrality. But the answer to this is obvious: people are generally not aware of the concept of IALs, and they appear not to care about the problem enough to seriously consider the possible solutions.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月20日 13:22:01
1. Esperanto is not promoted as a solution to the babel problem. It is argued for on educational grounds. Allows learners to experience what it is like to speak another language without imposing the usual burdens associated with learning a foreign language, and plausibly will have a beneficial influence on their clear use of their mother tongue.
2. Again Esperanto is not argued for specifically. Rather the sort of arguments that Zamenhof presented in 'La Unua Libro' are used to press the case for a constructed purpose-built language for international use (alongside English the current dominant lingua franca). If Zamenhof's arguments are accepted then it is a very short step to viewing Esperanto favourably, and a climate is created for accepting Esperanto (as the leader in the field).
[If you have never read La Unua Libro you can access the arguments put forward by Zamenhof by searching the Net for Fundamenta Krestomatio and then scrolling to the section Artikoloj pri Esperanto.
bryku (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月22日 8:53:00
Demian:I wish for a day when regional languages replace English in India in education and administration. It will help millions to get a higher education. I have seen many people who cannot continue their education because the instruction is in English, only in English. No matter how smart I am, if I don't know English, my career is doomed. Sheer stupidity it is.I am with you. Every nation should have its national language, no matter what. And a simple common and neutral language should be used for cultural exchange between nations. English is a very bad player for the role. And that is what most Anglophones do not understand (unless English would be replaced and they would have to learn a difficult foreign language).
Vestitor (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月22日 10:36:04
Second: somewhere else on this forum someone said that they thought it was a mistake to teach Esperanto to young children, and received much agreement. Is this not counterproductive? I'm sure people must understand that the spread and acceptance of English occurs because it is taught to children - culturally in a passive way and then directly in schools. Those countries doing this are the ones more able to take part in an Anglo-dominated economy, business world, global education etc etc. It was because they started as children.
robbkvasnak (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月26日 16:48:03
It is a type of adult arrogance to put such little import to young pupils' interests. And actually, it was a book by Mario Pei (the Family of Words) that has influenced my life. I read that book when I was about 8 years old.
robbkvasnak (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月27日 18:47:10
erinja (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月27日 21:35:49
robbkvasnak (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月27日 21:55:45
Vestitor (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月28日 0:24:56
Tempodivalse (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月28日 0:55:16
Vestitor:I largely agree, but removing such posts, and any replies, could give the impression (to the troll at least) that people can't provide a robust enough answer to all the troll's tripe.Well - why should we care what the troll thinks? ... I don't like to dignify their comments with responses.
(Rough parallel: Creationists like Ken Ham are totally ignored by the scientific community, not because the latter struggles to provide a response, but because even acknowledging them would make them look more legitimate than they are.)