jefusan:

sudanglo:Very little emphasis as been placed on motivation arising from a interest in a rational solution to the lingua franca problem.

I don't remember exactly what my thoughts were about that at the time, but I'm pretty sure they were something like, "That is a great idea. It would be cool if it worked."

But I don't think even then I bought into the optimistic, Utopian idea that the world would be a better place if everyone spoke Esperanto. Humans are programmed to find reasons to hate each other, whether it's nationality, skin color, religion, language, favorite sports team, or which side you butter your toast on.

could you elaborate on what you mean by "programmed"?

sproshua:

jefusan:Humans are programmed to find reasons to hate each other, whether it's nationality, skin color, religion, language, favorite sports team, or which side you butter your toast on.

could you elaborate on what you mean by "programmed"?

I mean that evolution has left us with many instincts that may have been more useful before we had to live together in towns and cities. Protect your immediate family first, tribe second. Outsiders are threats who will steal your resources and your mates, and possibly kill your children. Society and self-awareness have given us the tools to imagine a better way, but way down deep our ur-chimp brains still whisper to us, "Beware of the others. They'd kill you if they had the chance. Stand your ground, or kill them first."

I also believe that something about higher thought — maybe it's a side effect of language — has made humans overly dependent on labels and boundaries. This is alive, this is not. This is a glass, this is a cup. This is a Greek, this is a Roman. The truth, as far as anything can be called true, is rarely so simple.

I first heard about it when I was 10. Our new German teacher apparently tried to explain us why there are different languages in the world (as an introduction to learning the first foreign language* or whatever), and he said something like "Some people want the world to speak just one language, that they call Esperanto, but I think that's nonsense." Which was not completely accurate, as I would find out later. But I thought the same as he thought about Esperanto.

After that, I heard the word Esperanto from time to time. Among others I don't remember, there was an article in the German Wahrig dictionary I came accross by chance: "Welthilfssprache (i.e. more or less "world help language" ): invented language with the purpose to be an international communication language, for example Esperanto or Volapük". (I don't remember the exact wording, but that was basically what it meant. And it was in German of course.)

Then, when surfing around in Wikipedia, I got the idea to test what Volapük looks like. I looked up the main page of Volapük "Vüciped" and didn't understand anything. Then I tried with Esperanto. The first thing I saw was "bildo de la tago": I understood whithout even having to think! Bild and Tag are two German words meaning image and day, "de la" is identical to French, meaning "of the". No problem for me!

Then I read every or nearly every Wikipedia article related to Esperanto (I think mainly in French), and I began to like the concept more and more. I understood it was not meant to be the world's only language (which made me open to the idea). And I became fully aware of the language problem (I had sometimes thought about it before, but not till the end...) The grammar struck me as extremely easy. The accusative surprised me, as I hadn't expected it for a language known as ridiculously simple; but from having studied Latin, I knew it was a big advantage. So I was completely convinced of Esperanto being the best solution to the language problem. That being said, it would have been nonsense not to learn it. I don't remember who used these words: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Well, now I have been learning it, I know the grammar is not as simple as it seemed to be, and I could criticise some aspects, mainly the fact the language is heavily European-based. But Esperanto being a living language, it has proven to be the most successful Welthilfssprache yet. So why completely change it, as some do propose? First it's impossible, second not necessary. Just don't use too many neologismojn, and try to use not too European phrases (I am going to learn Chinese some day, that will help me).

*German was not the first foreign language for me, though; it's my mother tongue. My first foreign languages were English and Latin (I have started learning them at the same time). Or French, if you count as foreign a language you have learnt in kindergarten from hearing others speaking.

jefusan:

But I don't think even then I bought into the optimistic, Utopian idea that the world would be a better place if everyone spoke Esperanto. Humans are programmed to find reasons to hate each other, whether it's nationality, skin color, religion, language, favorite sports team, or which side you butter your toast on.

This is the persistent misconception of what it means to have a useful universal second language. 'Utopian' is a common word used. The idea that all war will cease if the world speaks Esperanto has never been claimed; though a neutral language may well help a little.

The real point is Esperanto performing the function people think English currently performs, but being neutral and quicker to learn. There's nothing utopian about that.

sudanglo:Very little emphasis as been placed on motivation arising from a interest in a rational solution to the lingua franca problem.

I, for one, did not learn Esperanto to solve the lingua franca problem. Which is why I have no trouble at all identifying more with the raumists than with the finvenkists. It's not black and white, all of one none of the other, of course - certainly I would welcome a finvenko, although I'm not inclined to work very hard towards it - but I definitely fall on the side of the raumists; if we never have a finvenko, it won't bother me overly much.

Vestitor:This is the persistent misconception of what it means to have a useful universal second language. 'Utopian' is a common word used. The idea that all war will cease if the world speaks Esperanto has never been claimed; though a neutral language may well help a little.

My use of Utopian may have been hyperbolic, but I don't think it's off base to say that in the early years of Esperanto, it was common to hear that an international language would promote peace. (See the Buljona deklaro's mention of Esperanto as a "paciga lingvo." )

I, for one, think we could all be speaking the same neutral, international language and would still find as many reasons to kill each other as we do now.

The early Esperantists, Zamenhof included, were in retrospect rather naive about the peace-making potential of a common language. Some of this is attributable to the era: at the turn of the 20th century there was a renewed optimism in the West, encouraged by the industrial revolution and technological advancements - think of the 1900 Paris World Fair. It was that kind of euphoric environment that allowed Esperanto to be born.

But after WWI, and especially WWII, the talk of "brotherhood" and other utopic ideals (using the word "utopic" loosely) subsided; the new age became more cynical - or as I would have it, more realistic. Perhaps this is reflected also in the Esperantophone substratum. I suspect that Esperantophones, ever since the late 40s, have increasingly tended towards Raumism. In 1905 the idea of a universal language to foster peace could pique the interest of the average educated individual (as evidenced by the international attention gathered by Volapuk, Esperanto, and even Ido); in 2015 it would be more likely to elicit a smile, as if to say, "that's so quaint".

Today, I think you are much more likely to get someone to learn Esperanto if you present it to them as a unique, enriching, aesthetically pleasing language with a unique culture, than launching into arguments about why the world needs an Interlanguage.

jefusan:
I, for one, think we could all be speaking the same neutral, international language and would still find as many reasons to kill each other as we do now.

But we'll better understand the threat if it's in Esperanto, ĉu ne?

...double post...

Vestitor:

jefusan:
I, for one, think we could all be speaking the same neutral, international language and would still find as many reasons to kill each other as we do now.

But we'll better understand the threat if it's in Esperanto, ĉu ne?

Sure, but I think we have to be careful when using that line of argument in favor of an Interlanguage. It's quite vulnerable to counterexamples - think of all the civil wars where both belligerents had a common language.