erinja:The "la" in "la angla" is not optional. If you were simply to call it "angla", it sounds weird, because the listener is still waiting for the noun that is being described as "English". By adding "la", we are telling the listener that we are talking about the language.

So if I were to say "Tio ne estas kiel en angla", I would understand this to mean "That's not like in an English..." and I'd be waiting to hear, "An English what?"

So basically, use 'la' whenever you have a noun (and you aren't trying to express 'a')?

You shouldn't go too far wrong if you suppose that you use la in Esperanto when you would use "the" in English, plus a few special uses. For example
(a) languages (where la angla is actually an abbreviation of "the English language") ;
(b) a substitute for possessives, so that tuŝu la kapon can also mean "touch your head" - the exact possessive depends on the context;
(c) possessives as in "Here's yours" = Jen la via.
That should cover the majority of uses.
Here is a relevant page from PMEG (9.1.5).

Thank you everyone, I think I understand it now. It isn't too too different than english

ceigered:

erinja:The "la" in "la angla" is not optional. If you were simply to call it "angla", it sounds weird, because the listener is still waiting for the noun that is being described as "English". By adding "la", we are telling the listener that we are talking about the language.

So if I were to say "Tio ne estas kiel en angla", I would understand this to mean "That's not like in an English..." and I'd be waiting to hear, "An English what?"

On that note, what is the actual noun for the English language, or does it have to be an adjective-noun construction like 'Angla lingvo'? If there was a precise noun for the word 'English (language)', then you'd be able to write it without a definite article, right?

(Sorry If my typing is bad I am typing this while kneeling because I have too much stuff on my chair to sit on it :S)

You could always make the two-word phrase a two-root word, so 'anglalingvo' (or maybe 'anglolingvo').

ceigered:On that note, what is the actual noun for the English language, or does it have to be an adjective-noun construction like 'Angla lingvo'? If there was a precise noun for the word 'English (language)', then you'd be able to write it without a definite article, right?

Your confusion seems to be not realizing that in English, the word "English" is not merely a noun (like "dog" or "language"), but a proper noun or name. We don't normally use "the" with proper nouns in English. (You would just call me "Russ", not "the Russ", for instance, and I live in "Poland", not "the Poland".)

In any case, there is not a proper noun for the English language (i.e. for English) in Esperanto, nor for most languages - we simply talk about "the English language = la angla lingvo" (using the Esperanto adjective "angla", like the English adjective "English", which looks confusing similar to the English proper noun "English").

Basically, if the language is the language of some nation/people, e.g. the English or the Poles or the Germans, then the language is simply their adjective + "lingvo" (e.g. "la germana lingvo", or "la germana" for short when it's clear from context that of course we're talking about languages).

In contrast, Esperanto is not the language of some already existing nation/people, so "Esperanto" itself is a proper name in Esperanto, which is why in Esperanto "Mi parolas la anglan kaj Esperanton."

russ:

ceigered:On that note, what is the actual noun for the English language, or does it have to be an adjective-noun construction like 'Angla lingvo'? If there was a precise noun for the word 'English (language)', then you'd be able to write it without a definite article, right?

Your confusion seems to be not realizing that in English, the word "English" is not merely a noun (like "dog" or "language"), but a proper noun or name. We don't normally use "the" with proper nouns in English. (You would just call me "Russ", not "the Russ", for instance, and I live in "Poland", not "the Poland".)

I realise that 'English' is a proper noun and therefore does not require (in most cases) the definite article - I had that drilled into me back in year 3 of primary school (along with "capital letters are only for Proper nouns", "common nouns are always lower case" and a whole other lot of recommendations my teacher made sure will never leave my head)

So then I understand that Esperanto lacks proper nouns for country names for the sake of simplicity?

Esperanto has proper noun names for countries. Just not for languages (for the most part). So "Usono" is a proper noun, the Esperanto name for the United States.

As has already been said, in Esperanto, we identify languages by ethnic group or country, since most languages are identified with a group. So in "Francio" (or "Francujo"), you have "francoj" (French people) who speak "la franca" (short for "la franca lingvo") and who eat "franca manĝaĵo" (French food - note that in Esperanto, unlike in English, the only form that is capitalized is the country name, not the adjective form, and not the people who come from that country).

On the other hand, Volapuk is an international language not spoken by any "Volapuk" ethnic group. So it is called "volapuko" in Esperanto, it has a noun form. Similarly, no Esperanto people exist, and no Ido people, so these languages are Esperanto and Ido. Continuing on with the created languages, we have Klingon. Klingon is identified with the Klingon people (even though they don't really exist). So it is "la klingona", spoken by "klingonoj".

Going the other direction, there are some dead languages that no longer have any one ethnic group or national group linked to them. These usually are spoken of in noun form. So we have "sanskrito" (Sanskrit), and "latino" (or, "la latina"; that's one that you could argue either way).