chicago1:Don't you think that putting Eo on par with klingon and elvish borders on insulting. (I won't even grace those w/ capitalization.) And I'm far from a Eo purist.

Not really. There's nothing wrong with the artificial codification of culture and ideals in a communications platform, and that's what they all are, regardless of what they are use for. I wouldn't learn half those languages just because to me they're not very useful and have either limited potential due to their public stigma, a limited library of texts due to the environment they are used in, or not much historical relevance. But putting esperanto as a language on par with klingon and elvish is not insulting at all, since they are all equally man made art pieces.

That's part of the problem EO faces - a negative public stigma towards constructed languages, no esperanto itself. Esperantists often try hard to differentiate esperanto by talking about how much it is a living language, but that can sometimes equate to "pushing the black sheep aside", and saying "oh no, where not related to that oddity, we're pure white sheep, completely different", which can have a problematic effect in that it solves a symptom and not the problem itself, a bit like putting a bandaid on for internal bleeding.

Balbutanto:While studying translation, years ago, I took this course in linguistics where the lecturer squarely said that according to linguistics, translation was absolutely impossible

Well, I doubt he was meaning "translation" in the sense most people think about, because there's no way a university would hire someone who got something a three year old "knows" wrong... I suspect they were trying to crush any ideas floating around the students' heads that translation in its true sense was possible, which we know isn't (because each word has its nuances in meaning and public image of it, for any newbies wondering why I'm saying such a strange thing).

Regarding the previous post: When I first read your comment I assumed you were just kidding around, and was going to let some jokes fly your way (sci fi nerds, etc, everyone's heard it all before...) But if I assume you are not kidding around I guess have to just disagree pretty strongly with you on that one, my friend. I think there are LOTS of things that will go wrong if Eo is put on the same plane as constructed Sci Fi "languages."

As I said, I came to this forum as a relative newcomer & certainly no Eo purist, but the goals of those tongues and Eo appear to be completely different. It does not take a degree in social psychology to see that Eo is all about inclusion, not exclusion, and creating something as many people can learn as quickly as possible; in contrast, klingon (I never thought I'd actually type that in a post) & other Sci Fi "languages" are all about isolation and exclusion, are are based on being within a special "club" - one that, with all due respect, most people on this site probably wouldn't want to be a member of! (I myself look awful in a rubber forhead and pointy ears.)

chigago1:As I said, I came to this forum as a relative newcomer & certainly no Eo purist, but the goals of those tongues and Eo appear to be completely different.

They certainly are, but they are created through the same process and are all examples of the phenomenon of language creation, which makes them interesting to study since we've yet to have a time machine to go back and study the original languages being created

It does not take a degree in social psychology to see that Eo is all about inclusion, not exclusion, and creating something as many people can learn as quickly as possible; in contrast, klingon (I never thought I'd actually type that in a post) & other Sci Fi "languages" are all about isolation and exclusion, are are based on being within a special "club" - one that, with all due respect, most people on this site probably wouldn't want to be a member of! (I myself look awful in a rubber forhead and pointy ears.)

Everyone looks awful with a rubber forehead and pointy ears
But this is now more about something separate to the language from what I see - it's now more about the user base. Quite a lot of people here may want to be part of one of those exclusive clubs, and that occurs naturally depending on if you have a strong interest in anything (law students, trekkies, all the same, the obsession has just changed ).

The language, whether chosen out of interest or just out of sheer fandom, then becomes an identity symbol for that group. But where it becomes exclusionist is more the fault of everyone else, who set up mental rules like "speakers of klingon are all trekkies".* (see bottom of this chunk of text) Where this involves Esperanto is that Esperanto is also an identity for those who choose it, and thus is also isolationist and exclusionist to the same extent. The irony here is that this is an exclusionist identity symbol for those who share an interest in including others - we thus tend to exclude others who disagree with us, ironically, those people would be exclusionists

Anyone is free to learn elvish or crap like that, it doesn't hurt anyone after all, you just need to share an interest in the same stuff as other elvish speakers, since otherwise you'll having nothing to talk about eh! The same is for Esperanto - if you don't like including others, many conversations are going to be just as awkward in the language.

Ultimately, I have no problem with excluding or including others, as long as no matter what there is empathy. Exclusionism without empathy is plain horrible, and including everyone without empathy is just an illusion of doign a good thing. On one side, we have those exclusionist little groups who speak their own fantasy langauge and complain about how noone understands them while they refuse to do the same unto others, and on the other side we have people who want everyone to be equally happy all the time with no conflicts whatsoever etc without realising what a dead existence that is. In that light, EO is just as bad as Klingon, Elvish or any other "club" since there's always people who treat the language like some important symbol of who they are out of ignorance towards others.

*I must ask that no one misunderstand me - I have no problem with that process whatsoever. The human ability to classify is extremely useful after all.

regarding the previous post: When I first read your comment I assumed you were just kidding around, and was going to let some jokes fly your way (sci fi nerds, etc, everyone's heard it all before...) But if I assume you are not kidding around

No one knows whether I'm kidding around or not, not even me Lets just say I'm rather impartial as far as constructed languages are when compared...

I have to say that I'm with chicago1 on this one.

Things mentioned together as a group tend to be, I think, perceived as having a decent number of commonalities, whereas Eo and Elvish, Klingon etc have only one principal thing in common: that they are constructed languages.

As a somewhat trivial example of the potential risks of clubbing them together, imagine someone who gravitates to Elvish not out of being an LOTR fan but simply for the aesthetic heck of it. He might find it beautiful and whatnot, but the lack of words for, say, 'shampoo', 'jeans', 'byte', 'washing machine' et al. is probably going to leave him with the belief that Elvish is quite useless for everyday communication, and that, by association, Esperanto is equally ill-equipped to deal with the real world.

The popular perception of Elvish et al (which is quite close to the truth, methinks) is that they're learnt by fanboys who desire to immerse themselves as much as possible in the unreal world they've come to love. To have a similar perception attach itself to Eo would be quite perverse, I think, considering that the point of Eo is to talk about anything and everything in this world, this REAL world, and that to start learning it, probably all you need to be a fanboy of is international communication.

Elvish, Klingon and the like are different in so many ways from Eo that putting them together would misrepresent and do injustice to Eo. Kind of like putting the Eiffel Tower and your neighbourhood grocery store together: apart from the fact that they're man-made structures, there's really no comparing them, now, is there?

Absolutely, Rohan, Esperanto must be considered unique, in a class of its own, in being the only artificial language to have come anywhere close to realising its ambition to stand comparison in expressive terms with the 'natural' languages.

However, some forum contributors have clearly (from their posts) come to Esperanto with a very narrow perspective on the language and are prepared to cavalierly ignore its 100+ year history and traditions.

sudanglo:Absolutely, Rohan, Esperanto must be considered unique, in a class of its own, in being the only artificial language to have come anywhere close to realising its ambition to stand comparison in expressive terms with the 'natural' languages.

However, some forum contributors have clearly (from their posts) come to Esperanto with a very narrow perspective on the language and are prepared to cavalierly ignore its 100+ year history and traditions.

From the standpoint of linguistics, what Esperanto has in common with Klingon and Quenya (and a few others) is that it's a constructed language that people have actually learned, and use. Quenya has the further point in common that it continues on after the death of the man who created it.

Of course, the point of dissimilarity is the intent of the languages. Although Esperanto is a fully functioning language, with a unique culture and diaspora, I don't think it has come close to realizing its original ambition, i.e., to function as a universal second language. In the 120+ years since Esperanto was first published, English has made far larger strides toward that status. Moreover, I personally don't believe Esperanto can ever overtake English. I think the "fina venk'" is a delusion. Fortunately my interest in, and fondness for, Esperanto is in no way linked to its original ambition. I like it for what it is now and I enjoy participating in this unique chapter in the history of languages. Esperanto really is an amazing phenomenon. I recognize, however, that speakers of Quenya and Klingon may be motivated by very similar feelings.

Todd

sudanglo:Absolutely, Rohan, Esperanto must be considered unique, in a class of its own, in being the only artificial language to have come anywhere close to realising its ambition to stand comparison in expressive terms with the 'natural' languages.

However, some forum contributors have clearly (from their posts) come to Esperanto with a very narrow perspective on the language and are prepared to cavalierly ignore its 100+ year history and traditions.

I don't know if you're referring to this thread or others, but if it's this thread, then, would you take colours into account when comparing the taste of two different fruit? Probably not, so I don't think we need to take EO's culture and history into account when examining it as an artificial language and when examining the structure and design process behind it.

Otherwise, I feel we risk acting as if biologists were to say "oh no, we're not going to bother examining the human body as an organism any more because humans have culture". Well, we can still examine the body as an organism even if we are special and have culture etc. The body doesn't miraculously undergo a transformation simply because of the culture aspect. Same with Eo.

If misunderstood your intent and you were referring to the topic of changin' the language, then I apologise for misunderstanding.

But anyway, apart from its culture and history, EO isn't much more special than any other artificial language, just as EO isn't much more special than any native language. They're all languages, codifications of ideas, hopes, dreams, imaginations, cultures and so forth. EO really just benefits from its history and culture which makes it a goldmine of information from various global, local and temporal perspectives.

Thank you Rohan and Sudanglo for making the point much more eloquently than I did. I completely agree. Especially with the potential for Eo being "tarred with the same brush" with these other "languages". Languages that have, quite candidly (in my own opinion), have become seen as both the code and the marker of reclusive societal outcasts.

I like the Eiffel Tower analogy. To bolster Sudanglo's important point about "intent," perhaps Eo = the United Nations, while the sci fi languages = a Star Trek convention?

(While I am new, I assume that no Eo congress will ever expect me to come in costume.)

chicago1:perhaps Eo = the United Nations, while the sci fi languages = a Star Trek convention?

Not a bad analogy, in my view.

chicago1: I assume that no Eo congress will ever expect me to come in costume.

Wearing a badge at congresses might be a good idea.

chicago1:Especially with the potential for Eo being "tarred with the same brush" with these other "languages". Languages that have, quite candidly (in my own opinion), have become seen as both the code and the marker of reclusive societal outcasts.

I like the Eiffel Tower analogy. To bolster Sudanglo's important point about "intent," perhaps Eo = the United Nations, while the sci fi languages = a Star Trek convention?

(While I am new, I assume that no Eo congress will ever expect me to come in costume.)

I think it's a lost cause to worry very much about Esperanto's "image". I have found that when it is mentioned to people who are serious about language study, such as linguists and language teachers, the response is always one of polite or not so polite derision. While these people won't criticize you for learning a language that "nobody speaks", such as Cornish, the mere mention of Esperanto is guaranteed to provoke smirks and eye-rolling. In that company, being an Esperantist makes you every bit as much a crank as any Klingon speaker. Make no mistake about that.

With the general public, the situation isn't that much different. Esperanto is perceived for what it is, an eccentric hobby, weird but harmless.

As for costumes, I'll never forget the first time I attended an party of Esperantists and saw one lady wearing an evening dress in a fabric of dark green stars on a pale green background.

Todd