Mesaĝoj: 253
Lingvo: English
vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-11 22:52:55
An Esperanto argument!!
(just kidding guys).
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 01:19:39
Well, on the first page, by "suggestions" I mean solutions to some irregularities that I've found in Esperanto.
Like I said, I've been studying interlinguistics for a bit, and I've noticed things that put an enormous burden on Esperanto. In other words, I've found a way to make it simpler.
Unfortunately the Fundamento does not allow changes of this magnitude, so I improvised and modeled the changes in another constructed language.
There are no such things as "good" languages or "bad" languages- only languages. Esperanto is just as much a language as English and Chinese are. One of my arguments though is that it can be made simpler while retaining the essence of an international language.
trojo (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 01:50:39
razlem:Like I said, I've been studying interlinguistics for a bit, and I've noticed things that put an enormous burden on Esperanto. In other words, I've found a way to make it simpler.If I may be permitted to wax philosophical for a moment...
I suppose there are really two ways of managing an IAL's development once it has been created and there has been some initial adoption. One is having a committee (or one person) who considers suggested changes/improvements to the language and officially implements them by fiat as they see fit. The other is to have a rigid, unchanging "core" of the language-- including its grammar structure-- and a vocabulary that evolves similar to how a natural language evolves, namely by changes in general usage by the community at large.
The former approach results in a language that is constantly in flux-- any books you own written in that language that are more than five years old have to be thrown out. The latter approach can result in a stable yet flexible language-- books written in that language can still be read 100 years later, yet the language can still handle new ideas/technologies/etc. Of the two approaches, the former has seemingly been the more popular among languge inventors (see Interlingua, Volapuk, Loglan/Lojban, etc), while the latter has been more successful for creating languages people actually want to learn and speak (see Esperanto, and to an extent Toki Pona).
Time has proven the wisdom of Zamenhof's netuŝebla fundamento idea.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 02:26:15
So if you think you have some improvements, sure, go ahead and make your own new language that is based on Esperanto. But don't be offended when Esperanto speakers aren't receptive to using your changes. The ship sailed on that kind of thing more than 100 years ago. You can't treat a living language like you would treat a proposed language project.
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 03:03:01
erinja:It's a new language that is based on Esperanto.Perhaps it would be for the better. The changes I've made are quite drastic.
erinja:So if you think you have some improvements, sure, go ahead and make your own new language that is based on Esperanto. But don't be offended when Esperanto speakers aren't receptive to using your changes. The ship sailed on that kind of thing more than 100 years ago. You can't treat a living language like you would treat a proposed language project.They would likely have to start learning the language over XD
Glauro (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 04:21:58
Well, I once thought Esperanto could actually become THE Universala Lingvo... however, after learning some things my idea of it changed. Not because of the language, but the spirit of it. Having learned how some stuff in Esperanto truly work and knowing that, as one of you mentioned above, changing the Fundamento would be creating a new language instead of just changing Esperanto itself, I knew it just hadn't the slightest chance.
I mean, if a language is supposed to become a universal language, it ja estas supposed to be adapted, it is supposed to change. The basics of Esperanto are perfect, i'd say, but yes, there are still some flaws, and change is indeed needed if Esperanto is to go worldwide.
Basing a language only in a "fundamento" is not enough.
Basing our thoughts only in a main concept that remains untouched will not give us good results in an evolving world.
At first, men thought planet Earth was flat.
I know that just it wont change, because that would be changing Zamenhoff's work and words; and that is a shame...
That was just my own opinion, do not take it personally.
Peace.
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 04:35:04
If a more universal language came along, would you learn it?
SilverAu (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 04:49:15
Probably not.
trojo (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 04:50:43
razlem:A question for Esperantists then:Define "more universal".
If a more universal language came along, would you learn it?
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-januaro-12 04:57:38