3rdblade:... partly, but also the fact that he's a cosmonaut in outer space. Byline photos have a remarkable effect on people's perceptions of 'what the words 'really' mean'. If there was a photo of him as a smiling computer science teacher I guarantee people would not misinterpret his meaning so much.

My real photo would be not interesting. The cosmonaut in the drawing is Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Юрий Алексеевич Гагарин). My Polish name is Jerzy (jeĵi), simply Jurek. So that is why I have chosen this picture - his name resembles mine. And besides I like him a lot. As for writing in English - I have my Collins English Dictionary, old (1995) but superb. All words explained - but the problem is that many English words have many different meanings, so sometimes I chose the one that is not suitable for the intended purpose. I just lack practice. If I learned English at school, teachers would correct me. But since I am on my own, the results are not very high...

The last misunderstanding with may. There is so much explanation in Collins:

may1(meI) vb. past might. (takes an infinitive without to or an implied infinitive) used as an auxiliary
1. to indicate that permission is requested by or granted to someone: he may go to the park tomorrow if he behaves himself.
2. (often foll. by well) to indicate possibility: the rope may break; he may well be a spy.
3. to indicate ability or capacity, esp. in questions: may I help you?
4. to express a strong wish: long may she reign.
5. to indicate result or purpose: used only in clauses introduced by that or so that: he writes so that the average reader may understand.
6. another word for might1.
7. to express courtesy in a question: whose child may this little girl be?
8. be that as it may. in spite of that: a sentence connector conceding the possible truth of a previous statement and introducing an adversative clause: be that as it may, I still think he should come.
9. come what may. whatever happens.
10. that's as may be. (foll. by a clause introduced by but) that may be so.

[Old English mćg, from m~gan: compare Old High German mag, Old Norse m~]



I have chosen 2, but most of you understand it as 1.

Your mistake was that you missed the part of definition 2 that says it is used "especially for a question".

You weren't asking a question, you were making a statement. And when making a statement (not a question), the reader will assume definition 1.

A friendly hint for next time:

You should assume that "may" is nearly always used in the context of giving permission.

Even for definition 2 this is the case. "May I help you?". That is, "Do you give me permission to help you?"

It's a statement of politeness but it has its foundation in definition 1.

Almost any combination of "you" and "may" will be interpreted ask giving someone permission.

If it's "I" with "may", then it is showing politeness 9with the subtext of permission)

If it's the third person with "may", it's a bit more ambiguous. "He may come" can be giving him permission to come, or it could be expressing uncertainty. You would need context to know for sure.

erinja:Your mistake was that ...

Thanks, Erinja. And don't be angry at me. Such things as context come with time and a lot of exercise.

RiotNrrd:... But you are in an uncomfortable middle-space, where you really are good enough to make us think you are fluent (or nearly so), but not quite good enough to avoid the mines.

Anyway, I think you are going to keep running into these misunderstandings until your command of English nuances catches up with your command of the language itself.
...

The conclusion is that at this stage, if somebody has 150h (and only that) to invest in language learning, mastering Esperanto would be a better choice than improving his English, because the latter may be counterproductive...

Altebrilas:The conclusion is that at this stage, if somebody has 150h (and only that) to invest in language learning, mastering Esperanto would be a better choice than improving his English, because the latter may be counterproductive...

Everybody knows that it is not possible to learn a natural language in 150 hrs. I'd say it takes 1500...3000 hrs at least (in a good school, of course). Esperanto is an exception in this field of human activity. But it still requires 200...600 hrs to master. It is true, that you gain progress very quickly due to its low ambiguity. Esperanto verbs mean what they mean, no need to study many weird possible uses (such as "may").

The real question is:

Why esperanto is not so popular?

The answer:

It is not suported. It is even against the profits of superpowers. Always in human history a leading language was the one used by some superpower at that time:

Latin - Roman empire
French - France
German - Germany
English - US/Britain/Australia
...
Chinese - China (future)

Can you see any place for esperanto here? It seems that the need for communication goes only in one direction - to communicate with actual superpower. Esperanto has no chance.

geo63:
It is not suported. It is even against the profits of superpowers. Always in human history a leading language was the one used by some superpower at that time:

Latin - Roman empire

Latin continued to be the leading language of science even during the Middle Ages, when the Roman Empire had already ceased to exist.

For cultural reasons though, Latin garnered respect throughout the world only after it was introduced to the world via the Roman Empire. The idea is that as soon as a superpower is established, it's legacy is bound to stick for a while, it seems.

[LISTO]
Romans -> Latin + Greek -> European langauges through politics, science, lasting cultural impressions
Various Indic powers -> Sanskrit -> Indonesian through politics, cultural spread, Japanese/Chinese(?) through religion
Gehenna (Location relevant to historical Israel) -> Gehenna = Place for wicked through Rabbinical Judaism -> Jahanam (Islam) = Hell.[/list]And so forth

EO o'course has no such impact, as there's no insight, information etc that can be gained from using it (e.g. no knowledge about improvements of infrastructure and technology , religious philosophies (especially the idea of salvation), or anything of that nature, spare the idea of being international (but knowledge of Esperanto is not deemed necessary for that, no doubt a double edged sword for EOists - should we be happy or sad about that? )

darkweasel:Latin continued to be the leading language of science even during the Middle Ages, when the Roman Empire had already ceased to exist.

Due to catholic church supremacy that used Latin as their inner language (which is true up to now). And earlier reign of the Romans spread Latin antic world wide. And Latin was primarily used as the language of cult and science, not as a common language of the masses.

Geo, if you can get hold of a copy of 'Practical English Usage' - should be easy to find a second-hand copy - you would find the ins and outs of English very succintly explained, with memorable examples.

Erinja, I don't think you address the point that Ceiger makes. To say 'just add a translation' or 'go to the Esperanto forums' ignores the issue here.

Because the English forum is so lively and has interesting topics, non-native speakers of English want to participate. But this is awkward for them because of the gulf between being able to read English and being able to write it, but they could participate if posting were permitted in Esperanto as well as English.

Given the character of Lernu and its membership, it seems very likely that the difference in 'vigleco' between the Esperanto Forums and the English forum is likely to persist.

From the point of view of raising the standard among the beginners a bilingual forum would be of substantial benefit.

sudanglo, you are missing my point.

If people wish to have lively and interesting conversations in Esperanto, they should have those conversations in Esperanto. In the Esperanto forums. This forum is for lively and interesting conversations in English. Esperanto forums are for lively and interesting conversations in Esperanto. French forums are for lively and interesting conversations in French.

Let's switch things around. If I am reading an interesting conversation in an Esperanto forum, but my Esperanto is not yet good enough to contribute, no one would dare suggest that I should write my forum posting in English, in the Esperanto forum. That would be absurd. You would tell me to work on my Esperanto in order to contribute; you would tell me to write my message, even in bad Esperanto, because you only learn by doing. It might be very sad that I am unable to contribute to the discussion in Esperanto. But you would never suggest that I post to the Esperanto forum in English, simply because I told you a sad story about how desperately I wanted to participate, but my Esperanto simply wasn't good enough.

Anyway, it seems that the people who are posting in Esperanto to the English forum are able to write English quite well. I can easily understand their English writing. There is no need for them to write in Esperanto to be understood.