@Ceigered. Sorry, I can't be bothered repeating the same old arguments over and over again. If you have rather bizarrely forgotten what they are, just do a Google search of the Lernu forums.

ceigered:Anyway, allow me to summarise what I feel are some points people don't seem to mind:

[LISTO]
Esperanto has a foundation on pragmatic regularity.
Esperanto uses a root system to build new words, similar to Latin, while still having some synonyms and loan words to deal with an ever changing linguistic environment.
Esperanto proves that languages constructed for a task can work in lieu of traditional or native languages. It has an interesting 100+ year history.
Esperanto may not use a vocabulary that has an equal amount of words from every language, but it has a vocabulary that is similar to that most common in the world, regardless of its European origins.
Esperanto can be used as "first second-language", to help people learn how other languages and grammar work, before using that to learn other less regular languages.
Esperanto has proven that constructed languages can coexist in the competitive realm of national languages, and that in conjunction with peoples' existing knowledge of languages, can be used to communicate in a fun yet effective manner with those across the globe (and maybe one day past that!), without disallowing people the use of whatever languages they want to use, be they national or constructed languages.[/list]

Yes, that sounds pretty good to me. But I'm still uneasy about the word "constructed". Esperanto has its origins in a proposal which had a consciously systematic basis, but I don't know how to say that in fewer words. Any suggestions?

I also don't see the need to refer to constructed languages in the plural. All of the others, other than Esperanto, are just "me-too" projects with a tiny following. I don't completely rule out the possibility of Esperanto being overtaken by some as yet unborn project at some time in the future, especially if the Esperanto movement doesn't start living in the present, and stop churning out divisive nonsense about how English is a bad thing. But I don't see why we should big up something that is currently insignificant.

Chainy:@Ceigered. Sorry, I can't be bothered repeating the same old arguments over and over again. If you have rather bizarrely forgotten what they are, just do a Google search of the Lernu forums.

I think you may have misunderstood me; I was practically agreeing with you, just pointing out that we might come across as hypocrites if we push across the simplicity when at the same time there's "eternaj komencantoj" hovering around, and from face value it's a strange phenomenon.

EdRobertson:Yes, that sounds pretty good to me. But I'm still uneasy about the word "constructed". Esperanto has its origins in a proposal which had a consciously systematic basis, but I don't know how to say that in fewer words. Any suggestions?

I also don't see the need to refer to constructed languages in the plural. All of the others, other than Esperanto, are just "me-too" projects with a tiny following.

First bit, yeah that is problematic, I felt troubled too since my brain is telling me "well, technically ALL languages are constructed".

How about spontaneously developed? Or does that give the impression that it was all a miracle/act of chance?

--

As for the other constructed languages, I think "me-too" is rather condescending, and Esperanto's a me-too language too (see last words of message).

But to refer to them implies that we are indeed aware, despite being the biggest fish in the pond, that there are others with similar ideas around. In a sense, it makes us look humble, the sort of "good sport", giving a fair go to those worse off, that sort of mentality.

The only people that statement might offend that I can think of are those who think winning is everything, to which I say "don't bother learning Esperanto if you don't like sticking up for the little guy!" ... or "YOU VILL LEARN ZIS LANGVIGE EVEN IF VE HAFF TO FORCE YOU, AND YOU VILL LEARN TO COMPASSION OZZERS!!*"

Why do we want to appear humble and help competitors by even mentioning them? Because we're not apathetic xenophobes/shutins, and because of the good ol' saying:
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

*others, from the Hollywood Dialect of Bad-guy-with-accent-ish.

===
TL;DR reason: There's a lot of people who speak Esperanto who are interested in other conlangs, and to treat them or other languages as if they don't exist is just stirring up the honey pot needlessly when you can just be diplomatic and admit the existence of other conlangs rather than treating Esperanto like it's THE conlang (which it isn't, it too is a "me-too" project. All hail Volapük).

And corporations frequently mention competitors or even work with them. Cooperation has its benefits, even if it's as simple as a slight mention of the slightest possibility that our competitors exist.

If you are trying to sell the idea that a purpose-built language (with properties more suited to the role) is better than a national language for international communication - which is the raison d'être of Esperanto - then it weakens the argument for the adoption of Esperanto if you bring in various 'competitors' as though they had equal status.

As Ed points out the 'competitors' are so far behind the game that it isn't worth bringing them up.

A solution to the 'language problem' is required now or in the near future.

For those who think we shouldn't be critical about English as a solution, let me make the obvious point that, if English were perfectly satisfactory for this purpose, then there would be no need for Esperanto at all.

Esperanto would only have value in proving the point that an artificial ('designer' language if you will) can be made to work.

EdRobertson:

ceigered:Anyway, allow me to summarise what I feel are some points people don't seem to mind:

[LISTO]
Esperanto has a foundation on pragmatic regularity.
Esperanto uses a root system to build new words, similar to Latin, while still having some synonyms and loan words to deal with an ever changing linguistic environment.
Esperanto proves that languages constructed for a task can work in lieu of traditional or native languages. It has an interesting 100+ year history.
Esperanto may not use a vocabulary that has an equal amount of words from every language, but it has a vocabulary that is similar to that most common in the world, regardless of its European origins.
Esperanto can be used as "first second-language", to help people learn how other languages and grammar work, before using that to learn other less regular languages.
Esperanto has proven that constructed languages can coexist in the competitive realm of national languages, and that in conjunction with peoples' existing knowledge of languages, can be used to communicate in a fun yet effective manner with those across the globe (and maybe one day past that!), without disallowing people the use of whatever languages they want to use, be they national or constructed languages.[/list]

Yes, that sounds pretty good to me. But I'm still uneasy about the word "constructed". Esperanto has its origins in a proposal which had a consciously systematic basis, but I don't know how to say that in fewer words. Any suggestions?

I also don't see the need to refer to constructed languages in the plural. All of the others, other than Esperanto, are just "me-too" projects with a tiny following. I don't completely rule out the possibility of Esperanto being overtaken by some as yet unborn project at some time in the future, especially if the Esperanto movement doesn't start living in the present, and stop churning out divisive nonsense about how English is a bad thing. But I don't see why we should big up something that is currently insignificant.

All languages, native or natural, begin with constructed sounds and writting symbols, isn't it ?

sudanglo:then it weakens the argument for the adoption of Esperanto if you bring in various 'competitors' as though they had equal status.

As Ed points out the 'competitors' are so far behind the game that it isn't worth bringing them up.

Did I say they had equal status? No I didn't. Esperanto is spoken by more people. They aren't. Status divide is obvious.

However, status isn't black and white, you can have "lower status" without being insignificant.

It's called give and take. Being friendly.

Esperanto is a so called language promoting equality as far as oppurtuinities and international communication is concerned. It would reveal a very hypocritical side of the Esperanto community to act like the competitors don't exist.

Just as the Queen kissing the babies of commoners is considered great publicity, so would Esperanto being all friendly with other languages.

And since a major hurdle is that people don't like Esperanto BECAUSE it's constructed, it makes sense that while we're promoting Esperanto COEXISTING with national languages, we do the same for constructed languages, otherwise we ourselves are saying that our competitors are worthless, or at least not worth mention.

Otherwise, Esperanto is merely doing to other languages, to those who share SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL IDEAS, exactly what opponents have been doing to Esperanto all along rather unfairly.

And this will only set up more oppurtunities for schisms, splinters, divides etc in the Esperanto community later on, merely REPEATING HISTORY. And we don't need to sow the seeds for an Ido MkIII.

A solution to the 'language problem' is required now or in the near future.

For those who think we shouldn't be critical about English as a solution, let me make the obvious point that, if English were perfectly satisfactory for this purpose, then there would be no need for Esperanto at all.

Esperanto would only have value in proving the point that an artificial ('designer' language if you will) can be made to work.

Is there actually a naturally occuring language problem, or are we "creating" the problem by saying "we've got our product, Esperanto, which is to solve the language problem. And if that problem doesn't exist, we'll say it exists"?

If that's all we need Esperanto for, then we're pretty much buggered if that problem in fact can be overcome with easier means, or if the problem doesn't really exist at all. For that reason, it's best to sell Esperanto on bases that it doesn't have to rely on the existence on a problem to exist itself.

And Esperanto isn't gonna miraculously solve the problems English has encountered, is it? It's gonna run into very similar problems. What happens then? We've gone and promised people that Esperanto WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM, while to them, they're gonna see ESPERANTO DIDN'T SOLVE ANYTHING (people are impatient and want instant results after all).

Seriously, it's not just a freaking fantasy. Mere idealism won't push Esperanto forwards. Remember, you're trying to sell it to people who don't care about it, not to proponents of the language. They don't need to be sold on it, they already are!

sudanglo:Esperanto would only have value in proving the point that an artificial ('designer' language if you will) can be made to work.

Alas it wouldn't have even that given your previous comments, since you'd be treating other conlangs like they don't work.

That sends a message that we think Esperanto is exempt from all logical and laws of the universe, and gives the impression we think of it as some sort of miraculous, god like language, only to fuel those who wish to find flaws in our reasoning and cut us down to size.

Alternatively, it will make us look like chauvinists that didn't get past the 1900's, and are still clinging to old ideologies from the age of nationalistic imperialism (as opposed to something utopian like democratic imperialism, or something scary like corporate imperialism ). Such patriotic reverence for Esperanto seems odd for a group of people who are meant to be promoting global harmony, at least linguistically.

EoMy:All languages, native or natural, begin with constructed sounds and writting symbols, isn't it ?

Presumably . According to Abrahamic tradition though, language came originally from God. I'm only 20 and not 1,000,000,000 years old though, so I can't say myself

Alas it wouldn't have even that given your previous comments, since you'd be treating other conlangs like they don't work.

They might work - who knows. They are simply not tried and tested in the way that Esperanto is.

It's a practical issue Ceiger. We can't hang around for 100 years to see if they can catch up. To convert a project or plan into a real language requires the collaborative effort of a large body of users over an extended period.

In any case there seem to be good theoretical reasons to suppose that Zamenhof's structure for Esperanto (simpla kunmeto de neŝanĝaj elementoj) is the most elegant solution in the field of artificial languages.

If you fancy the chances of Interlinguidge why not have a go at the translation competition I posted - see how you get on translating it into your favourite non-Esperanto constructed language. You'll need the equivalent of NPIV.

What's unrealistic is to suppose you will get anything but short shrift from a bunch of Esperantists.

We don't have to hang around 100 years. Just benefit of the doubt. I don't expect myself to learn every language jsut to verify that they all indeed work, I still treat them like languages. Same thing.

(And Interlingua's had about 60 years, and could be considered a real language by all the strange criteria I've seen here. Whether it meets the criteria to be called a competitor-with-a-chance-as-a-fully-fledged-IAL is definitely something debatable though).

Anyway, the point is to say to people, and those with their own conlang projects "hey, you can use what you like, but Esperanto's here. You can use it too. You don't have to go "oh I already have an international language I don't need another"- you can have two international languages if you want, Esperanto being one of them. Or 3! Or 1000! But none of that means you can't learn EO!".

From this viewpoint, think of it like working with the enemy. Get along with them, get cuddly with them, and they won't try to poison you in your sleep. Otherwise all your efforts for a speedy resolution to the "language problem" will be for naught, no?

In any case there seem to be good theoretical reasons to suppose that Zamenhof's structure for Esperanto (simpla kunmeto de neŝanĝaj elementoj) is the most elegant solution in the field of artificial languages.

The "simpla kunmetado" probably should be something we stress in regards to pedagogical benefits. Traditional language learning in schools doesn't seem to focus on the ability to understand the structure of words, so there's at least a place where Esperanto has quite a lot of power.

If you fancy the chances of Interlinguidge why not have a go at the translation competition I posted - see how you get on translating it into your favourite non-Esperanto constructed language. You'll need the equivalent of NPIV.

I couldn't do them in a way I though satisfactory in Esperanto, so I doubt I could do the same in a way I'd feel satisfactory in any other language. And obviously that doesn't mean Esperanto doesn't work

======

Also, while I don't wish to stand in the way of progress, I don't think there's a rush. Indeed, that feeling that we need to do this IMMEDIATELY, this impatience within us probably only compounds the problem. I reckon most wars, most misunderstandings, most problems in the world are due to impatience or panic due to lack of time.

Esperanto needs to have a culture capable of being chilled, relaxed, yet able to get the job done when required.

Thus:
Reliable, flexible, non-aggressive and not trying to turn everything into a competition (another start of conflicts - also why I take into consideration other solutions instead of Esperanto), friendly, and ultimately a disarming and comfortable, perhaps even addictive? While also calm, collected, and definitely a willingness to explore the unknown, or rehash the already-known.

Esperanto's propagation/propaganda would benefit greatly from such qualities I think.

With respect, I don't agree. I think that goals are far easier to reach when the people who are aiming for them have decided on their goal after thorough consideration, and then follow after that goal with single-minded clarity of purpose, ruthlessness if you like, avoiding distractions. If the goal happens to be 'let's spread Esperanto', I don't think it would be served by saying 'unless you want to do something else, or two, it's up to you!' Practically speaking, while I think a few people would learn 2 IALs or more, I don't think ordinary people would ever do that. Even learning just one seems too much for most people!

However there is one word I wouldn't use to describe the Esperantists I've known, and that's 'ruthless'. EO is pretty small as it is and can use all the help it can get.

I think one of the main first goals of any EO-promotion should be to drive home that it's not 'weird'. Much of the promotion does that pretty successfully.