razlem:Miland, how many languages (do you speak/have you tried to learn)?

... is this question supposed to lead to some kind of ad hominem argument?

razlem:Let's review Piron's scenario:

"Let us suppose that centuries after a catastrophe has destroyed our civilization, archaeologists from a new culture little by little rediscover documents written in the languages of the present time, which had vanished till then. One of them uncovers texts in Esperanto and asks him-self how this language is situated relative to the others."

First let's look at how improbable this scenario is. "A catastrophe" is undefined. A flood would not wipe us out, nor an earthquake, not even a nuclear holocaust. This civilization is spread around the world, stretching into the most remote locations. In addition, we have the sum of human knowledge (the internet) accessible anywhere on the planet.

To wipe out this civilization would require a catastrophe of literally astronomical proportions, one that isn't likely to happen, and if it did, would not allow life on this planet to continue in the same way. There would be no archeologists to discover our languages (assuming physical evidence still exists after the catastrophe, which is also unlikely since paper degrades relatively quickly).

It's just impossible for this to happen in the manner that Prion describes. If there are no present languages, then no one survived the catastrophe. But if no one survived the catastrophe, how can there be archeologists? (Or humans, for that matter).

You're fully right, but as Miland has correctly said, this is a mere thought experiment. The article is supposed to show how somebody who does not know anything about the human languages that exist today may analyze samples he found in Esperanto.

Miland:I don't claim to be a linguist like Piron. Languages apart from Esperanto have been only temporary enthusiasms for me.

I asked this just out of curiosity/research (I'm looking at what other languages Esperantists speak).

Though there are a few definitions for "linguist" that I think I should clarify. One is someone who studies linguistics proper (phonology, morphology, syntax- in many languages), one is someone who is skilled in languages (knows many languages, but not necessarily the morphological/phonological details or their relation to other languages), and one is a catch-all term for 'translator/interpreter.'

I haven't yet found any of Piron's work in the field of linguistics proper, so I am hesitant to acknowledge his linguistic objectivity.

Miland:Piron set up a thought experiment to analyse the characteristics of Esperanto, not a scenario which he claimed to be probable. I hold that he reasons well in his analysis of this thought-experiment.

An experiment must be based within logical parameters. If it is not, then there can not be a logical conclusion.

razlem:

Miland:Piron set up a thought experiment to analyse the characteristics of Esperanto, not a scenario which he claimed to be probable. I hold that he reasons well in his analysis of this thought-experiment.

An experiment must be based within logical parameters. If it is not, then there can not be a logical conclusion.

If you leave out the archeologist and see this as a mere comparison of different languages, does that make you find the article less ridiculous?

Yes, very much so.

The article is a good comparison of common linguistic features, but it doesn't mean the language is "asiatic" as implied by the title.

razlem:An experiment must be based within logical parameters. If it is not, then there can not be a logical conclusion.

I suspect that you are using "logical" for "realistic". In this case, the thought experiment is used to analyse the characteristics of a language. These don't, in my view, depend on how unlikely the hypothetical scenario is, since the former is something abstract, a comparison of systems of ideas, which does not depend on the environment. The thought-experiment would be just as valid if we assumed that most of human civilisation had been destroyed by a great war or meteor from space, which only the major national languages survived, and future humans discovered the "Atlantis" of their ancestors (us) including Esperanto texts, and analysed its characteristics.

Miland:I suspect that you are using "logical" for "realistic". In this case, the thought experiment is used to analyse the characteristics of a language. These don't, in my view, depend on how unlikely the hypothetical scenario is, since the former is something abstract, a comparison of systems of ideas, which does not depend on the environment. The thought-experiment would be just as valid if we assumed that most of human civilisation had been destroyed by a great war or meteor from space, which only the major national languages survived, and future humans discovered the "Atlantis" of their ancestors (us) including Esperanto texts, and analysed its characteristics.

I'm using "logical" for "logical." If there are no present languages, then there are no humans. If the major languages survived, there would be no need to hypothesize their relations with each other. The context for it is not logical at all.

The reason why Esperanto is different, Ceiger, is that it is purpose-built and has not evolved higgledy-piggledy with the usual historical jumble.

The ideas that linguists have produced from the study of natural languages have no guarantee of being applicable to Esperanto.

And the way that speakers of Esperanto relate to Esperanto has no parallel in the way that native speakers of natural languages relate to their mother tongue.

It is in this sense that Esperanto occupies a special position that no national language can occupy - not from any magical or divine quality, but because it is a constructed language with different traditions.

razlem:I'm using "logical" for "logical." If there are no present languages, then there are no humans. If the major languages survived, there would be no need to hypothesize their relations with each other. The context for it is not logical at all.

The fallacy here is that languages can die and be reconstructed, either with "Rosetta stones" or related languages that have survived. That was how the Egyptian hieroglyphs were deciphered. One that was done, the linguistic charecteristics of ancient Egyptian could be examined. Piron's thought experiment thus relates to documents in present languages (including Esperanto) which are recovered and deciphered.

sudanglo:The reason why Esperanto is different, Ceiger, is that it is pupose-built and has not evolved higgledy-piggledy with the usual historical jumble.

That's not a feature though. The language has the potential to evolve higgledy-piggledy if not maintained by a regulatory authority, which is what Esperanto has. That's not unique to Esperanto though, since other languages can be 'trimmed' in the same manner.

Esperanto's the clean shaven man who has always diligently shaved off any facial hair possible. Natlangs are bearded men who have never been stuffed shaving. All one needs to do to make the natlang look like Esperanto is teach it how to use a razor.

The ideas that linguists have produced from the study of natural languages have no guarantee of being applicable to Esperanto.

Not a professional linguist, and I don't believe you are either from what I know, but I think it's safe to say that just as the laws of physics are the same throughout the known universe, so to will Esperanto tend to follow the laws of linguistics. Of course, occasionally phycisists and linguists have to rewrite the rules of their fields, but Esperanto hasn't caused that at all.

And the way that speakers of Esperanto relate to Esperanto has no parallel in the way that native speakers of natural languages relate to their mother tongue.

What about native Esperanto speakers?
And people can relate to Esperanto in the same way they relate to other languages they're learning as a second language.

It is in this sense that Esperanto occupies a special position that no national language can occupy - not from any magical or divine quality, but because it is a constructed language with different traditions.

Doesn't make it more special though does it?
English is the only language that's evolved the way it has, with a certain amount of variables influencing the language we speak now.

--

None of this really equals a beneficial feature to Esperanto. Being pristine in history and appearance is nothing more than a status symbol than any practical benefit. Lojban could be argued to be a similar case as could Klingon, and as we can see those languages being "special" in their creation doesn't really add up to much.

Thus why to me Esperanto is just another language. It has positives and negatives, and a culture associated with it. It's not perfectly neutral, nor the best language, just another option, and I once again say we should sell it using very safe language, so that we can present features we think are attractive while A) having substance and B) not giving detractors a field day.

ceigered:

sudanglo:The reason why Esperanto is different, Ceiger, is that it is pupose-built and has not evolved higgledy-piggledy with the usual historical jumble.

That's not a feature though. The language has the potential to evolve higgledy-piggledy if not maintained by a regulatory authority, which is what Esperanto has. That's not unique to Esperanto though, since other languages can be 'trimmed' in the same manner.

The faith that both of you have in "language-planning" is touching, but misplaced. Firstly, Esperanto's "natural" evolution has not contributed higgledy-pigglediness to the design of Esperanto, but order, while, secondly, attempts to replan our living language according to a priori criteria (such as adherence to the "Fundamento") have been known to throw spanners in the works. Let me give you an example of each of those processes at work.

1. Zamenhof's own language during Esperanto's creolisation stage contributed words such as nacionalismo and jurisprudenco. In modern Esperanto, these words have been replaced with naciismo and jurscienco, words more in keeping with Esperanto's principles, not by a planning process, but by the natural gradually evolutionary contributions of the speakers themselves.

2. The original design mistake of basing country names in Esperanto partly on ethnicities, partly on geographical units, resulted in some chaos. Over the years, speakers of Esperanto have gradually attempted to replace this chaos with a system of country names based principally on geographical units, and ending principally in -io, this process enjoying the overwhelming support of Esperanto speakers. In response to this, the "Palestrina school" and some other prominent members of the language's traditional planning authority, the Akademio (or Akademujo, if you prefer), have behaved as if Esperanto is still a project, and have insisted on the revival of the archaic suffix -uj-, in order to try and rescue chaos from order.