Esperanto is already popular in South America and to some extent Asia, I think Esperanto has a better shot in those countries then it ever did in the English speaking world.

When we say that Esperanto is 'popular' in South America and Asia, we are still talking about a level of interest that is beyond miniscule, compared to interest in learning English.

Sorry. Esperanto has a lot of value but most people have never heard of it, and most of those who have heard of it are not even slightly interested in it.

You have to be realistic about these things or you'll spend your life as an Esperantist in perpetual frustration when things aren't going as you hope.

Evildela:Esperanto is already popular in South America and to some extent Asia, I think Esperanto has a better shot in those countries then it ever did in the English speaking world.

Let's see it this way:

There are four countries in BRIC and each has its own language: Brazil has Portuguese, Russia comes with Russian, Indians speak English and China communicates in Chinese.

My hunch is that there are probably a few thousand esperantists in China and Brazil each. In Russia there would be around a few hundred and I would be surprised if you found more than 500 esperantists in India. That's where we are.

I think there would be more speakers of Arabic or Hebrew in any of these countries than speakers of Esperanto combined in all of them. Therefore my answer to your question would be: NO, under given conditions, Esperanto is very very unlikely to play the role of a bridge language between these countries.

The Lernu stat pages gives you a good idea of where most Esperantists come from. Brazil, Russia, and China do have significant amounts of EO learners, but not enough in my opinion for those countries to adopt it as the BRIC language. If you include South Africa, it's even more likely that they would choose English.

Erin is right that you should be realistic. Not meaning to sound discouraging, but keep your expectations for EO low. That doesn't mean stop promoting it, but just don't expect it to grow significantly in such a short period of time.

So to answer the question, yes, it can be. But it is very unlikely.

erinja:English is already very strong in India, since it is seen as the "neutral" language there.

It is regarded more as a prestigious language than a "neutral" language here.

I agree with geo63 that "Indian universities fall far short of rival countries in the quality of teaching and research" and part of the reason is that students have to spend as much time learning English as they spend on research. This is a big big hindrance. But again there are some who feel more comfortable in English here and fortunately or unfortunately these people occupy the echelons of powers in India.

erinja:...

Sorry. Esperanto has a lot of value but most people have never heard of it, and most of those who have heard of it are not even slightly interested in it.

...

That is exactly what I was talking about. Esperanto has yet to gain human trust. It is up to esperanto-speakers (not esperantists, I think, they are too devoted for "fina venko") to show that the language is useful, not to fight with English learning/speaking community because it makes a bad picture of the language and its users.

I don't agree with English option. English is too difficult to be adopted effectively (I mean without any translators) everywhere in the world. Yes, many people learn English or want to learn, but how many of them will actualy be fluent enough to use it freely on the fly - 10%, 15%? There was a study on the subject in Hanover. They tested 4000 students. It turned out that only 1% of them were fluent, but the students themselves estimated that 30% of them were fluent - so they simply lied to themselves. In the end English is not going to solve the language problem of the world. Neither Chinese, Spanish, Arabic or any other natural language. We are doomed to live with the language barrier...

ppk89:'BRIC' stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China, in other words, the emerging economies which will soon dominate the world. However for none of them English is native language so it's not very likely that they will take on English as a main business language.

Do you think that Esperanto could play this role and it would be a good 'opportunity' for it to gain popularity?

Actually, that's half-wrong.
English is super successful in India to the point where they study Indian English often instead of US/British English, just like how Australia now studies Australian English (well, I think they study Indian English... Otherwise they study british English, but I reckon they consider English "their" language more than "someone else's" language, subject to the diversity of opinions in India ).

However in regional areas and towns, they do school in whatever language they want, but in cities your normal school teaches in English like they did/probably still do in South Africa (but SA's different for apartheid reasons).

I mean, English technically became so popular through the fact that it wasn't Hindi (too much troubles trying to make Hindi the official language because it wasn't neutral, but English was well understood enough to be the "impartial medium of communication"). The problem for Esperanto is that there's no "job vacancy" left for it, at least intimately.

That said, code-switching according to wikipedia is still common (unless your first language is English, but only about 250,000 speak it as a first language), but regardless I think India would prefer English over Esperanto.

---

As for the Chinese, they already use it to talk to other asian countries, but they're in a better position to push Chinese as the regional lingua franca - actually, they already are. Although English still has a place, since some countries like to learn Chinese/English (Japan), some like to learn Japanese/English (Indonesia, although I reckon they learn Chinese), and some are having trouble enough learning the language of their country.

geo63:I don't agree with English option. English is too difficult to be adopted effectively (I mean without any translators) everywhere in the world. Yes, many people learn English or want to learn, but how many of them will actualy be fluent enough to use it freely on the fly - 10%, 15%? There was a study on the subject in Hanover. They tested 4000 students. It turned out that only 1% of them were fluent, but the students themselves estimated that 30% of them were fluent - so they simply lied to themselves. In the end English is not going to solve the language problem of the world. Neither Chinese, Spanish, Arabic or any other natural language. We are doomed to live with the language barrier...

Well, we can call it "doomed" or embrace it, and still leave Esperanto as an option for those who wish it. As I alluded to in my previous posts, some people come from countries which aren't English-backgrounded, but still consider English *their* language, for various reasons (but of course, sometimes people don't say that too).

It depends though, I mean, a massive amount of the world was colonised/conquered/shat-on by the English, and while that ranged from ultimately good, to ultimately unchangeable-and-let's-live-with-it, to ultimately bad in some ways (the apartheid should have never had happened in a healthy "colony", at the same time, if not for the English South Africa might have never existed at all). So, it's natural that there's a bucket-load of people who speak English or are interested in English in a way Esperanto can't fulfill, because there's no personal heritage for them. (for me, for example, I have an interest in Latin/French/Old French/German/Polish and Hebrew due to my heritage - Briton mixed with "Prussian" and some Jew (we don't know if they (kitschke/kitschky?) were Prussian or living in between Germany, Poland and Russia, and the Jewish part of the family probably didn't care much about Judaism ))

I guess it's like that for many prospective Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese etc.

Sometimes personal-reasons though are misunderstood for English/Spanish/etc being "better" scientifically speaking, which is a problem indeed.

geo63:

erinja:English is already very strong in India, since it is seen as the "neutral" language there.

Short look at the press:

"The report says Indian universities fall far short of rival countries in the quality of teaching and research, and "poor English is one of the causes".

[...]
India's National Knowledge Commission says "even now, no more than 1% of our people use English as a second language, let alone a first language". "

Considering the most circulated newspaper in the anglosphere is the Times of India, and considering about 11% of their population speaks English apparently (speaks, rather than uses a bit), despite how vast the country is and how much still needs development, they're don't seem to have much trouble with English .

Also, the problem is that Indian English is considered "non-native" (which it technically is), and thus "poor quality", which is utter bollocks, they just speak a different dialect.

Apparently English as spoken in India is quite uniform compared to what you'd expect, perhaps demonstrating that they use themselves as a guide to speak English, and not other countries.

geo63:There was a study on the subject in Hanover. They tested 4000 students. It turned out that only 1% of them were fluent, but the students themselves estimated that 30% of them were fluent - so they simply lied to themselves.

that is interesting. do you have a link to that study?