One of the difficulties that Esperantists have in presenting Esperanto to the general public is how exactly to label it.

Because of the alien nature of the concept of a language that has been artificially constructed, there has been an increasing tendency to present Esperanto as if it were just another natural language like any other, but neutral, in that it is not associated with any particular country.

In my view this spin is misjudged.

There all sorts of difficulties with the idea of neutrality. Is it politically neutral, culturally neutral, linguistically neutral or what? This can quickly lead any discussion of the merits of Esperanto down all sorts of cul-de-sacs.

What Esperanto is 'egalrajtiga', in that it largely puts learners on the same footing without massively giving authority to any particular group of speakers, in the way a national language would.

This remains substantially true even if Esperanto has a certain European flavour. It may be more difficult for the Chinese or Japanese to acquire fluency in Esperanto but they have the same rights over the language, the same privileges as any other speakers.

Thinking of how to succintly express this idea in English, I felt that it might be more profitable to describe Esperanto as an equitable language.

There remains the problem of what word or phrase to describe Esperanto's other big advantage, namely that is artificially constructed and consequently devoid of many of the characteristics of natural languages which so impede acquistion by a non-native speaker learner.

As far as describing Esperanto's construction, I always try to avoid labeling it 'logical' and stress that its grammar is 'regular', there are no exceptions in spelling, nor in grammar.

I like the idea of using different terminology. Indeed it is neutral, but only politically really. We can't begin to properly describe whether it's "physically" neutral or not, since there's so many arguments that could be used. But these forums here show that it's largely politically neutral in the sense of different national governments.

Is there a better way to word that? Since I reckon "politically neutral" could give the impression that Esperantujo is contradictory - we're "all inclusive", yet poltically neutral could technically mean we support isolationism and "social divisionism" or whatever you call support things like caste systems (technically, a caste system could be "egalitarian", but to my knowledge most human caste systems are in heirarchies instead).

Could we just say "Esperanto is egalitarian, equitable, and does not align with any national government (albeit that some national governments are free to align themselves with Esperanto, understanding that the relationship is not mutual)", and shorten that somehow?

sudanglo:One of the difficulties that Esperantists have in presenting Esperanto to the general public is how exactly to label it.

I think I am not the first one, and not very original in claiming that what puts people off Esperanto is its very name - "Esperanto".
It sound so funny, Italian-like, so childish, at least for me - the speaker of Polish. Were it called, sort of "Interlang", "Weltjazyk", or sth like this, perhaps it would be more catchy. I really don't know.

I agree with Solulo that the name itself is a hindrance. In my neck-o-the-woods, "Esperanto" is interpreted as being Spanish, and, for various social and economic reasons, very few people here really want to learn Spanish (or, worse, a "simplified" Spanish, which some assume Esperanto is).

If "equitable" is the most positive descriptive word we can find, we're in trouble.

"Learn Esperanto! It's Equitable!"

Yeah. That just doesn't seem to pack much of a wallop. I mean, it IS true. But if you're looking for something catchy... I'd say keep looking.

Personally, I think it needs to be sold as the first logical step in learning OTHER foreign languages, as that seems to be something even critics of it as an International Language are more likely to accept. If you want to learn French (or German, or Russian, or...) then take a few months or half a year or whatever to learn Esperanto first - if only just as a sort of abstract language template, and not as a real language - and you'll have a solid base from which to learn French (or German, or so on). Which is all completely true.

The upside: people really do get a leg up on learning the language they want to, AND they learn Esperanto.

I don't really see a downside. Even if they eventually give up on their target language due to difficulty or time constraints or etc., they would still have learned Esperanto. Even if they learned it just as an illustration of language concepts, they will quickly discover that they can actually use it as a real language, too!

ceigered:Could we just say "Esperanto is egalitarian, equitable, and does not align with any national government (albeit that some national governments are free to align themselves with Esperanto, understanding that the relationship is not mutual)", and shorten that somehow?

I'd avoid words like egalitarian and equitable like the plague they are. Both are anathema to many in the Anglosphere, because they're always used in the context of the state robbing Peter of his earnings and turning them over to Paul. Consequently the millions who abhor such social engineering will immediately be turned off by the very mention of these words.

RiotNrrd:I agree with Solulo that the name itself is a hindrance. In my neck-o-the-woods, "Esperanto" is interpreted as being Spanish, and, for various social and economic reasons, very few people here really want to learn Spanish (or, worse, a "simplified" Spanish, which some assume Esperanto is).

If "equitable" is the most positive descriptive word we can find, we're in trouble.

"Learn Esperanto! It's Equitable!"

Yeah. That just doesn't seem to pack much of a wallop. I mean, it IS true. But if you're looking for something catchy... I'd say keep looking.

I agree 1000%!!! Not only is "equitable" not catchy, because of its' political connotations it's guaranteed to turn millions of English speakers off Esperanto the minute they hear it.

RiotNrrd:Personally, I think it needs to be sold as the first logical step in learning OTHER foreign languages, as that seems to be something even critics of it as an International Language are more likely to accept. If you want to learn French (or German, or Russian, or...) then take a few months or half a year or whatever to learn Esperanto first - if only just as a sort of abstract language template, and not as a real language - and you'll have a solid base from which to learn French (or German, or so on). Which is all completely true.

The upside: people really do get a leg up on learning the language they want to, AND they learn Esperanto.

I don't really see a downside. Even if they eventually give up on their target language due to difficulty or time constraints or etc., they would still have learned Esperanto. Even if they learned it just as an illustration of language concepts, they will quickly discover that they can actually use it as a real language, too!

This seems a good approach. It's quite possible that many will give up on their target language since they'll find it harder than Esperanto due to the irregularities every historic language has.

Epikuro57:I agree 1000%!!! Not only is "equitable" not catchy, because of its' political connotations...

Actually, I was just trying to demonstrate that "equitable" doesn't work, because it's the sort of word you customarily apply to banks. It's fair, but it's staid and dull. Reliable, yes. Exciting, no. First Equitable Savings and Loan. Your money is safe; you can trust nothing ever happens here.

It's just the wrong word. It does have appeal in popular advertising, but not really the appeal I imagine we would want. It sounds boring. Which is great if you're a bank; not so great if you want to sound fun and/or interesting.

Something like "springboard" (as used in the name of the UK language program - I claim no credit whatsoever) is a much more engaging image.

"Esperanto, The Springboard Language"

Probably could use some polishing, but you know... along those lines. It makes Esperanto sound like it might actually be useful in real life, for a real life goal (helping people to learn a real language that real people really speak), where the usual arguments usually fall on deaf ears (It's fair to everyone? Who cares? I speak ENGLISH. I don't NEED to be fair...)

Solulo:

sudanglo:One of the difficulties that Esperantists have in presenting Esperanto to the general public is how exactly to label it.

I think I am not the first one, and not very original in claiming that what puts people off Esperanto is its very name - "Esperanto".
It sound so funny, Italian-like, so childish, at least for me - the speaker of Polish. Were it called, sort of "Interlang", "Weltjazyk", or sth like this, perhaps it would be more catchy. I really don't know.

Interlang might interfere just as much, since it might make EO sound more like Interlingua

La universala lingvo also can give the wrong impression.

Is there a nickname, using Esperanto words, that we could give it and see how it sounds?

Epikuro57:because of its' political connotations it's guaranteed to turn millions of English speakers off Esperanto the minute they hear it.

I'm not familiar with these political connotations, so I guess that makes me not one of those millions
I'm guessing though this is gonna be some American politics thing that's just gonna make me want to bang my head against a wall somehow though (I'm sorry, Usonanoj, but your political system and my mind don't get along ).

I'd avoid words like egalitarian and equitable like the plague they are. Both are anathema to many in the Anglosphere, because they're always used in the context of the state robbing Peter of his earnings and turning them over to Paul. Consequently the millions who abhor such social engineering will immediately be turned off by the very mention of these words.

I see where this comes from now. I don't think anyone cares about that in Australia though. I think we just see "equitable" as being "equal rights financially" rather than "COMMUNISM!".

And laŭ mi, anyone who finds the idea of equality repulsive because they're jumping several steps ahead and associating it with COMMUNISM! probably isn't gonna learn EO anyway (green flag? internationalist? promotes equality between speakers? COMMUNISM!)

"Esperanto, now with more fireworks".

Sorry. In seriousness, it's really like selling a person something. Which is more about implication than actual words. Exploiting cognitive bias. You know, advertising. But in a way such propaganda tactics would, in my mind, lessen the import and what I see to be the importance of the language --fair communication on an equal footing. But if one were to go with that. I wouldn't use words like "neutrality" or "equitable" at all. Because you're still discussing people are either ignorant of or don't care about. I'd discuss the benefits gained from it. Like it is something *I* have that gives me great personal and social rewards and *you* do not have it. Humans are grouping animals, the bandwagon urge is strong in us. It's a part of our makeup. But, like I said, such approaches are distasteful to me.