У садржају

Philosophical debate

од Islander, 07. фебруар 2007.

Поруке: 76

Језик: English

Islander (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 00.19.54

It was mentioned that Esperanto did not become what it was supposed to (not yet, anyway). It wasn't clearly stated why.

In my opinion, one of the reason is the influence the US and UK/Commonwealth had over the world in the last century (military, economically, culturally...) and how the english language is a simpler language to learn than most other western languages and probably even simpler than Esperanto itself through immersion by all accessible media (TV, Internet, ...).

What do you think?

erinja (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 00.50.54

Islander:It was mentioned that Esperanto did not become what it was supposed to (not yet, anyway). It wasn't clearly stated why.

In my opinion, one of the reason is the influence the US and UK/Commonwealth had over the world in the last century (military, economically, culturally...) and how the english language is a simpler language to learn than most other western languages and probably even simpler than Esperanto itself through immersion by all accessible media (TV, Internet, ...).

What do you think?
I think that the US and the Commonwealth don't really matter that much. If it's in someone's economic best interest to learn a language, they will. In Zamenhof's time, it would have been French that was the "international language". In the future, perhaps Chinese. I think perhaps that it doesn't take a lot of effort to learn to speak English badly, but it takes a lot to learn to speak it well. Other languages have the work distributed more; there is perhaps more work up-front, then it becomes easier later. I don't know that I would say English is easier than other western languages, though.

pastorant (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 01.47.30

Chinese, in my opinion, is very easy. Grammatically speaking. It has also been said that Indonesian is the easiest natural language. I don't think so as too many words are foreign to a westerner.
But still, Esperanto is easier than any language I know of. It has more structure than a Creole, but yet it's a full language.

dwarf (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 15.44.29

A couple of reasons why Esperanto failed/would fail:
1) It has plenty of left-outs, errors, mistakes and so on. These also include the parts of the language which result in difficulties in learning the language.
2) It's too romanian.
3) Noone needs to learn it. It's not of their economical interest to do so.
4) The pronunciation is not so easy for speakers of some languages.
5) It is not advertised, there are not enough good learning resources and so on.

There might be more to it, though...

erinja (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 19.23.41

dwarf:
2) It's too romanian.
Wow, I thought I had heard all possible arguments against Esperanto, but this is a new one to me. I doubt that most English speakers even have enough knowledge of Romanian to say "Oh, I just can't learn Esperanto, it's too Romanian"

super-griek (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 19.51.07

dwarf skribis:

2) It's too romanian.
Wow, I thought I had heard all possible arguments against Esperanto, but this is a new one to me. I doubt that most English speakers even have enough knowledge of Romanian to say "Oh, I just can't learn Esperanto, it's too Romanian"

I suppose dwarf just had a little English problem. I think (s)he's actually talking about what Esperanto calls 'la latinidaj lingvoj' (I'm not sure about the English translation myself). In that case, I think the criticism is understandable, whereas according to my opinion, it isn't very valid. Perhaps one of the more experienced among you could tell dwarf (and me) more about the Asian-like structure of Esperanto?

Andreo

Islander (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 20.19.43

I don't think Esperanto as any asian-like structure (none voluntary anyway). From what I understand, Esperanto as a Romance (latin) based ethinology (word pool), thus resemblance to any other romance laguage such as French, Italian or spanish (and even Romanian, which is also Romance based), a germanic structure (grammar and word construction basis), which the English language also is, and a slavic phonectic (how things sound).

I must agree, however, the "too-Romanian" even if refers to Romance based latin, would not be it. It can never be "too easy", basically.

erinja (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 21.07.52

My understanding is that Esperanto's structure isn't really that Germanic either. Its agglutinative structure (think: taking a root and adding tons of suffixes) is actually more similar to languages like Turkish, from what I understand.

Islander (Погледати профил) 07. фебруар 2007. 21.35.21

The extent in which Esperanto uses affixes is pretty unique to it (it even is a critic from Esperanto detractors), but prefixes and sufixes exist in all western languages, including all Romance based ones. I was more refering to the ability to merge two or more words to form a different one, where Romance languages are limited to hyphen.

Overall phrase construction, subject oriented gender (as opposed to object oriented of Romance languages), lack of a 2nd person singular pronoun... these are all examples of a Germanic based grammar.

My original Question, however, was not to list reasons why Espenrato did not become official (the fina venko as some may call it), but more to comment on how the English speaking culture, how predominent it became as the US and UK became economically superior and how their movies, music and other cultural artefacts had anything to do with it.

dwarf (Погледати профил) 08. фебруар 2007. 14.23.55

Err, yeah, I meant Romance rather than Romanian.
Or at least I didn't mean the modern Romanian. Although it might be that even that 'Romanian' argument would be valid. But sadly I don't know any Romanian to tell. okulumo.gif

Вратите се горе