Why is English the lingua franca?
Daniel Pfeiffer
scientific and the multinational corporate environment one can expect
to get by in English. Everybody can at least utter some more or less
correct phrases. That is until you go into a mom and pop store in
most countries where you'll be rather lost.
Though English is fairly easy, it is nevertheless hard enough to learn
(arbitrary spelling, pronouncing `th', present continuous tense ...)
Those of us who have gone through this are proud and consider it
feasible, so everybody else can do it too, ok? But honestly, English
is unfair to non-native speakers, all the more so since we will never
really master it and always stick out like a sore thumb among a group
of natives.
What's this got to do with Europe? The EC is pushing the lingua
programme, which makes kids learn some of the about twenty languages
we have in the EC (or maybe only the nine to eleven official ones?).
But behind our backs they are really into English, since they have
seen that already now they can't cope, and more languages are coming
aboard soon. STOP! They have no right to discriminate even the least
spoken languages! They are all part of somebody's culture, and more
important yet, this diversity is part of our common European culture.
People will find themselves having to learn their own language, their
country's official language, which is often not the same and English,
before they can go on to learn a language they may be interested in.
There is an alternative, an easy and neutral language: Esperanto.
This can be learned in a couple of months, and has been shown to give
children a headstart on the next foreign language they learn, because
of it's logical structure and lack of exceptions. Imagine you could
discuss any topic with anybody anywhere since you've both put a little
effort into learning the international language. You could even walk
into any local administration (I mean you _are_ a citizen of Europe)
and understand any form they want you to fill out, because next to the
local language it's printed in Esperanto!
If everyone of us put in a little effort now, just to see what Esperanto
looks like and why it's so easy, maybe we could have a founded discussion
on this.
+---------------+
| * * * |
| * * | Beware - polyglot esperantist
| * * |
| * * |
| * * * |
+---------------+
|
| Daniel Pfeiffer <pfei...@cix.cict.fr>
| Tolosa (Toulouse), Midi-Pyrenees, Europe <pfei...@irit.fr>
|
|
Phil Howard KA9WGN
>Though English is fairly easy, it is nevertheless hard enough to learn
>(arbitrary spelling, pronouncing `th', present continuous tense ...)
>Those of us who have gone through this are proud and consider it
>feasible, so everybody else can do it too, ok? But honestly, English
>is unfair to non-native speakers, all the more so since we will never
>really master it and always stick out like a sore thumb among a group
>of natives.
As a native speaker of Americanized English, I can assure you that this
is one "helluva" dumb, stupid and inconsistent language.
>What's this got to do with Europe? The EC is pushing the lingua
>programme, which makes kids learn some of the about twenty languages
>we have in the EC (or maybe only the nine to eleven official ones?).
>But behind our backs they are really into English, since they have
>seen that already now they can't cope, and more languages are coming
>aboard soon. STOP! They have no right to discriminate even the least
>spoken languages! They are all part of somebody's culture, and more
>important yet, this diversity is part of our common European culture.
>People will find themselves having to learn their own language, their
>country's official language, which is often not the same and English,
>before they can go on to learn a language they may be interested in.
I might see it necessary to learn one's own language, and it might be
useful to learn the official language(s) of the country you live in,
but for the purpose of international commonality, English is NOT the
way it should be.
>There is an alternative, an easy and neutral language: Esperanto.
>This can be learned in a couple of months, and has been shown to give
>children a headstart on the next foreign language they learn, because
>of it's logical structure and lack of exceptions. Imagine you could
>discuss any topic with anybody anywhere since you've both put a little
>effort into learning the international language. You could even walk
>into any local administration (I mean you _are_ a citizen of Europe)
>and understand any form they want you to fill out, because next to the
>local language it's printed in Esperanto!
This is definitely the way to go.
>If everyone of us put in a little effort now, just to see what Esperanto
>looks like and why it's so easy, maybe we could have a founded discussion
>on this.
Perhaps a better approach to teaching language, especially considering the
momentum English already has, is to require that Esperanto be learned as
the PREREQUISITE for ANY second language, including English. Learning a
second language is hard (in proportion to one's age, etc) enough, but learning
Esperanto is plenty easy enough, and makes the next language also easier no
matter what it is.
BTW, when will we be using real Esperanto over the network using the real
Esperanto character codes as defined in the (currently draft) standards of
Unicode and ISO-10646?
--
/***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- ph...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! /
\***************************************************************************/
Przemek Skoskiewicz
Whoa, hold your horses! English "hard enough to learn (arbitrary spelling,
pronouncing `th', present continuous tense ...)"!! Budy, you sound like you
haven't tried to learn anything beside the anglo-saxon variety of languages!!
Try Chinese or Korean! Try any of the Slavic languages (Polish in
particular!). You'll be thankful that there *exists* English and it's so
popular!
There is no natural language (i.e. spoken as a native tongue by a group of
people somewhere on this Earth) in the world that has a better "recognition"
factor or packs as much punch in its verbs. I don't remember where I've read
it, but somebody was arguing that there is no better language for
communication purposes than English: it's compact, the verbs are overloaded
with meaning, and you can get an idea accross fast and with minimum of
grammatical constructs. Why do you think that translators have such a bitch
of a time when translating user interfaces for computer programs? How about
such jargon terms as `window' or `menu'? Why do you think that so many
languages opt to adopt these terms verbatim rather than find their own
equivalents (not for lack of trying, see the efforts by the French Academy in
this area, for example)?
Now, I agree, to become a fluent English speaker (especially with the use of
various idiomatic expressions) it takes plenty of time and practice.
Nevertheless, it is my conviction that English is the easiest language to
learn (again, excluding Esperanto). Tenses? Simple Past, Present and Future
and you will be able to find a job in this country. Add the mastery of the
three action verbs: get, put, and set and you are a native speaker! Haven't I
read somewhere that there are only 3000 words in the vocabulary of an average
American English speaker?!
Well, I'm exagerating, but I don't buy any of Daniel Pfeiffer's arguments. I
don't want to get into a debate over cultural identity, but when it comes to
lingua franca, English gets the nod. Think about it--it didn't happen because
there was a concerted effort on a part of a government to force everyone in
the world to learn English. It just happened. I am a great believer in the
natural course of events.
Esperanto won't fly because it's an artificial language and is not supported
by any society (sorry to say it, even though it has been invented by a fellow
countryman). Same with Latin. They serve their purpose, but nobody is
using them in real life. So, at least for now, English it is. Will it be
superseded by another language? Probably, if you follow the arguments in "The
Fall and Raise of the Great Powers", by Kennedy.
--
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. Przemek Skoskiewicz
293 Boston Post Road West
Marlborough, MA 01752-4615, USA
email: prz...@viewlogic.com
Kurt Swanson
> Think about it--it didn't happen because
>there was a concerted effort on a part of a government to force everyone in
>the world to learn English. It just happened. I am a great believer in the
>natural course of events.
>
franca>> !! (my apologies to everyone who has ever even heard of France...)
Seriously though, while I find fault with almost everything Mr. Skoskiewicz had
to say (sorry about that), it is this idea which begs me to respond...
Isn't it quite possible that England, being the dominant military and
economic power at the time world-wide communication began, had something to do
with it?? Let's not negate colonialism, lest we allow hundreds of thousands of
natives to have died in vain...
--
Kurt Swanson, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
Northwestern University. kswa...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Tony Porczyk
pfei...@cix.cict.fr (Daniel Pfeiffer)
> English is the international language, right?
I don't know, is it? The practice shows it is being used that way
more and more, yes.
> But honestly, English is unfair to non-native speakers, all the more
^^^^^^
> so since we will never really master it and always stick out like a
> sore thumb among a group of natives.
Huh??? Could you speak for yourself?
> The EC is pushing the lingua programme [...] But behind our backs they
> are really into English [...] STOP! They have no right to
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> discriminate even the least spoken languages! [...]
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There is an alternative, an easy and neutral language: Esperanto.
So now you're pushing your own favorite.
> This can be learned in a couple of months, and has been shown to give
> children a headstart on the next foreign language they learn
Oh, so it is really just a help in learning a REAL foreign language
then?
> If everyone of us put in a little effort now, just to see what
> Esperanto looks like and why it's so easy
Look, why don't I make an appointment with reality for you?
One learns a foreign language if one feels he will benefit from it.
Using words like "unfair" is pathetic. If you don't want to
learn English, then don't, who cares? It is you that stands to
benefit. If you feel you will not, then why bother, and why whine?
Better yet, why don't you start a real country where everyone speaks
Esperanto, make it a world power, and then everyone will learn it.
> Reply-Languages: Esperanto, German, French, English
Sheesh... You mean you discriminate against Polish?
Tony
Cindy Kandolf
let's pick a language a fair chunk of people have never even heard of. Heh.
8-)
Seriously, i'm adding my voice to the people who say that there is no reason
for chosing Esperanto. It is *not* a neutral language, getting a
disproportionate amount of its vocabulary and structure from Indo-European
languages, particularly the Romance group. It is nowhere near as widely
spoken as the most widespread of "natural" languages. And, let's face it,
if you're going to fight English as the "international" language, it's a bit
late now. Oh, also... i know quite a few non-native speakers who speak
English just fine. It's a matter of practice, mostly. Some people,
unfortunately, just don't learn languages well once out of their babyhood -
and Esperanto is not going to help those people any.
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu
In this debate where a few programmers and software engineers are trying to
build up some sort of arguments in defense of their preferred programming
language, I guess we can select Cindy, from Norway, as the one who will
have proposed the ultimate arguments. Let us see:
In article <1991Jul28.134749*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Seriously, i'm adding my voice to the people who say that there is no reason
>for chosing Esperanto. It is *not* a neutral language, getting a
>disproportionate amount of its vocabulary and structure from Indo-European
>languages, particularly the Romance group.
Quel est le rapport entre la saucisse et la choucroute ??
> It is nowhere near as widely
>spoken as the most widespread of "natural" languages. And, let's face it,
>if you're going to fight English as the "international" language, it's a bit
>late now. Oh, also... i know quite a few non-native speakers who speak
Geez, I could not have believed it. So, "non-native english speakers"
can even manage to speak english just fine ?? Oh, so, English is not
the exception you would all of us have thought ?
>English just fine. It's a matter of practice, mostly. Some people,
La ve'erite' de la Palisse: "Learning a language (even English, as Cindy
is finely arguing) is a matter of practice". Good, Cindy, the wheel
is reinvented everywhere it seems, even in Usenet debates on languages.
>unfortunately, just don't learn languages well once out of their babyhood -
???????
childhood !!
>and Esperanto is not going to help those people any.
Will English ?
>-Cindy Kandolf
> ci...@solan.unit.no
> Trondheim, Norway
--
Hallvard Paulsen
|>
|> In this debate where a few programmers and software engineers are trying to
|> build up some sort of arguments in defense of their preferred programming
|> language, I guess we can select Cindy, from Norway, as the one who will
|> have proposed the ultimate arguments. Let us see:
|>
|> In article <1991Jul28.134749*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
|> >Seriously, i'm adding my voice to the people who say that there is no reason
|> >for chosing Esperanto. It is *not* a neutral language, getting a
|> >disproportionate amount of its vocabulary and structure from Indo-European
|> >languages, particularly the Romance group.
|>
|> Quel est le rapport entre la saucisse et la choucroute ??
What does this mean?? I have learned English, german and some
frensh but I can't understand a thing. Maybe we all should seek
chinese after all that is the most common language in the world.
(yes I know there are so many dialects in chinese;-)
Hallvard (the Horrible) Paulsen
Bjorn Larsen
In article <1991Jul28....@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
>Geez, I could not have believed it. So, "non-native english speakers"
>can even manage to speak english just fine ??
Some. Not all. As you so eloquently demonstrate.
> Oh, so, English is not
>the exception you would all of us have thought ?
See what I mean?
>Quel est le rapport entre la saucisse et la choucroute ??
Klarer du ikke } skrive en hel posting p} engelsk en gang?
Eller er det bare franko-facismen som stiger til overflaten hver
gang du slapper av?
Bj|rn
giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu
>In article <1991Jul28....@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
>|>
>|> In this debate where a few programmers and software engineers are trying to
>|> build up some sort of arguments in defense of their preferred programming
>|> language, I guess we can select Cindy, from Norway, as the one who will
>|> have proposed the ultimate arguments. Let us see:
>|>
>|> In article <1991Jul28.134749*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>|> >Seriously, i'm adding my voice to the people who say that there is no reason
>|> >for chosing Esperanto. It is *not* a neutral language, getting a
>|> >disproportionate amount of its vocabulary and structure from Indo-European
>|> >languages, particularly the Romance group.
>|>
>|> Quel est le rapport entre la saucisse et la choucroute ??
>
> What does this mean?? I have learned English, german and some
> frensh but I can't understand a thing. Maybe we all should seek
Iti s a standard expression to express one's puzzlement at a rethoric figure
consisting in deducing an argument without relation to the previous
one. Literally: "What is the relation between the sauseage and the sourkraout
(sp. ?)", making an allusion to the two principal ingredients of
a delicious Alsacian dish.
> chinese after all that is the most common language in the world.
Oui, mais les terminaux ascii ou ISO n'acceptent pas encore les
ideogrammes. Gros proble`me.
> (yes I know there are so many dialects in chinese;-)
>
> Hallvard (the Horrible) Paulsen
--
leszek kordylewski
>So instead of picking a language that a fair chunk of people already speak,
>let's pick a language a fair chunk of people have never even heard of. Heh.
>8-)
If they haven't heard of Esperanto, they are simply undereducated.
Won't you agree?
>Seriously, i'm adding my voice to the people who say that there is no reason
>for chosing Esperanto.
Instead of jumping into conclusions, let's try to rely on some
published facts on ESPERANTO, its significance and role in the world today.
Here are some books to consider...
Schubert, Klaus (Ed.), Interlingustics. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs #42, Mouton de Gruyler, Berlin - New York, 1989
Richardson, David, Esperanto. Learning and using the International Language.
Orcas Pub. Co., 368 p., Washington, 1988 ISBN 0-945742-00-2
Lins, Ulrich, Die Gefa"hrliche Schprache (translated in English and Japanese)
Bleicher Verlag, 1988 ISBN 3-88350-023-2
Korolevich, A.I., Kniga ob Esperanto. Naukova dumka. Nauchnoe Izdanie, 253 p.,
Kiev, 1989. ISBN 5-12000985-9
Kuznetzov, S.N., Teoreticheskie osnovy interlingvistiki, Izdat. Univ. Druzh.
Narodov, Moskva, 1987
Forster, Peter G., The Esperanto Movement, Mouton, The Hague - N.Y., 413 p.,
1982.
Tonkin, Humphrey, Esperanto and international language problems. A research
bibliography (4th edition).45 p. Washington, 1977
Problemy interlingvistiki. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Izdat. Nauka, Moskva 1976
Lapenna, Ivo, Esperanto en perspektivo (in Esperanto). UEA-CED, 844 p., London
-Rotterdam, 1974.
Pei, Mario, One language for one world. Devin-Adair Co., New York, 1958
...and some articles:
Esperanto literature and its reception outside the Esperanto
Movement, by van Themaat, W.A. Verloren, Babel: International Journal
of Translation, v. 35 (1), 21-39, 1989
Development of a language for international law: the experience of Esperanto,
by Ralph L. Harry, Language Problems and Language Planning, v.13 (1),
p.35-44, 1989
Linguistic theory and international communication, by Julia Pere, Language
Problems and Language Planning, v.13 (1), p.9-23, 1989
Language policy and a just world order, by Ronald J.Glossop, Alternatives:
social transformation and humane governance, v.13, 3, Jul 1988, 395-409.
International child-to-child correspondence using Esperanto. by Ronald
J. Glossop, Gifted International, vol. 5, 1, 8?-8?,1988
Esperanto: The international language of humor; or, What's funny about
Esperanto?, by David K. Jordan, Humor, International Journal of Humor
Research, v 1 (2) p.143-157, 1988
Esperanto: A unique model for general linguistics, by Aleksandr D. Dulichenko,
Language Problems and Language Planning, v.12 (2) pp.148-151, 1988
Esperanto for chemists. by Douglas A. Portmann, Chemistry Education, vol. 5.,
1, July-Sept 1988, 21-23.
A look into the world of "utopian" languages and their political assumptions:
Esperanto, Newspeak and Basic English. by Norman Berdichevsky, Geolinguistics:
Journal of the American Society of Geolinguistics, v. 14, p. 28-41, 1988
Esperanto: significant features of its phonology, grammar and vocabulary.
by Cecile Low, Geolinguistics: Journal of the American Society of
Geolinguistics, v.14, p 141-159, 1988
La politica d'insegnamento delle lingue nella Comunita Europea: Stato attuale
e prospettive future, by Andrea Chiti-Batelli and Giordano Formizzi,
Armando, 215 pp.p, 1988
Ausdruckskraft und Regelmassigkeit: Was Esperanto furautomatische Ubersetzung
geeignet macht, by Klaus Schubert, Language Problems and Language Planning,
v.12 (2), p.130-147,1988
On the acquisition of Esperanto, by Dan Maxwell, Studies in a Second Language
Acquisition, v.10 (1), p.51-61, Feb 1988
The hope of Esperanto; a made-up tongue celebrates its centenary.
(includes the same article in Esperanto), by J.D.Reed, il, Time, v. 130,
p. 72 (1), Aug 3, 1987.
Language teaching in the federal government: a personal perspective, by Ray
T. Clifford, v.490, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, March 1987, p.137 (10)
Can high-tech save Esperanto? (use as language for economic reasons at EEC)
v. 303 The Economist, May 23, 1987, p. 47 (1)
In search of a common language; after 100 years, devotees of Esperanto are
still pursuing their dream. by John Lee, v. 107,U.S. News & World Report,
March 2, 1987, p. 72 (1)
Doing away with all babble from the Tower of Babel.(Esperanto language)
by Israel Shenker, il, v.17, Smithsonian, Jan 1987, p. 112 (13)
Toward a universal language (column) by Enrique Anderson Imberst, v.39,
Americas, July-August 1987, P.54 (2)
A organizacao do Esperanto, by Geraldo Mattos, Revista Letras, v. 36, 1987,
24-41
American education and global interdependence: On a need for a transcendent
language. by Norman J. Bauer, 18p. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of
the Society of Educators and Scholars (12th, Eastern Illinois University,
Chatrleston, IL, October 2-3,1987)
Toward a dialogue between the sociolinguistic sciences and Esperanto culture,
by Probal Dasgupta, Language Problems and Language Planning, v.11 (3),
p.361-367, 1987
New Testament in Esperanto: Seventy five years. by Hilary Chapman, Esperanto
News, v.14 (2), p. 4-5, 1987
Views of constructed languages, with special reference to Esperanto: An
experimental study. Language Problems and Language Planning, v.11 (3),
p.283-304, 1987
One hundred years of Esperanto: a surwey, by Humphrey Tonkin, Language
Problems and Language Planning., v.11 (3),p. 264-282, 1987
Sto godini Esperanto, by Violin Olianov, Sapostavitelno
Ezikoznanie/Contrastive Linguistics, v.12 (4), p.118-122, 1987
Esperanto lives (International Esperanto Congress in China) by James Fallows,
il. vol. 258, The Atlantic, Dec 1986, p 14 (6)
More Chinese learn Esperanto, Beijing Review, v.29, p.31,May 19, 1986
Behaviors used in peer tutoring, by Nancy A. McKellar, Journal of Experimental
Education, 54 (3), 163-167, 1986
Il fondo librario esperantista nella Biblioteca Comunale dell'Archiginnasio.
L'Archiginnasio, v.81, p.87-184, 1986
Studiar L'inglese dalle elementari -- Problema Europeo: Una proposta nuova
della pedagogia cibernetica. by Andrea Chitti-Batelli, Language Problems
and Language Planning, v.10 (1), p.30-41, 1986
The contribution of the Universal Esperanto Association to the world peace.
by Ulrich Lins, Esperanto Documents 37A, 19 p.,UEA, Rotterdam 1986
The language problem in science and the role of the international language
Esperanto. by Ouyang Wendao and Bruce A.Sherwood, Esperanto Documents 38A,
36 p., UEA, Rotterdam 1986.
A history of the World Youth Organization. by Norberto Salleti. Esperanto
Documents 35A, 15p., UEA, Rotterdam 1986
L'Esperanto vu sous l'angle psuchopedagogique. by Claude Piron,
Bildungsforschung & Bildungspraxis/Education & Recherche,v.8 (1),
p 11-41, 1986
The language problem in tourism. Esperanto Documents 34A,28p., UEA, Rotterdam
1985
Needed: a new language policy in the U.S., by Francesco Cordasco and Luis
Roederer, il., v.113, USA Today, July 1984, p.67 (3)
Creativity and conscious reflection in the use of native andnonnative
languages. by Willem A. Verloren van Themaat, Language Problems and Language
Planning, v.7, n3, p.285-302, 1983
The educational value of Esperanto study: an American view. by Bruce A.
Sherwood, Esperanto Documents 31A, 16p., UEA, Rotterdam 1983
Nihon ni okeru esuperanto undo to mondaiten, by Kei Kurisu, Undoshi Kenkyu,
v.14, p. 108-121, 1984
Zamenhofu jiten no genso, by Toru Kaneko, Gengo, v 12 (10),p.93-95, 1983
Esuperanto no gakushusho, jisho, by Koichi Shimizu, Gengo,v.12 (10),
p. 90-92, 1983
Esuperanto no kicho bunken, by Naokazu Kawasaki, Gengo, v.12 (10),
p. 86-89, 1983
Nihon no gakko ni okeru esuperanto kyoju. by Kiyoshi Matsumoto, Gengo,
v.12 (10) p.81-83, 1983
Esuperanto de nani ga dekiru ka, by Kazuko Kikushima, Gengo,v.12 (10)
p. 77-80, 1983
Esuperanto o hoi-suru gengogaku ideorogii, by Katsuhiko Tanaka, Gengo,
v.12 (10), p. 74-76, 1983
Esuperanto ga gengogaku ni koken-suru mono. by Probal Dasgupta, Gengo,
v.12 (10), p.70-73, 1983
Esuperanto no gengo henka, by Wiki Waseda, Gengo, v. 12 (10)p. 61-64, 1983
Esuperanto no jidai taioryoku, by Koichi Shimizu, Gengo, v.12 (10),
p. 50-53, 1983
Esuperanto no seishin, by Tadao Umesao, Gengo v.12 (10), p30-31, 1983
Talk your way around the world. Mother Earth News, Sept-Oct 1981, p. 56 (1)
One world one language. by Ralph E. Hamil, v. 15, The Futurist, June 1981,
p.16 (3)
Universal language could help science (opinion poll results). v.23, Industrial
Research, Feb 1981, p.244 (2)
Esperanto for computers? [multiplicity of computer languages in use and
resulting programming problems] Economist (London),280:78-9, S,12, 1981
What's happening to Esperanto. v.95, Newsweek, June 16,1980, p. 16 (1)
L'Enseignement scolaire des langues vivantes dans les pays memebres de la
communaute europeenne: bilan, reflexions etpropositions. by Jean Pierre van
Deth, 160p., Association Internationale pour la Recherche et la Diffusion
des Methodes Audio-visuelles et Structuro-globales, Ghent 1979
Plansprachliche Dokumentation. bibl. by Helmar Frank. (in German, Sum. in
English and Esperanto) Nachrichten fur Dokumentation; Zeitschrift fur
Information und Dokumentation, mit Schriftum zu den
Informationswissenschaften. 26: 17-21, F, 1975
The Esperanto language as a literary medium (Ph.D. dissertation), by Margaret
Grace Hagler, Indiana University, publication number AAC121300, source
DAI 32/02A, p.919, pp:450, 1971
Esperanto polskim wynalazkiem, by Leszek Kordylewski, Kalejdoskop Tygodnia
(Chicago), 6 (52) pp. 16-17, 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are many more references on Esperanto published
worldwide, in many other languages. To make the above international list
more complete please share with me the information on the publications
YOU may know.
Please e-mail the bibliographic data of any similar publications
on Esperanto to my address below:
Richard Epenoy
tpor...@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>> This can be learned in a couple of months, and has been shown to give
>> children a headstart on the next foreign language they learn
> Oh, so it is really just a help in learning a REAL foreign language
> then?
Well we don't live in bubbles. In the future Europe we'll be moving
around from one place to another and may have to learn local languages
if we intend to stay. Being able to easily communicate, doesn't make
Cindy Kandolf
I would like to see some -neutral- evidence that Esperanto can be learned
so much faster than English can, particularly to back up the claim that was
made by the original poster that it takes 6 months. Something from a
standard linguistics text, for example. I have studied a bit of linguistics
in my day (and am hardly a programmer or whatever else someone claimed i was...
this is about my only connection with computers), and have never seen a claim
that any language could be learned in six months.
What i consider having -learned- a language, by the way, is having an ability
to carry on a conversation on a wide range of topics in that language, and the
ability to use it in every-day life. (For example, could you find what you
needed in a shop? Make sense of a bus or train schedule? Read simple
assembly instructions?) Perhaps we have differing ideas on this, in which
case i would like to hear the other definitions.
Of the factors which influence how quickly a person can learn a language,
the one which varies with the target language is the amount of difference
between the person's native language (and any other languages he/she has
reasonable fluency in) and the target language. In other words, a native
speaker of Russian will find it easier to learn Polish than Japanese, because
Polish has more in common with Russian. And a Japanese speaker who has a
reasonable command of Polish will find it easier to learn Russian than
another Japanese speaker who does not. Regularity of grammar and spelling
just isn't much help if that regular grammar and spelling is far different
than what you know.
All other things being equal, it wouldn't matter at all what the international
language was. However, all other things are not equal at the moment; at the
moment English is enjoying considerable popularity. This may - probably
will!- change in time. In 200 years, who knows what the "international"
language will be? However, it seems to me that rather than fighting to
get our particular favorite languages a favored position, we should be working
for greater communication with what we've got.
By the way, for those of you who are interested in reading a bit more about
this, i would recommend "An Introduction to Language" by Victoria Fromkin
and Robert Rodman. (I don't have the book with me but can get further
details if anyone is interested.) It has a clear, and i think balanced,
description of attempts at artificial "universal" languages, with an
emphasis on Esperanto. In addition, it's a very readable book (with comic
strips, if you can believe it), and a decent introduction to contemporary
linguistics. As you can probably guess, it was the textbook used in my
introductory class, and yes, it's part of the reason for my interest in
linguistics.
JHenderson
#
#In article <1991Jul28....@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
[the usual paranoid rantings deleted]
#Klarer du ikke } skrive en hel posting p} engelsk en gang?
#Eller er det bare franko-facismen som stiger til overflaten hver
#gang du slapper av?
As Uncle Joe so aptly put it:
"Alla har raett att vara dumma, men naagra misbrukar den raettigheten".
--
--Jeremy
--<egp...@castle.ed.ac.uk>
"It would be a pretty weird society in which drunken teenagers were
more interested in geology than in getting laid." The Independent, 20/7/91
Janis Maria Cortese
>I promised myself i wasn't going to enter this debate again, but here i go:
>
>I would like to see some -neutral- evidence that Esperanto can be learned
>so much faster than English can, particularly to back up the claim that was
>made by the original poster that it takes 6 months. Something from a
>standard linguistics text, for example. I have studied a bit of linguistics
>in my day (and am hardly a programmer or whatever else someone claimed i was...
>this is about my only connection with computers), and have never seen a claim
>that any language could be learned in six months.
Any Esperantist who claims that FLUENCY can be achieved in six months is
having a wet dream. Too few accessible people speak it for fluency to be
achieved so quickly. HOWEVER, I do believe that if Eo were as accessible as
say, Spanish, that fluency in six months is not an unrealistic goal.
Reading skills, however, do mature VERY QUICKLY with Eo. I am currently
reading material far beyond that which I read or can read now in French.
You underestimate the tremendous advantage of extreme regularity. Learn
three simple suffixes and you can conjugate ANYTHING. Try memorizing the
full litany of -re verbs in French and handling them so easily!
>
>What i consider having -learned- a language, by the way, is having an ability
>to carry on a conversation on a wide range of topics in that language, and the
>ability to use it in every-day life. (For example, could you find what you
>needed in a shop? Make sense of a bus or train schedule? Read simple
>assembly instructions?) Perhaps we have differing ideas on this, in which
>case i would like to hear the other definitions.
I think that your basic definition of fluency is good, but expects too much.
Could most people carry on a conversation with a theoretical physicist
about complex conjugate Hamiltonians? How wide does this range of topics
have to be? Again, you underestimate Eo's advantage in regularity, also.
Believe me, you can talk to that shopkeeper MUCH more easily if you don't
have to worry about gender and verb suffixes; it frees your mind up to
think of the WORDS you want to use instead of the mechanics of using them.
>
>Of the factors which influence how quickly a person can learn a language,
>the one which varies with the target language is the amount of difference
>between the person's native language (and any other languages he/she has
>reasonable fluency in) and the target language. In other words, a native
Agreed. But why introduce extra headaches?
>speaker of Russian will find it easier to learn Polish than Japanese, because
>Polish has more in common with Russian. And a Japanese speaker who has a
>reasonable command of Polish will find it easier to learn Russian than
>another Japanese speaker who does not. Regularity of grammar and spelling
>just isn't much help if that regular grammar and spelling is far different
>than what you know.
Tell that to a Japanese person trying to memorize irregular plurals.
>
>All other things being equal, it wouldn't matter at all what the international
Untrue! If there's one out there that can be learned in a minimum of time
and more importantly allows people to meet each other halfway, USE IT!
English IS a marvelous language -- I am a native speaker and damn glad I
learned it as my mother language. The vocabulary is HUGE and allows for
more subtle shades of meaning than most people want or need. However,
a lot of people do see it as an intrusion and WILL NOT LEARN IT even if
the opportunity is given to them. It does have a pretty hairy political
past in places - ask a french Canadian or a Welshman.
A national language always has emotional and political overtones to it.
These complicate matters more than you know.
Besides, we're already graduating tons of people who can't even find the
Soviet Union on a map or think that Tokyo is in China. We don't need any
more complacency. It's also rude to expect somebody to spend eight or
more years of their life to learn our language so WE don't have to work
at all.
>language was. However, all other things are not equal at the moment; at the
>moment English is enjoying considerable popularity. This may - probably
>will!- change in time. In 200 years, who knows what the "international"
>language will be? However, it seems to me that rather than fighting to
>get our particular favorite languages a favored position, we should be working
>for greater communication with what we've got.
Still no reason not to promote an ideal solution.
>
>By the way, for those of you who are interested in reading a bit more about
>this, i would recommend "An Introduction to Language" by Victoria Fromkin
>and Robert Rodman. (I don't have the book with me but can get further
>details if anyone is interested.) It has a clear, and i think balanced,
>description of attempts at artificial "universal" languages, with an
>emphasis on Esperanto. In addition, it's a very readable book (with comic
>strips, if you can believe it), and a decent introduction to contemporary
>linguistics. As you can probably guess, it was the textbook used in my
>introductory class, and yes, it's part of the reason for my interest in
>linguistics.
Here I must absolutely disagree with Cindy's opinion on Fromkin/Rodman's
"emphasis" on Esperanto. They bring it up for less than a page in a 450
page book and do so primarily to shoot it down. It is a good book otherwise
though; we used it in my intro class, too.
Dan Christensen
Now you're in for it! :-)
>I would like to see some -neutral- evidence that Esperanto can be learned
>so much faster than English can, particularly to back up the claim that was
>made by the original poster that it takes 6 months.
Most of the Esperanto speakers in the world are proof of this. But
first let's define our terms. By `learned' I mean at least as good a
knowledge as you go on to describe in your next paragraph. Maybe
fluent would be a better word. And by six months is meant six months
of fairly intensive study. For example, I have been studying Esperanto
for about 7 months but have only been spending about an average of 3
hours per week, which is a total of about 90 hours. I can completely
understand about 90% of the sentences of written E-o and about 80% of
the sentences of spoken E-o, and can speak it and write it well enough
to have an awkward conversation. I don't consider myself to have
`learned' E-o yet, but when you consider how little effort it has
taken, it is quite incredible.
On campus, we have an E-o club and most of the members are doing as
well as I am, if not better. Some started 3 months ago and spend 1
hour/week in class and about 1 hour/week reading and everyone in the
class can understand the most of what the instructor says.
I should mention that I know a bit of French and am not in general
good at learning new languages. It is really an incredible feeling
to be able to progress so rapidly in a new language.
>Of the factors which influence how quickly a person can learn a language,
>the one which varies with the target language is the amount of difference
>between the person's native language (and any other languages he/she has
>reasonable fluency in) and the target language.
>Regularity of grammar and spelling
>just isn't much help if that regular grammar and spelling is far different
>than what you know.
With Esperanto, romance language speakers will have an advantage
when it comes to vocabulary, but the grammar is quite different
from the grammar of any national language and because the grammar
is so regular, it will be *about* equally easy for people of differing
backgrounds to learn. And since many words are built from a small
set of roots, the vocabulary does not present a real problem.
The diverse backgrounds of Esperantists supports this.
Dan Christensen
jdchri...@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca
Peter Mutsaers
M.W.> jdch...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dan Christensen) writes:
D.C.> first let's define our terms. By `learned' I mean at least as
D.C.> good a knowledge as you go on to describe in your next
D.C.> paragraph. Maybe fluent would be a better word. And by six
D.C.> months is meant six months of fairly intensive study. For
D.C.> example, I have been studying Esperanto for about 7 months but
D.C.> have only been spending about an average of 3 hours per week,
D.C.> which is a total of about 90 hours. I can completely
D.C.> understand about 90% of the sentences of written E-o and about
D.C.> 80% of the sentences of spoken E-o, and can speak it and write
D.C.> it well enough to have an awkward conversation. I don't
D.C.> consider myself to have `learned' E-o yet, but when you
D.C.> consider how little effort it has
M.W.> This description suggests to me that Esperanto is only
M.W.> marginall, if at all easier to learn than most other languages
M.W.> then. After 7 months of rather on-off study of Italian I am at
M.W.> about the same level!
M.W.> No thanks. If I am going to make a major investment of time
M.W.> and effort, then I will learn a language which is backed up by
M.W.> history, culture, and people who use it to understand my
M.W.> restaurant orders! (what better preparation for a trip is
M.W.> there than 6 months of studying the language?)
I think the main advantage is not the first things necessary for an
awkward conversation, but rather the getting fluent in the language.
Then come the difficult parts, like irregularities and complex
syntactic constructs etc. But in Esperanto these are absent.
After 6 months of intensive study you can manage yourself quite well
in most languages, but to become fluent make take years more.
In Esparanto this is possible in this time.
This means all speakers can feel quite equal, unlike for example here
on usenet at the moment. While I can express myself quite well in
english, I always have the chance of making stupid mistakes and a
limited vocabulary and ways of subtility in my expressions, therefore
in a discussion like this I can never 'compete' with a native speaker.
This is somewhat unfair I think.
--
Peter Mutsaers email: mu...@fys.ruu.nl
Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht mu...@fysak.fys.ruu.nl
Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-533880
3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
George Antony
> I have studied a bit of linguistics
> that any language could be learned in six months.
A Spanish-speaking friend of mine arrived in Australia with a vocabulary of
perhaps a dozen words. She enrolled in an intensive (5 hours a day) course
in English and, after 3 months, she had what to me seemed a pretty reasonable
command of English. She was certainly able to communicate (perhaps not every-
thing and certainly not as well as in Spanish) and to study. She was
attending courses together with everyone else. She was frustrated as hell
over not being able to keep up with everything, but prevailed.
She has satisfied your definition of proficiency (deleted for brevity) in
less than six months.
> Of the factors which influence how quickly a person can learn a language,
> the one which varies with the target language is the amount of difference
> between the person's native language (and any other languages he/she has
> reasonable fluency in) and the target language.
Sure. Back in Hungary, we had overseas students, and the experience was
very interesting. Now, Hungarian is an oddball language, and one would
expect everybody to start pretty well at the same level (zero). Still,
some Poles learned Hungarian perfectly, most Arabs and Africans almost
as well but with strong accents and the occasional grammatical problems,
and there were some of the Vietnamese who could not, after six years in
Hungary, put together a complex sentence.
I suspect that, apart from the above and the undeniable differences in
individual ability, motivation is the most important thing in learning
a language.
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Antony (gan...@gara.une.oz.au)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark I. Williams
>In article <1991Jul31.211009*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>>I would like to see some -neutral- evidence that Esperanto can be learned
>>so much faster than English can, particularly to back up the claim that was
>>made by the original poster that it takes 6 months.
>Most of the Esperanto speakers in the world are proof of this. But
>first let's define our terms. By `learned' I mean at least as good a
>knowledge as you go on to describe in your next paragraph. Maybe
>fluent would be a better word. And by six months is meant six months
>of fairly intensive study. For example, I have been studying Esperanto
>for about 7 months but have only been spending about an average of 3
>hours per week, which is a total of about 90 hours. I can completely
>understand about 90% of the sentences of written E-o and about 80% of
>the sentences of spoken E-o, and can speak it and write it well enough
>to have an awkward conversation. I don't consider myself to have
>`learned' E-o yet, but when you consider how little effort it has
[...]
This description suggests to me that Esperanto is only marginall, if at
all easier to learn than most other languages then. After 7 months of
rather on-off study of Italian I am at about the same level!
No thanks. If I am going to make a major investment of time and effort,
then I will learn a language which is backed up by history, culture, and
people who use it to understand my restaurant orders! (what better
preparation for a trip is there than 6 months of studying the language?)
cheers,
--
Mark Williams Universitaet Stuttgart
+49 711 121 2484 (w) Institut fuer Nachrichtenvermittlung und Datenverarbeitung
+49 711 121 2477(fax) Seidenstr. 36 7000 Stuttgart 1 Germany
will...@ds0ind5.bitnet nulla seruitis turpior est quam uoluntaria -- Seneca
Ulf Lunde
about the superiority of Esperanto over English)
Mrs Kandolf obviously doesn't know what she's talking about.
To Dan Christensen and Janis Maria Cortese I want to say this:
Just ignore her! She has obviously made up her mind and believes
that her language is becoming an international language! Nothing
you post here will change the minds of Mrs Kandolf or her sam-
ideanoj.
This is sad, but it is not hopeless. I am sure that Cindy
and others like her would change their minds in an instant if
they were where I am now. I am sitting in Bergen, the town of
the 1991 Esperantist Congress, surrounded by thousands of Espe-
rantists from 60 different countries. If she could only see what
I see here, she wouldn't be saying the things she is saying.
All day, all I see are Russians chatting with Americans, Japanese
discussing the weirdest things with Czhecks (sp?), groups of
young (and old) Europeans, Asians, Africans, Australians and
Americans all talking freely and equally with each other, in the
one language they all share: Esperanto. It is a beautiful sight!
The EC and the UN (and other international organizations) have
their language problems. We have found the solution! And it
works perfectly! I can walk up to any Litauanian or Brazilian
here and have a conversation about anything, sing songs together
if we like, conduct business, make friendships across the bor-
ders, even fall in love! All because of Esperanto.
Esperanto is already, despite its very young age,
very accessible, in spite of
the increasing popularity of English and Spanish.
That is because of its simple structure and ease of learning.
It is not an oversimplified language,
it has everything that all other living languages have, except
a complex grammar.
I am convinced that I will never witness any-
thing like this congress with English instead of Esperanto, be-
cause of two major problems with English: It's an in comparison
extremely difficult language to learn and even harder to master,
and it is a national language which will always, always, and
*always* give its native speakers an unfair advantage and prevent
the communication from being equal for all parties. Esperanto is
being learned very well by quite a few people, even without much
chance of practising it, way faster than anyone can learn to speak
(to any extent beyond asking for directions in a city) in English!
If Cindy and her samideanoj think that Esperantists live in a
fantasy world and that English is the true international langu-
age, they ought to try to go to any Asian, South American or
Eastern European country knowing only English and try to
get along anywhere other than in railway stations and inter-
national business environments! I wish them luck! I think that
would make them see that they aren't being too realistic them-
selves, promoting English like that.
In Western
Europe we have all been forced to learn English, and it has
proved itself extremely useful. But the idea of using English
for communication between only non-native English speakers is at
least to me a very repulsive thought (which I see practiced al-
most every day all around me). I make an exception for communi-
cation by computer, since English is indeed the international
language when it comes to technological jargon, and most com-
puter network users still are part of the technologically edu-
cated population.
Anyone can learn almost any language more or less fluently in a
year or less if they get a chance to practise it often. (Of
this I have personally seen hundreds of examples.) It seems
like Esperanto is almost as fast to learn, even though there
obviously aren't vast opportunities for everyday practising
yet. I am an Esperantist myself, and my vocabulary increases
every week, so I am the last to say that E-o is something you
learn and then you are finished learning it, but the point is
that no matter how you see it, it is easier to learn than any
big language, including Spanish.
So imagine if we ever got
close to what E-ists call "La Fina Venketo", when everybody
who speaks more than one language, knows Esperanto! All a-
round you you'd have chances to use it while learning it.
I think that six months would be a too pessimistic estimate
for fluency in such an environment! Children would only need
to take one or two semesters of Esperanto in school, and then
never *need* to learn any other foreign language again for as
long as they live, no matter where they go in the world! Does
anyone still think it strange that many Esperantists deep in-
side carry that little spark of hope, or even certainty, that
it will some day happen?
Admittedly, Esperanto is a language for dreamers, for lingu-
ists, and for "weirdos". But some dreams are worth hoping
for! And looking around me here I sit in the middle of the
Universala Kongreso, I can't help but becoming convinced that
we have found the right track to the start of the road to
unification of mankind. Most of these people aren't lingu-
ists. (Whether or not they are dreamers or weirdos would
take too long to discuss here :-) They are ordinary people
from all over the world! It is incredible what the ability to
communicate freely on an equal basis can do for the flourish-
ing of good in man (and woman)! I advise everyone who has
the chance, to participate next time and see for yourselves!
In 1992 the UK will take place in Vienna. I'll send the nec-
essary forms to anyone who is interested!
Kun koraj salutoj,
Ulf Lunde (kongrespartoprenanto)
Jan Bielawski
<Though English is fairly easy, it is nevertheless hard enough to learn
<(arbitrary spelling, pronouncing `th', present continuous tense ...)
<Those of us who have gone through this are proud and consider it
<feasible, so everybody else can do it too, ok? But honestly, English
<is unfair to non-native speakers, all the more so since we will never
<really master it and always stick out like a sore thumb among a group
<of natives.
I have to disagree. English is by far the easiest Western
language to learn: no cases (everything in Nominative), nouns and
adjectives are never inflected, no gender for nouns to worry about
-- all this is fullproof with only a few exceptions.
<There is an alternative, an easy and neutral language: Esperanto.
<This can be learned in a couple of months, and has been shown to give
<children a headstart on the next foreign language they learn, because
<of it's logical structure and lack of exceptions. Imagine you could
<discuss any topic with anybody anywhere since you've both put a little
<effort into learning the international language. You could even walk
<into any local administration (I mean you _are_ a citizen of Europe)
<and understand any form they want you to fill out, because next to the
<local language it's printed in Esperanto!
It sounds great but realistically it won't work. In the so-called
"real life" people, and businesses in particular, have very very very very
preciously little time to spare and since English is already well-entrenched
and ENORMOUS investments of time and money have been made with English as
a tool nobody will seriously consider learning a *third* language with
uncertain future and with NONE of the material investments.
Problem number 2: Esperanto uses diacritical marks which are a
pain in the neck to use in modern computer communications. It is also
an inflected language (as far as I know) which -- among other things --
would make computer user interfaces a lot more complicated. In English
you just string the words in correct order and there you are. In an
inflected language you have to program in a lot more grammatical rules
in order not to make a computer appear imbecile, an equivalent of
"Ples ring if an ansr is reqird" (Sowa Przemadrzala z Kubusia Puchatka).
Knowing software companies I cannot imagine a company wasting even
one man-hour on that sort of thing.
Jan Bielawski
Computervision R&D, San Diego
j...@calmasd.prime.com
Mark I. Williams
>they were where I am now. I am sitting in Bergen, the town of
>the 1991 Esperantist Congress, surrounded by thousands of Espe-
>rantists from 60 different countries. If she could only see what
>I see here, she wouldn't be saying the things she is saying.
>All day, all I see are Russians chatting with Americans, Japanese
>discussing the weirdest things with Czhecks (sp?), groups of
>young (and old) Europeans, Asians, Africans, Australians and
>Americans all talking freely and equally with each other, in the
>one language they all share: Esperanto. It is a beautiful sight!
I am sure it is a beautiful sight. It is, however, not unique.
>The EC and the UN (and other international organizations) have
>their language problems. We have found the solution! And it
>works perfectly! I can walk up to any Litauanian or Brazilian
>here and have a conversation about anything, sing songs together
>if we like, conduct business, make friendships across the bor-
>ders, even fall in love! All because of Esperanto.
Yes, but you still have exactly the same problem as existed before. For
you to communicate with someone you need a common language, and the only
place where Esperanto is more likely to be the common language than
English is at an Esperanto conference. I suspect learning Esperanto may
be worthwhile for the conferences alone, but please don't try to sell it
as the solution to the world's problems. It ain't, any more than sliced
bread is. That doesn't stop it from being worthwhile.
>Esperanto is already, despite its very young age,
>very accessible, in spite of
>the increasing popularity of English and Spanish.
as far as I remember, Esperanto was invented and had its greatest
popularity *before* English became the lingua franca. After all, before
the second world war, if any language were the lingua franca, it was
French. Does this suggest anything to you? I suspect it means that
unless some country makes Esperanto its official language, and then
becomes very powerful, then it is unlikely thbat Esperanto will be an
important language.
>I am convinced that I will never witness any-
>thing like this congress with English instead of Esperanto, be-
Well, I have experienced the same tthing several times this year. With
English the common language. Everyne who conducts research in my field
can speak English. And you would be very surprised how well most of them
speak it. In every case, the native speakers were well and truly in the
minority, but the common language was English. No problem. Most
Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
Mark I. Williams
>>>>>> "M.W." == Mark I. Williams <m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> writes:
> M.W.> jdch...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dan Christensen) writes:
> M.W.> This description suggests to me that Esperanto is only
> M.W.> marginally, if at all easier to learn than most other languages
> M.W.> then. After 7 months of rather on-off study of Italian I am at
> M.W.> about the same level!
> M.W.> No thanks. If I am going to make a major investment of time
> M.W.> and effort, then I will learn a language which is backed up by
> M.W.> history, culture, and people who use it to understand my
> M.W.> restaurant orders! (what better preparation for a trip is
> M.W.> there than 6 months of studying the language?)
>I think the main advantage is not the first things necessary for an
>awkward conversation, but rather the getting fluent in the language.
>Then come the difficult parts, like irregularities and complex
>syntactic constructs etc. But in Esperanto these are absent.
>After 6 months of intensive study you can manage yourself quite well
>in most languages, but to become fluent make take years more.
>In Esparanto this is possible in this time.
I don't disagree with you that Esperanto has some aspects that make it
easier to learn, but I eriously doubt your statement that it takes years
to become fluent in another language. in an immersion situation, most
motivated people can become fluent in most languages in 3-6 months.
English is usually picked up in around 3 months in my experience. Of
course there is a difference between fluency and perfection. It is next
to impossible to gain native-speaker ability in a language you started
after the age of about 12. On the other hand, the only reason you would
want to be indistinguishable from native speakers would be espionage!
Learning Esperanto because it is a bit quicker than normal modern
languages is, in my view, a bit like looking in the main street for a
cuff-link you lost in the alley because it is brighter there!
On a side track, I am currently learning my fourth foreign language,
and have never found the exceptions to be a problem except perhaps in
examinations. You pick them up as you go along, and nobody is going to
think worse of you because yyou said "I goed down the street" or "Ho
veduto il treno". The meaning and hence the communication is still
there. Who cares? Besides, the exceptions are half the fun!
Complex grammatical constructs are another thing. They certainly cause
pain and heartache. On the other hand, we sometimes want to express some
pretty complicated things. The languages which are short on tense and
mood tend too run wild with aspect, and vice versa. The very simple
languages are often the most difficult when it comes to expressing in
the future perfect conditional or the past continuous!
anyway, don't anybody let this distract them from learning Esperanto! I
have heard the conferences are a real scream. (No :-) here)
giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu
> Problem number 2: Esperanto uses diacritical marks which are a
>pain in the neck to use in modern computer communications. It is also
>an inflected language (as far as I know) which -- among other things --
>would make computer user interfaces a lot more complicated. In English
This is one of the worst arguments one can use. Why don't you modify
these #$%%%@@ computers so that they can handle such marks ? Because
ASCII, representing the US alphabet only, cannot do so ?
If ASCII had been created by the russians or the chinese, what would
you say ? Let's drop the latin alphabet and learn ideograms or the cyrillic
alphabet ?
Why don't you propose just to learn to communicate directly in binary language
instead, only two characters required: 001001110011001100010001111 !!
(Ok, I agree, hexadecimal might be better: 189A0F 4CCE7): only 16 characters
and direct computer mapping !!)
Fortunately, ASCII is now on its way off, thanks to 16 bits coding,
or just the present international 8-bit ISO coding.
--
Le Blouson d'Or
Bob Gray
>All day, all I see are Russians chatting with Americans, Japanese
>discussing the weirdest things with Czhecks (sp?), groups of
>young (and old) Europeans, Asians, Africans, Australians and
>Americans all talking freely and equally with each other, in the
>one language they all share: Esperanto. It is a beautiful sight!
And when they run into problems understanding what each
other is saying they use English to sort the problem out.
>Esperanto is already, despite its very young age,
Esperanto has been around since the middle of the last
century. The fanatics have been claiming that it would
become popular "very soon now" for more than a century.
"young"?!!!
>That is because of its simple structure and ease of learning.
It is no more easy to learn than any other "simple" natural
language.
>I am convinced that I will never witness any-
>thing like this congress with English instead of Esperanto, be-
A lot of people are convinced the Earth is flat. That
doesn't mean that it is.
>fantasy world and that English is the true international langu-
>age, they ought to try to go to any Asian, South American or
>Eastern European country knowing only English and try to
Ive done this. The ONLY language in common was some English.
You are more likely to find someone speaking Venusian (or at
least claiming that they are) than you will find someone
speaking Esperanto.
>proved itself extremely useful. But the idea of using English
>for communication between only non-native English speakers is at
>least to me a very repulsive thought (which I see practiced al-
>most every day all around me). I make an exception for communi-
What!! You mean they DON'T use Esperanto!!!
>cation by computer, since English is indeed the international
>language when it comes to technological jargon, and most com-
And medicine and trade and finance and travel and
engineering and ....
>like Esperanto is almost as fast to learn, even though there
>obviously aren't vast opportunities for everyday practising
For "aren't vast" read "virtually no".
>I think that six months would be a too pessimistic estimate
>for fluency in such an environment! Children would only need
It is an idiotic estimate. If by some miracle there were
suddenly enough people conned into learning the language
that a native speaker base developed, you would discover
that it takes just as long to become fluent in Esperanto as
in any other language.
>to take one or two semesters of Esperanto in school, and then
>never *need* to learn any other foreign language again for as
>long as they live, no matter where they go in the world! Does
What a hideous prospect.
>anyone still think it strange that many Esperantists deep in-
>side carry that little spark of hope, or even certainty, that
>it will some day happen?
The fanatic always carries this "spark" inspite of all
evidence to the contrary.
>Admittedly, Esperanto is a language for dreamers, for lingu-
Fanatics. Daydreaming fanatics in their own fantasy world.
>we have found the right track to the start of the road to
>unification of mankind. Most of these people aren't lingu-
>ists. (Whether or not they are dreamers or weirdos would
The words usualy applied to people who want to "unite" mankind
include fascist, totalitarian and stalinist. You might like
to look them up in a dictionary.
>take too long to discuss here :-) They are ordinary people
>from all over the world! It is incredible what the ability to
The ones who are "ordinary" enough and rich enough to be
fanatical enough to travel thousands of miles to speak to
people in a language no-one else speaks.
That isn't a very common definition of "ordinary".
Bob.
Ken Hardy
>jdch...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dan Christensen) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Jul31.211009*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>>>I would like to see some -neutral- evidence that Esperanto can be learned
>>>so much faster than English can, particularly to back up the claim that was
>>>made by the original poster that it takes 6 months.
>
>>Most of the Esperanto speakers in the world are proof of this. But
>>of fairly intensive study. For example, I have been studying Esperanto
>>for about 7 months but have only been spending about an average of 3
>>hours per week, which is a total of about 90 hours. I can completely
>>understand about 90% of the sentences of written E-o and about 80% of
>>the sentences of spoken E-o, and can speak it and write it well enough
>This description suggests to me that Esperanto is only marginall, if at
>all easier to learn than most other languages then. After 7 months of
>rather on-off study of Italian I am at about the same level!
1) Italian is not English! (the language upon which the comparison is
based in the original article quoted above). Nor is it necessarily
representative of "most other languages." I never studied a word
of Italian, but have limited anecdotal evidence that it is an easy
language. It certainly would be no stretch for it to be easier than
English, in any case.
2) Have _you_ learned Esperanto? (I've not been following all this
that closely). If not, maybe you could reach the same level in 3
months. I.e., comparing your speed learning Italian to someone
else's speed learning Esperanto is meaningless. The point is the
relative ease for the same person, with the same abilities. I'd bet
having learned Italian, Esperanto's vocabulary would be easier for
you. Or visa-versa.
3) But don't put too much stock in comparing one person's speed learning
language A to the same person learning language B. Learning a first
foreign language entails the accquisition of a lot of knowledge
about languages in general that does not have to be learned a second
time for a second foreign language (or your native language(s) where
it is all unconscious).
I would expect this to come somewhat less into play when studying a
language of an entirely different sort from a completely different
language family. I've only ever studied Indo-European languages,
where a lot of concepts, grammer, and vocabulary were shared.
What is needed, as someone asked for earlier, is a comprehensive,
unbiased statistical study involving a large enough sample group to get
a real answer, which all this "Oh, yeah?", "Yeah!", "Oh, yeah?",
"Yeah!" feldercarb will never accomplish.
BTW, I've studied and mostly forgotten :-( Russian, Latin, German,
Spanish, and a little self-study Esperanto. Esperanto was interesting,
but I did not see any practical use for it. Also, I wonder how rich
and versatile a language can be without a history of literature and
everyday use. (My limited study of Esperanto was not enough for me to
answer this question.) Does anyone have any Esperanto puns?
--
Ken Hardy uunet!racerx!ken
racerx!k...@relay1.uu.net
Janis Maria Cortese
>mu...@fysap.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes:
>
>>>>>>> "M.W." == Mark I. Williams <m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> writes:
>
>I don't disagree with you that Esperanto has some aspects that make it
>easier to learn, but I eriously doubt your statement that it takes years
>to become fluent in another language. in an immersion situation, most
>motivated people can become fluent in most languages in 3-6 months.
>English is usually picked up in around 3 months in my experience. Of
Is that how long it took YOU to pick it up? Or are you attempting to
pawn yourself off as an "authority" on picking up English when you're
a native speaker?
Come on. Six months? THREE? I don't know what field you're talking
about, but it sure as hell isn't mine. I'm in physics - in our department
we have Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese in abundance, Spaniards,
Italians, Yugoslavs, Russians (is that the PC term?), Ethiopians, Colombians,
and Americans from everywhere. The foreign students have been here for many
YEARS working on Ph. D.'s, and believe me, nobody would attribute fluency to
any of them.
Highly motivated? These are among the most "highly motivated" people I have
ever known, probably on the planet. They worked like hell to get to an
American university and do research here. They took classes in English, so
you can believe me, they were motivated to know what went on. But fluent?
In a pig's eye.
Face it - English has advantages, but the idioms and the spelling, as well as
the IRREGULARITIES, make it a headache for damn near anyone trying to learn
it. Are you attributing fluency to the Vietnamese waiters who can bring
water to your table when you ask for it? Your standard of fluency is un-
believably narrow, and I'm still astonished that you seriously propose it.
THREE MONTHS? In what universe?
Janis C.
P. S.: If you think Esperanto is so stupid, what the hell are you reading
this newsgroup for? To enlighten us poor wayward idealistic fools with the
cold light of Revealed Truth? Sorry to be so sarcastic, and I TRULY don't
mean to be a bitch (at least not a gold-medal winning one - silver, maybe),
but this whole thing reminds me of the BAC's who periodically bust into
alt.pagan and preach. Again I say, if you don't like Esperanto, post
elsewhere. You won't convert us. Leave us to our "folly"; we like it.
Janis Maria Cortese
>>one language they all share: Esperanto. It is a beautiful sight!
>
>And when they run into problems understanding what each
>
>language.
>
>doesn't mean that it is.
>
>
>You are more likely to find someone speaking Venusian (or at
>least claiming that they are) than you will find someone
>speaking Esperanto.
>What!! You mean they DON'T use Esperanto!!!
>
>And medicine and trade and finance and travel and
>engineering and ....
>
>For "aren't vast" read "virtually no".
>
>It is an idiotic estimate. If by some miracle there were
>suddenly enough people conned into learning the language
>that a native speaker base developed, you would discover
>that it takes just as long to become fluent in Esperanto as
>in any other language.
>
>What a hideous prospect.
>
>The fanatic always carries this "spark" inspite of all
>evidence to the contrary.
>
>Fanatics. Daydreaming fanatics in their own fantasy world.
[etc., etc., etc.]
>
> Bob.
Do you get the idea that this guy posted off of some poor stiff's account
when the aforementioned poor stiff went to the bathroom or something?
*****ATTENTION*****ATTENTION*****ATTENTION*****ATTENTION*****ATTENTION*****
LANGUAGE ALERT*****LANGUAGE ALERT
Any people with delicate constitutions or who are easily offended, press "n".
I've said it before: Buzz off, buddy. We don't like you and we don't care if
Your Majesty hates Esperanto. The next time we decide to do anything according
to your personal prejudices, we'll let you know. Until then, go fuck yourself.
Sorry. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me. Again, for those who are
offended, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm blowing off steam. It's fun,
harmless, healthy, and clears up zits.
Rant complete.
Janis C.
Gregory Bossert
has become the defacto 'lingua franca' is of intrinsic interest to
speakers of gaelic languages, many of which have been superceded or
deliberately suppressed by speakers of english, it is my humble
opinion that the current debate over the validity of esperanto is
not of general interest to readers of soc.culture.celtic. many
apologies if i speak incorrectly for the group, but how's about
we stop the cross-posts, folks!
go raibh maith agat!
footah!
-greg -- gb...@gte.com
Ulf Lunde
> but I did not see any practical use for it. Also, I wonder how rich
> and versatile a language can be without a history of literature and
> everyday use.
Not much richer than its dictionary suggests. Fortunately for Esper-
anto, the language has evolved a lot since its creation, and there is
now also a substantial amount of original literature in Esperanto.
As for everyday usage, Esperanto, unlike all other languages, suffers
from the fact that its speakers are spread thinly all over the planet
and not concentrated in (one) big spot(s). But there are dozens, maybe
hundreds of children who have learned Esperanto from birth (quite a few
of them attended a separate Children's Congress here in Norway during
the Esperanto Congress), and they would gladly and honestly tell you
that it *is* a versatile language suited for everyday use.
> answer this question.) Does anyone have any Esperanto puns?
I think Esperanto is the one spoken language that is the easiest for
pun-making. There are thousands of good examples. Off-hand I can
mention e g the names of the two rock bands who played at an Esperanto
rock concert here in Bergen last Wednesday. Upon first hearing about
them, most people don't react to their seemingly ordinary, simple
names, but their fans know that their names are really puns. One is
called "Persone" ("personally" --- figure out the pun yourself), and
the other "Amplifiki" ("amplify" --- I certainly won't explain the pun
here!).
Ulf Lunde
Ulick Stafford
>
>Janis C.
>
>P. S.: If you think Esperanto is so stupid, what the hell are you reading
>this newsgroup for? To enlighten us poor wayward idealistic fools with the
>cold light of Revealed Truth? Sorry to be so sarcastic, and I TRULY don't
>mean to be a bitch (at least not a gold-medal winning one - silver, maybe),
>but this whole thing reminds me of the BAC's who periodically bust into
>alt.pagan and preach. Again I say, if you don't like Esperanto, post
>elsewhere. You won't convert us. Leave us to our "folly"; we like it.
Don't be bitchy. Have you looked at the header on this sequence. Unfortunately
many of us out here, (well me and I'm sure others) are getting pissed off with
seeing this discussion about esperanto in our newsgroup. Whether we like
esperanto or not this discussion is being inposed upon us by some esperanto
supporters with a massive newsgroups line.
I request that people who wish to continue esperanto discussion edit the groups
line when they follow up to have the discussion limited to soc.culture.esperanto.
It is a little unfair on us other users to have to sift unnecessaritly through
these articles.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 'There was a master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, +
+ born in the holy land of Indiana, + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556 +
+ + ul...@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu +
+ B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt. + ul...@bach.helios.nd.edu +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yang Zhao
Come on , chinese isnt that bad after all - at least you dont get confused
with those stupid tenses and its a total non-sexist lingua :^)
BTW, all chinese dialects share the same written form, the so-called "hanzi",
which is more like an art form than a medium - even Japanese and
Korean use these in formal circumstances.
> Hallvard (the Horrible) Paulsen
-Alex
Jesper Lauridsen
>P. S.: If you think Esperanto is so stupid, what the hell are you reading
>this newsgroup for? To enlighten us poor wayward idealistic fools with the
The posting was posted to other groups than s.c.esperanto, groups like
s.c.german, s.c.europe and s.c.celtic. I read it (and your followup in
s.c.german).
>cold light of Revealed Truth? Sorry to be so sarcastic, and I TRULY don't
>mean to be a bitch (at least not a gold-medal winning one - silver, maybe),
>but this whole thing reminds me of the BAC's who periodically bust into
>alt.pagan and preach. Again I say, if you don't like Esperanto, post
>elsewhere. You won't convert us. Leave us to our "folly"; we like it.
It WAS posted elsewhere. The one you should complain to is the guy who
posted a "english is stupid and esparanto is the way to heaven on earth"
article in a bunch soc.culture groups.
--
|Jesper Lauridsen | |
| Datalogisk Afdeling | "I have things to do and news to read" |
| Matematisk Institut | |
| Aarhus Universitet | - rors...@daimi.aau.dk |
Mark I. Williams
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>mu...@fysap.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes:
>>
>>>>>>>> "M.W." == Mark I. Williams <m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> writes:
>>
>>I don't disagree with you that Esperanto has some aspects that make it
>>easier to learn, but I eriously doubt your statement that it takes years
>>to become fluent in another language. in an immersion situation, most
>>motivated people can become fluent in most languages in 3-6 months.
>>English is usually picked up in around 3 months in my experience. Of
>Is that how long it took YOU to pick it up? Or are you attempting to
>pawn yourself off as an "authority" on picking up English when you're
>a native speaker?
No. My authority is that I have 'picked up' a couple of languages in
which I wasn't a native speaker. I also happen to have spent most of my
life living among people for whom English was not the first language.
>Come on. Six months? THREE? I don't know what field you're talking
>about, but it sure as hell isn't mine. I'm in physics - in our department
>we have Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese in abundance, Spaniards,
>Italians, Yugoslavs, Russians (is that the PC term?), Ethiopians, Colombians,
>and Americans from everywhere. The foreign students have been here for many
>YEARS working on Ph. D.'s, and believe me, nobody would attribute fluency to
>any of them.
Well, you are dealing with people who are either not motivated to gain
fluency in spoken English, or people who are not very good at learning
languages. Note that fluency in a language does not imply full mastery,
and certainly not its becoming a language of choice. It means the person
can communicate on any topic he/she knows enough about. This is the
major goal in picking up a second language. Most Europeans I have lived
with got well and truly to this stage in about three months in
Australia. People from Asia often take a little longer because their
language is less like English. However, I think that if you are branding
your colleages as non-fluent, maybe you should listen again. Just
because they don't get evry sentence correct, or have a strong accent,
does not mean they aren't fluent. Most of them would be worse at
Esperanto, since there is hardly anybody about to practice it with.
>Highly motivated? These are among the most "highly motivated" people I have
>ever known, probably on the planet. They worked like hell to get to an
>American university and do research here. They took classes in English, so
>you can believe me, they were motivated to know what went on. But fluent?
>In a pig's eye.
same comment applies. I disbelieve your claim that they are all that
bad. If that is the case, there is some invisible ray in your department
stopping your colleagues from learning English. Have it checked.
>Face it - English has advantages, but the idioms and the spelling, as well as
>the IRREGULARITIES, make it a headache for damn near anyone trying to learn
>it. Are you attributing fluency to the Vietnamese waiters who can bring
>water to your table when you ask for it? Your standard of fluency is un-
>believably narrow, and I'm still astonished that you seriously propose it.
Actually, my standard of fluency is the normal one. Fluency doesn't
allow you to enjoy the culture of the language, but it allows you to
communicate. That is the purpose of a lingua franca.
>P. S.: If you think Esperanto is so stupid, what the hell are you reading
>this newsgroup for? To enlighten us poor wayward idealistic fools with the
>cold light of Revealed Truth? Sorry to be so sarcastic, and I TRULY don't
>mean to be a bitch (at least not a gold-medal winning one - silver, maybe),
Actually, I think this thread was started by someone from the Esperanto
group who just 'thought' they would start an argument by proposing
Esperanto as the solution to the world's ills in some soc.culture groups
and cross-post it to the esperanto group. I *don't* read the esperanto
group, and never have. I would not dream of saying Esperanto was no
good. I just take serious issue with the statements of some fanatics who
have been claiming it will solve the world's ills since Latin was the
lingua franca! Heavens, I might even learn Esperanto one day. (Or over a
rainy weekend, if the claims of the faithful are true.)
As to your not meaning to be a gold-medal winning bitch, well, we often
do things without meaning it. In the famous words of Goetz, "Du kannst
mich, wo ich mich nicht selber kann!"
Kevin Caskey
I never was too much into Esperanto, but if it clears up zits.......
Kevin at U dub
Richard van de Stadt
m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> Most Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You sound like you have
a) met most Europeans or
b) done some sort of research among most Europeans
You must have travelled a lot.
Richard
--
R.R. van de Stadt (Richard)
Email: st...@cs.utwente.nl
Wilko Quak
>m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>> Most Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You sound like you have
> a) met most Europeans or
> b) done some sort of research among most Europeans
>
>You must have travelled a lot.
>
English is certainly the language where you can say almost nothing in very many words
Just one example:
"The identity of this official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical
oversight has been the subject of recent speculation is not shrouded in quite such
impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have lead you to assume
and,in fact,not to put a fine point on it,the individual in question was,it may surprise
you to learn,the one to whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of identifying
by means of the perpendicular pronoun."
The above sentence translates to plain English in just 3(yes three,trois,drie,drei) words
I shall leave you with this sentence(or should I say phrase).
Anyone who thinks can come up with solution .please post or mail it
--
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Wilko Quak | email: cwq...@cs.ruu.nl |
| Arnhemseweg 53 +----------------------------------------------------+
| 6711 GR EDE | I still haven't found what I'm looking for. |
Mark I. Williams
>m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>> Most Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You sound like you have
> a) met most Europeans or
> b) done some sort of research among most Europeans
>You must have travelled a lot.
Actually, I do have friends from most European countries. I have been
told until I`m sick of hearing it how easy English is by Germans,
Italians, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, etc. The only ones who don`t keep
telling me how easy English is are the French.
How many people in Eorope have *you* talked to about language. Hint: Try
going to an international conference, and compliment those present on
how good their English is. Personally, It took me a lot longer to learn
English than it took me to learn German. :-)
Wilko Quak
>In <1991Aug...@cs.utwente.nl> st...@cs.utwente.nl (Richard van de Stadt) writes:
>
>
>>m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>
>>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>> Most Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You sound like you have
>> a) met most Europeans or
>> b) done some sort of research among most Europeans
>>
>>You must have travelled a lot.
>>
>English is certainly the language where you can say almost nothing in very many words
>Just one example:
>
> "The identity of this official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical
> oversight has been the subject of recent speculation is not shrouded in quite such
> impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have lead you to assume
> and,in fact,not to put a fine point on it,the individual in question was,it may surprise
> you to learn,the one to whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of identifying
> by means of the perpendicular pronoun."
>
> The above sentence translates to plain English in just 3(yes three,trois,drie,drei) words
>
> I shall leave you with this sentence(or should I say phrase).
> Anyone who thinks can come up with solution .please post or mail it
>
I shall now come with the solution(i've only got correct !! reply):
The dialogue continues:
"I beg your pardon",I said
There was an anguished pause
"It was I",he said
Wilko Quak
>st...@cs.utwente.nl (Richard van de Stadt) writes:
>
>
>>m...@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>
>>[stuff deleted]
>
>>> Most Europeans regard English as the easiest language to learn.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You sound like you have
>> a) met most Europeans or
>> b) done some sort of research among most Europeans
>
>>You must have travelled a lot.
>
>Actually, I do have friends from most European countries. I have been
>told until I`m sick of hearing it how easy English is by Germans,
>Italians, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, etc. The only ones who don`t keep
>telling me how easy English is are the French.
>
>How many people in Eorope have *you* talked to about language. Hint: Try
>going to an international conference, and compliment those present on
>how good their English is. Personally, It took me a lot longer to learn
>English than it took me to learn German. :-)
I may in the position to make a comparison between English and German:
As a speaker of Dutch which seems at first sight(or hearing) much more closely related to German than to
English I found German a lot more difficult to learn.Unlike Dutch & English German still has genders and the
different cases (or is it falls) of nouns and adjectives etc. .Then there were those endless lines of execeptions
I had to learn and by the time I knew them by heart I couldn't remember what their usage was.In English there are only a few
exceptions.One had to learn a list of about 160 irregular verbs ,a process repeated through the years so after 7 years
you knew them well,and you could use them.
That the French never will admit that their language is more difficult than English is I think caused by the still existing
rivalry between the two countries.When in France most French insist on being addressed in French.Both Britain and France are
so proud,(or protective?) of their own language that they forget there are more languages in the world.