Eurolang (was: ESPERANTO)
Phil Hunt
In article <34F94557...@microdelta.es>
dari...@microdelta.es "dariorod" writes:
> Today the Euro, tomorrow a common language. Please visit:
>
> http://www.esperanto.net
>
> Information in your own language (31 languages)
Alternately, you could decide to learn Eurolang instead of Esperanto.
Information about Eurolang is available at the all-new Eurolang website
at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
(it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
recognisability.
Recognisability of words
************************
The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
Esperanto Eurolang English
========= ======== =======
sxipo ship ship
akvo aquo water
konstruado construction construction
ekzisti exist exist
vojo route road
baldaux prox-futurae soon(1)
kvalito qualiti quality
libereco liberiti liberty
Example (1) is interesting: there is no word for "soon" common to
most of EL's source languages, so it makes up a word from 2 existing
roots: _prox_ meaning "near", and _future_ (whose meaning you can
probably guess). The -ae ending denotes that it is an adverb.
Note that Esperanto, unlike Eurolang, uses diacritical marks. These
have been rendered here as a "x" following the letter. This is a
common ascii-ization because "x" isn't used in the Esperanto alphabet.
Size of vocabulary
******************
Both Eurolang and Esperanto use wordbuilding to lower the size
of the vocabulary. However Eurolang does it more, eg:
Esperanto Eurolang English
========= ======== =======
sxipo ship ship
boato shipet boat
How are roots like: erudicio (erudition), erudito (erudite
person), fabelo (fairy tale), fablo (fable) necessary?
It is unnecessary to have eskadro *and* eskadrono.
_Fadeno_ (thread, fishing line) could be replaced by _sxnureto_.
Aesthetics:
***********
I personally find that written Esperanto looks somewhat ugly, because
it has lots of "k"s and uses -j for plurals and -n for the accusative
ending. As Zamenhof put it: "la multaj groteskaj kaj absurdaj finaj 'j'
devas esti aboliciitaj" (the many grotesque and absurd final 'j's must
be abolished).
Affixes
*******
EL tries to make its roots recognisable by adopting a similar spelling
to the source languages. The wordbuilding rules are as regular as
Esperanto's. Eg _solut_/_solution_ is regular, not naturalistic.
I have tried with EL to make the affixes more recognisable than E-o, eg:
E-o EL Example
=== == =========================
-ado -ation konstruado construction
-j -s sxipoj ships
-ano --person vilagxano urbet-person 'villager'
-ulo --person
-aro --grup arbaro arbor-grup 'wood/forest'
-ajxo --carn bovajxo bov-carn 'beef'
mal- un-
eks- ex--
-ebla -abla logxebla habitabla 'habitable'
-eco -iti moraleco moraliti 'morality'
-igi -iz legxigi legaliz 'legalize'
-il --aparat
-in fem-- patrino fem-pater 'mother'
Even when E-o and EL use words from the same source,
the EL version is usually more recognisable, eg:
E-o Mi vidas la sxipojn.
EL Me vid la ships.
I see the ships.
I'm sure more people would recognise the EL version.
--
* * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
* Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
* <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
* * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
Alan Tubman
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> recognisability.
Phil,
Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
Eurolang?
Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
Esperanto?
How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
compared to Eurolang?
The answers to these questions will tell us that
Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
Alan
Tim Rowe
I may be wrong, but that description of EL makes it look heavily biased
towards English speakers. Perhaps that's because you chose to present the
bits that look like English, or perhaps it's a feature of the language based
on the widespread ability to understand English. How is the Acacemie
Francaise going to take to pidgin English as the common European language?
Phil Hunt wrote:
> In article <34F94557...@microdelta.es>
> dari...@microdelta.es "dariorod" writes:
> > Today the Euro, tomorrow a common language. Please visit:
> >
> > http://www.esperanto.net
> >
> > Information in your own language (31 languages)
>
> Alternately, you could decide to learn Eurolang instead of Esperanto.
>
> Information about Eurolang is available at the all-new Eurolang website
> at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
>
> Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> recognisability.
>
Peter T. Daniels
Tim Rowe wrote:
>
> I may be wrong, but that description of EL makes it look heavily biased
> towards English speakers. Perhaps that's because you chose to present the
> bits that look like English, or perhaps it's a feature of the language based
> on the widespread ability to understand English. How is the Acacemie
> Francaise going to take to pidgin English as the common European language?
Eurolang is NOT "pidgin English." "Pidgin" is a technical term; we won't
even know whether Eurolang is pidgin-like until we see its grammar and
have some idea of the size of its vocabulary.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Simon Payne
En artikolo <34F9B83E...@os.com> skribis Alan Tubman
<atu...@os.com> jene:
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Eurolang?
>
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Esperanto?
>
> How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> compared to Eurolang?
>
> The answers to these questions will tell us that
> Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
Sed pli ři ne rakontos al ni. Ři evidente ne eldiros ion ajn pri la
kvalito de lingvo, nur pri la kvanto de lingvo. Sed estus ege pli saře,
se řuste la kvantan argumenton evitegus ćiu Esperantisto. Nome laý tiu
kriterio evidente la Angla havus sufiće bonajn ludkartojn.
Do mi uzu vian supre montritan rezonadon:
* Ću vi povas rakonti al ni, kiom da homoj kapablas legi, skribi, paroli
kaj kompreni la Anglan?
* Ću vi povas rakonti al ni, kiom da homoj kapablas legi, skribi, paroli
kaj kompreni Esperanton?
* Kiom da libroj aý revuoj publikiřas aý publikiřis en Esperanto kompare
kun la Angla?
* La respondoj al tiuj demandoj rakontos al ni, ke la Angla estas la
preferata lingvo internacia.
Hmm. Do evidente jen ne niaj argumentoj, ću? Do same ne temu pri la
argumentoj por aý kontraý la Hunta Eýrolango.
Simono
--
TTT:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/simono/
Retposxto:
1001...@compuserve.com
Mark RISON
Alan Tubman <atu...@os.com>:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > Eurolang [...]
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Eurolang?
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Esperanto?
> How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> compared to Eurolang?
> The answers to these questions will tell us that
> Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
But that's irrelevant. On the same basis you'd be able to
claim that English is the preferred international language,
and that the preferred constructed language in 1887 was
Volapuek. All true, but beside the point.
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Software Engineer English/Esperanto/Francais
Acorn Computers Ltd Tel: +44 1223 725258
Acorn House, 645 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 1223 725358
Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB5 8PB WWW: http://www.acorn.com/
Sean Gabb
In article <34F9B83E...@os.com>, Alan Tubman <atu...@os.com>
writes
>The answers to these questions will tell us that
>Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
And English is the preferred real language.
--
Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own |
E-mail: old....@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual|
<http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" |
Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 |
Edmund Grimley-Evans
|> >The answers to these questions will tell us that
|> >Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
|>
|> And English is the preferred real language.
Nu, Esperanto is the preferred "constructed" language
and Chinese is the preferred non-"constructed" language, evidente.
Phil Hunt
In article <34F9B83E...@os.com> atu...@os.com "Alan Tubman" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> > (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> > on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> > places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> > recognisability.
>
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Eurolang?
Hard to tell. Someone could learn Eurolang from the material on
the website without informing me. However, between 10 and 20 people
have written in Eurolang to me, so that's one datum.
> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> Esperanto?
I've seen estimates between 15,000 and 15,000,000.
I'd guess that the lower figure is approximately the number of
fluent speakers, and the upper figure is approx the number of
people with a slight aquaintance with E-o.
> How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> compared to Eurolang?
Obviously a lot more in Esperanto.
> The answers to these questions will tell us that
> Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
Not at all. Eurolang is about at the same stage now as Esperanto
was in 1887. How many speakers did E-o have then?
BTW, arguably ASL and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages. They
both have more fluent users than E-o.
Phil Hunt
In article <6ddh4j$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
gram...@worldnet.att.net "Peter T. Daniels" writes:
> Tim Rowe wrote:
> > I may be wrong, but that description of EL makes it look heavily biased
> > towards English speakers. Perhaps that's because you chose to present the
> > bits that look like English, or perhaps it's a feature of the language based
> > on the widespread ability to understand English. How is the Acacemie
> > Francaise going to take to pidgin English as the common European language?
>
> Eurolang is NOT "pidgin English." "Pidgin" is a technical term; we won't
> even know whether Eurolang is pidgin-like until we see its grammar
See http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/el/qref.htm
> and
> have some idea of the size of its vocabulary.
See http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/el/dict.htm
To summarise, the Eurolang-English dictionary has 2324 entries, of which
1077 are root words. The others are derived words.
The English-Eurolang dictionary has 3854 entries. Thus it could be
said that each Eurolang root word is approximately equal to 3.5
English words.
These numbers should all be taken as approximate, because (a) there
are no doubt some errors in the dictionaries, (b) there are more EL
words, which I haven't entered into the dictionaries yet.
Phil Hunt
In article <34F9F284...@cix.co.uk> dig...@cix.co.uk "Tim Rowe" writes:
> I may be wrong, but that description of EL makes it look heavily biased
> towards English speakers. Perhaps that's because you chose to present the
> bits that look like English,
This is true, to some extent.
> or perhaps it's a feature of the language based
> on the widespread ability to understand English.
Most Eurolang root words have recognisable cognates in English. Some
that do not are _ante_ ("before"), _capro_ ("goat"), _kohl_ ("cabbage"),
_besen_ ("broom"). Each EL root word is chosen to be as recognizable
as possible to the largest number of EU people as possible.
> How is the Acacemie
> Francaise going to take to pidgin English as the common European language?
EL isn't a pidgin. Although it does have some similarities with
pidgins and creoles.
Alan Tubman
> > The answers to these questions will tell us that
> > Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
>
> Sed pli ři ne rakontos al ni. Ři evidente ne eldiros ion ajn pri la
> kvalito de lingvo, nur pri la kvanto de lingvo. Sed estus ege pli saře,
> se řuste la kvantan argumenton evitegus ćiu Esperantisto. Nome laý tiu
> kriterio evidente la Angla havus sufiće bonajn ludkartojn.
>
> Do mi uzu vian supre montritan rezonadon:
>
> * Ću vi povas rakonti al ni, kiom da homoj kapablas legi, skribi, paroli
> kaj kompreni la Anglan?
>
> * Ću vi povas rakonti al ni, kiom da homoj kapablas legi, skribi, paroli
> kaj kompreni Esperanton?
>
> * Kiom da libroj aý revuoj publikiřas aý publikiřis en Esperanto kompare
> kun la Angla?
>
> * La respondoj al tiuj demandoj rakontos al ni, ke la Angla estas la
> preferata lingvo internacia.
>
> Hmm. Do evidente jen ne niaj argumentoj, ću? Do same ne temu pri la
> argumentoj por aý kontraý la Hunta Eýrolango.
>
> Simono
Simono,
Mi konsentas kun vi. Tamen, mi komparis du kunmetitajn (constructed)
lingvojn. Mi cxagrenigxas pri la konkurenco inter la proponantoj de
artefaritaj internaciaj lingvoj. Ili ofte bagatelas pri negrava aferoj.
Al mi estas grave, ke estas multa da libroj kaj parolantoj de
esperantoj. Tial mi gxin lernas.
Amike,
Alano
Alan Tubman
> > Eurolang?
> > Esperanto?
> > compared to Eurolang?
> > Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
>
> claim that English is the preferred international language,
> and that the preferred constructed language in 1887 was
> Volapuek. All true, but beside the point.
>
> Mark
lingvon kun malmultaj parolantoj. Esperanto dauxras ekde 1887. Estas
facile lerni kaj kun gxi oni povas bone sin esprimi.
Alano
Arnold VICTOR
Alan Tubman wrote:
>
> Mi ne volas lerni lingvon kun malmultaj parolantoj.
Tiu-cxi argumento kontrauxintence malfavoras ankaux al Esperanto.
--
++=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
||<arvi...@mars.superlink.net> ||
|| ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
||<arvi...@mars.superlink.net> ||
|| ||
||"Wer die Fragen nicht beantwortet, hat die Pruefung ||
||bestanden." Kafka, "Die Pruefung" ||
|| ||
||'Kiu ne respondas al la demandoj, tiu sukcesis en la ||
||ekzameno.' Kafka, "La ekzameno" ||
++=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====++
Simon Payne
En artikolo <34FB52B8...@os.com> skribis Alan Tubman
<atu...@os.com> jene:
> Mi konsentas kun vi. Tamen, mi komparis du kunmetitajn (constructed)
> lingvojn. Mi cxagrenigxas pri la konkurenco inter la proponantoj de
> artefaritaj internaciaj lingvoj. Ili ofte bagatelas pri negrava
> aferoj. Al mi estas grave, ke estas multa da libroj kaj parolantoj de
> esperantoj. Tial mi gxin lernas.
Do se vi lernus mallonge post la jaro 1870, vi elektus Volapukon.
<ridante>
Do mi supozas, ke la kvalita kriterio tamen iel rolu. Supozeble ambaý
argumentoj validas - la kvalita kaj la kvanta.
La vera demando estas, ću la kvanta argumento eklipsu ćion alian? Laý mi
ne.
Normalokaze tamen la Esperantistoj estas skizofreniaj. Ili argumentas
por Esperanto kontraý la Angla per kvalito, ignorante kvanton, tamen por
Esperanto kontraý ćiuj aliaj planlingvoj per kvanto, ignorante kvaliton.
Yury Finkel
Simon Payne:
>La vera demando estas, ću la kvanta argumento eklipsu ćion alian? Laý mi
>ne.
>
>Normalokaze tamen la Esperantistoj estas skizofreniaj. Ili argumentas
>por Esperanto kontraý la Angla per kvalito, ignorante kvanton, tamen por
>Esperanto kontraý ćiuj aliaj planlingvoj per kvanto, ignorante kvaliton.
Laux mi, ne ekzistas planlingvo, _tiom_ pli bona kvalite, ol Esperanto, ke
la kvanta argumento igxu malpli grava, ol la kvalita. Alivorte: eble, kelkaj
planlingvoj estas _iomete_ pli bonaj, ol Esperanto, sed ne _tiom_ pli bonaj,
ke oni ignoru ilian neuzatecon...
Krome, oni povas nur eksponente alproksimigxi al idealo. Mi kutime klarigas
tion jene: se Esperanto estas 90%-e ideala, eblas krei ecx 99%-e idealan
planlingvon, sed tio postulos preskaux saman fortoelspezon, kiel por kreo
kaj disvolvigo de Esperanto. Cxu tio indas por nur 9%-a pliidealigo?
(Por disputemuloj: mi prenis nombron 90% nur por ekzemplo).
--
Jurij FINKEL
Simon Payne
En artikolo <888879...@vision25.demon.co.uk> skribis
ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) jene:
> Most Eurolang root words have recognisable cognates in English. Some
> that do not are _ante_ ("before"), _capro_ ("goat"), _kohl_
> ("cabbage"), _besen_ ("broom"). Each EL root word is chosen to be as
> recognizable as possible to the largest number of EU people as
> possible.> .
That would be as strong argument for using german roots.
Peter T. Daniels
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> Most Eurolang root words have recognisable cognates in English. Some
> that do not are _ante_ ("before"), _capro_ ("goat"), _kohl_ ("cabbage"),
> _besen_ ("broom"). Each EL root word is chosen to be as recognizable
> as possible to the largest number of EU people as possible.
Sheesh, you're not even a good propagandist for your own folly.
ante-bellum, antediluvian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ...
caprine (goat-like), Capricorn (the constellation)
kohlrabi (a vegetable; also kohl, an eye cosmetic [etymologically
unrelated])
I don't have anything for besen.
Uzulo
Phil Hunt:
> [...]
>
> Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> recognisability.
IMHO, it's more reliable, regarding the situation when one would
like to say a phrase just a bit more complicated than "I'm eating
gruel"...
> Recognisability of words
> ************************
>
> The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
> harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
> be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
>
> Esperanto Eurolang English
> ========= ======== =======
> sxipo ship ship
> akvo aquo water
> konstruado construction construction
> ekzisti exist exist
> vojo route road
> baldaux prox-futurae soon(1)
> kvalito qualiti quality
> libereco liberiti liberty
>
>
> Example (1) is interesting: there is no word for "soon" common to
> most of EL's source languages, so it makes up a word from 2 existing
> roots: _prox_ meaning "near", and _future_ (whose meaning you can
> probably guess). The -ae ending denotes that it is an adverb.
Equally, the Esperanto -avx ending denotes the same.
> Note that Esperanto, unlike Eurolang, uses diacritical marks.
Among the natural languages of Europe, probably only English and
Dutch successfully use the standard Latin alphabet. _All the rest_
use some kind of diacritics. Old English also used several
"non-standard" letters...
> Size of vocabulary
> ******************
>
> Both Eurolang and Esperanto use wordbuilding to lower the size
> of the vocabulary. However Eurolang does it more, eg:
>
> Esperanto Eurolang English
> ========= ======== =======
> sxipo ship ship
> boato shipet boat
There is also the word "sxipeto" in Esperanto. However, it means
literally "small ship", not "boat".
> How are roots like: erudicio (erudition), erudito (erudite
> person), fabelo (fairy tale), fablo (fable) necessary?
At least the last two denote DIFFERENT things...
> _Fadeno_ (thread, fishing line) could be replaced by _sxnureto_.
It could. However, "fadeno" is also used figuratively (e.g. as
"thread" in Internet). To use "sxnureto" in this sense would be ...
well, IMHO, dubious.
> Aesthetics:
> ***********
>
> I personally find that written Esperanto looks somewhat ugly, because
> it has lots of "k"s and uses -j for plurals and -n for the accusative
> ending.
A matter of personal taste. I personally find it rather logical.
German, for instance, widely used "k" in early borrowings from
Latin. Is it ugly? English has just _one_ ending -S for plural in
most cases. Is it boring or too uniform? Etc.
> Affixes
> *******
>
> EL tries to make its roots recognisable by adopting a similar spelling
> to the source languages. [...]
> I have tried with EL to make the affixes more recognisable than E-o, eg:
> [...]
> -ebla -abla logxebla habitabla 'habitable'
> -eco -iti moraleco moraliti 'morality'
> -igi -iz legxigi legaliz 'legalize'
Seems like the author "volens-nolens" tries to make Eurolang more
near to English than to any other language...
>
> Even when E-o and EL use words from the same source,
> the EL version is usually more recognisable, eg:
>
> E-o Mi vidas la sxipojn.
> EL Me vid la ships.
> I see the ships.
It's disputable. For WHOM? For English speakers?
>
> I'm sure more people would recognise the EL version.
I wish the author every success in his labours, however hopeless,
IMHO. My personal sympathies are with Esperanto which is a much more
well-proven tool for communication and not a simple adaptation of
existing languages...
> Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini.
> Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend.
Eo: Eurolang, lingvo, kiun oni povas ellerni dum unu semajn-fino.
> * * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
> * Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
> * <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
> * * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
--
Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su>
Jens Stengaard Larsen
Mark RISON wrote:
> Alan Tubman <atu...@os.com>:
>
> > Phil Hunt wrote:
> > > Eurolang [...]
> > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > Eurolang?
> > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > Esperanto?
> > How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> > compared to Eurolang?
> > The answers to these questions will tell us that
> > Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
>
> But that's irrelevant. On the same basis you'd be able to
> claim that English is the preferred international language,
> and that the preferred constructed language in 1887 was
> Volapuek. All true, but beside the point.
But what _is_ the point then? I never can tell, when
Phil Hunt's been around.
--
Jens S. Larsen * <"http://dorit.ihi.ku.dk/~steng/index">
David Toube
Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su> wrote:
:
:> Even when E-o and EL use words from the same source,
:> the EL version is usually more recognisable, eg:
:>
:> E-o Mi vidas la sxipojn.
:> EL Me vid la ships.
:> I see the ships.
:
: It's disputable. For WHOM? For English speakers?
Perhaps instead of learning to speak either Eurolang or Esparanto, one
should strive to make oneself understood merely by speaking English
SLOWLY and LOUDLY
. . . I'll get my hat . . .
--
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
Simon Payne
En artikolo <000c01bd468f$d739d0c0$72617cc1@fin. simt ts.mv.ru> skribis
yu...@mv.ru (Yury Finkel) jene:
> Laux mi, ne ekzistas planlingvo, _tiom_ pli bona kvalite, ol
> Esperanto, ke la kvanta argumento igxu malpli grava, ol la kvalita.
> Alivorte: eble, kelkaj planlingvoj estas _iomete_ pli bonaj, ol
> Esperanto, sed ne _tiom_ pli bonaj, ke oni ignoru ilian neuzatecon...
La afero estas pli komplikita. Fakte la mezuro kvalito estas
plurdimensia. Alivorte ekzistas tuta aro da kriterioj, laý kiuj oni
povas mezuri tre diversajn aspektojn de kvalito. Evidente, kvanto estas
pli simpla nocio, estante eble unudimensia - la nombro da parolantoj.
(Mi će tio ja supozas, ke la nombro da libroj estas funkcio de la nombro
da parolantoj.)
Sed priparolante kvaliton, oni unue devas difini, laý kiuj kriterioj oni
entute mezuru řin. Evidente, ćiu planlingvo havis pli aý malpli
diverřantajn desegnumajn celojn. Ekzemple la desegnumaj celoj de LoĽbano
estis ege aliaj ol tiuj, kiujn Zamenhofo havis en la kapo. Pro tio la du
"kvalitoj" estas ne vere kompareblaj. Se mi prenas la kvalitkoncepton de
Esperanto por mezuri LoĽbanon, ři plenumas tiun eble je nur 2%. Inverse,
LoĽbano plenumas la desegnumcelojn de Esperanto same je nur 2%. Kompare,
Esperanto kaj Interlingvo eble reciproke mezuris sin je 50%.
Vi pli poste supozis, ke Esperanto plenumas la kvalitpostulojn por
internacia planlingvo je (arbitra) 90%. Pro tio apenaý valoras la penon
ţanři al alia planlingvo, kiu eble atingus 95%. Tio estas memkompreneble
ne malvera.
Sed aliflanke, ege ne estas klare, ke la desegumkriterioj de Esperanto -
jen fakte ideoj naskiřintaj en la antaýa jarcento - kongruas kun la
hodiaýaj postuloj por internacie uzebla planlingvo. Ni ne forgesu, ke
Zamenhofo fakte desegnumis sian planlingvon laý sia tiama koncepto pri
la "internacia mondo". Efektive jam la nocio "mondo" dum longa tempo
estis pli ol nur iomete limigata. Tute honeste, simple ţanři
"flugmaţino" al "aviadilo" ne sufićas.
Do, se la kvalito de planlingvo de projekto al projekto povas vere nur
eksponenciale proksimiři al la optimumo de la "ideala" kvalito, nu, se
Esperanto estus jam sur la 90%a nivelo, mi plene akordus kun vi, ke vere
ne valorus la penon "ţanři la ćevalon duonvoje traire de la rivero".
Tamen, kion fari, se ni estas atingintaj nur la nivelon de 50%? Ću
tiuokaze niaj centmiloj da krokodiloj vere rajtu malhelpi kompletan
refasonadon aý la kreon de ideala solvo?
Ću nur, ćar en kelkaj industriţtataj urbegoj el miliono da ties lořantoj
50 pagas iun E-kluban kotizon, jen valida motivo akcepti specife
Esperanton por io ajn?
Simon Payne
En artikolo <35000726...@news.qmw.ac.uk> skribis
D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube) jene:
> Perhaps instead of learning to speak either Eurolang or Esparanto, one
> should strive to make oneself understood merely by speaking English
> SLOWLY and LOUDLY
>
> . . . I'll get my hat . . .
Kiom vere!
Stelverd Malsteletflav
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <34F9B83E...@os.com> atu...@os.com "Alan Tubman" writes:
> > Phil Hunt wrote:
> > > (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> > > on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> > > places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> > > recognisability.
isi kio? :)
> >
> > Phil,
> > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > Eurolang?
>
> Hard to tell. Someone could learn Eurolang from the material on
> the website without informing me. However, between 10 and 20 people
> have written in Eurolang to me, so that's one datum.
Cxu flue parolas gxin la mil-ono, t.e. 0'???15 homoj, kompare al la, vi
mem diris,...
>
> > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > Esperanto?
>
> I've seen estimates between 15,000 and 15,000,000.
Aj ges aj am uxan of de 15,000... ;)
> I'd guess that the lower figure is approximately the number of
> fluent speakers, and the upper figure is approx the number of
> people with a slight aquaintance with E-o.
>
> > How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> > compared to Eurolang?
>
> Obviously a lot more in Esperanto.
Tio suficxas, cele al elekto de helpa lingvo internacia, cxu ne?
> > The answers to these questions will tell us that
> > Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
Evidente...
> Not at all. Eurolang is about at the same stage now as Esperanto
> was in 1887. How many speakers did E-o have then?
Kiom da parolantoj havos Eurolang post 111 jaroj, kara?
>
> BTW, arguably ASL and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages. They
> both have more fluent users than E-o.
BTW ???, ASL ???
Modern hebrew estas nacia aux popola lingvo, ne internacia kaj
interpopola. Tutsimple.
> * * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
> * Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
> * <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
> * * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
Komuna dua lingvo monda..., cxu povas esti euxropa?
kaj
pli metafizike...;)...
Komuna mondo devas esti euxropeca?
Vidu Petersan mapon, kara. Ni, euxropanoj, ne estas la centro de la
mondo. La centro estas 6.500 km-ojn for de niaj piedoj, kaj tie oni ne
parolas nek esp-o nek Eurolang.
Mi proponas ke vi nomigu vian conlang-on Karlomagna, rekte...
Sed memoru ke Kartvelio kaj Kimrio ankaux estas euxropaj kaj ties
lingvoj ne similas al Eurolang, laux mia kompreno post surfado tra la
ttt-pagxoj de Eurolang.
Amike/Friendly
Parolu Mondolang, parolu Esp-on!
Kjell Rehnström
Jurij Finkel skribis:
La vera demando estas, Êu la kvanta argumento eklipsu Êion alian? La› mi
>>ne.
>>
>>Normalokaze tamen la Esperantistoj estas skizofreniaj. Ili argumentas
>>por Esperanto kontra› la Angla per kvalito, ignorante kvanton, tamen por
>>Esperanto kontra› Êiuj aliaj planlingvoj per kvanto, ignorante kvaliton.
>
>Laux mi, ne ekzistas planlingvo, _tiom_ pli bona kvalite, ol Esperanto, ke
>la kvanta argumento igxu malpli grava, ol la kvalita. Alivorte: eble, kelkaj
>planlingvoj estas _iomete_ pli bonaj, ol Esperanto, sed ne _tiom_ pli bonaj,
>ke oni ignoru ilian neuzatecon...
Tio kompreneble dependas de tio kion oni volas fari per la lingvo au kian
lingvon oni volas. Por kiu gxi estu facila. Chu ghia vortprovizo estu
simila al tiu de naciaj lingvoj au chu estas egale kie ghi estas.
Povas ekzemple esti tiel ke iu homo pensas ke le plej bona lingvo
internacia estas tiu en kiu la komuna vortaro de la okcidentaj lingvoj
estas reprezentata kaj kiun multaj homoj NE ANTAUE STUDINTAJ GHIN povos
legi ghin.
Povas esti ke ech se tia lingvo estus iom pli malfacila ol esperanto ghi
estus preferenda.
Eble oni bezonas tre logikan lingvon. Tiam oni faros alian elekton.
Persone mi ne kredas ke eurolang korespondas al sanaj kriterioj de
internacia lingvo.
>(Por disputemuloj: mi prenis nombron 90% nur por ekzemplo).
>
>--
>Jurij FINKEL
Kjell Rehn...@abc.se
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64 UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden
Mark RISON
Alan Tubman <atu...@os.com>:
> > > > Eurolang [...]
> > > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > > Eurolang?
> > > Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
> > > Esperanto?
> > > How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
> > > compared to Eurolang?
> > > The answers to these questions will tell us that
> > > Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
> > But that's irrelevant. On the same basis you'd be able to
> > claim that English is the preferred international language,
> > and that the preferred constructed language in 1887 was
> > Volapuek. All true, but beside the point.
> Estas ja argumento, sed ne la kompleta argumento. Mi ne volas lerni
> lingvon kun malmultaj parolantoj.
Kial do vi lernis Esperanton?
> Esperanto dauxras ekde 1887. Estas
> facile lerni kaj kun gxi oni povas bone sin esprimi.
Simile statas pri la angla. Kaj la anglan vi e^c ne devis
konscie lerni! Estas tute nedubeble, ke la angla estas
la plej populara internacia lingvo. Estas amase pli da homoj,
kiuj legas, skribas, parolas, komprenas, kaj verkas en
la angla. Do kial vi entute okupi^gis pri tiu sekteca
stranga^jo Esperanto?
John Cartmell
In article <6dgu3k$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Isn't a broom sometimes called a bisom (?sp) ?
--
John Cartmell
Manchester
using Acorn RiscPC & StrongARM
mac...@alaska.net
In article <m0y9oLW...@fwd00.btx.dtag.de>,
pro...@t-online.de (Simon Payne) wrote:
> Normalokaze tamen la Esperantistoj estas skizofreniaj. Ili
Foje iuj Esperantistoj skribas iom neprecize, uzante "normalokaze" anstataux
"ofte" (aux ecx eble devus esti "foje"), uzante "la esp-istoj" anstataux "iuj
esp-istoj", ktp. Cxu tio estas avertosigno (simptomo) de skizofrenio, aux de
iu ajn mensmalsano, mi mem ne scias...
;-)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Adrian C Symonds
Phil Hunt wrote in message <888761...@vision25.demon.co.uk>...
>> Today the Euro, tomorrow a common language. Please visit:
>>
>> http://www.esperanto.net
>>
>> Information in your own language (31 languages)
>
>
>Alternately, you could decide to learn Eurolang instead of Esperanto.
>
>Information about Eurolang is available at the all-new Eurolang website
>at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
>
>Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
>(it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
>on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
>places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
>recognisability.
>
>
>Recognisability of words
>************************
>
>The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
>harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
>be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
What the hell do we want another Language for?,
I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
going to bother with another.
Tim Rowe
John Cartmell wrote:
<snip>
> > I don't have anything for besen.
> Isn't a broom sometimes called a bisom (?sp) ?
"Besom" --- the type of broom made from a bundle of twigs tied to a pole (the
traditional "witches broomstick"
Tim Rowe
(wishing his Esperanto was good enough to have this discussion in the right
language!)
Tim Rowe
Adrian C Symonds wrote:
At 32 I only needed English. Then my job turned international, and I found
I needed French, German, Spanish, Italian & Dutch. I can still only manage 2
of those, and not well.
But the original question, "What the hell do we want another Language for?"
is interesting. I think it's an (almost?) inevitable effect of constructed
languages. One person's ideal language is another person's horror. I'm a
beginner in Esperanto (so apologies for writing in English on
soc.culture.esperanto) and have already found things I don't like in the
language. But they're not the same things as other critics claim not to
like. In a natural language the instinct is to maybe change it from within
(eg, the "political correctness" movement), whereas with constructed
languages the instinct is to say "I could do better than that" and create a
new language. So far, I know of the following constructed languages:
Adjuvilo, Alwato, Anglo-franca, Blaia Zimondal, Blue, Cabe aban, Cosman,
Dutalingue, Enochian, Esperanto, Esperantuisho, Esperido, Espido, Etem,
Euphony, European, Europeo, Globaqo, Idiom neutral, Ido, Intal, Interglossa,
Interlatino, Interlingua, Italico, Klingon, Kosmolinguo, Latinsce, Latinus,
Lingua komun, Lingualumina, Loglan, Lojban, Monario, Mondlingvo, Mundial,
Mundolingue, Neo, Nepo, Novam, Novial, Novlatin, Occidental, Optez,
Panlingua, Perio, Reform neutral, Ro, Romanal, Romanizat, Simplo, Sinestal,
Solresol, Spelin, Spokil, Ulla, Unesal, Volapuek, Weltsprache and
Zahlensprache. Quite a few of them have had over a million speakers in their
time, but most have been short-lived. A new language is going to need
something exceptional to survive where most of those have failed. The only
two I know of with a reasonably large following at the moment are Klingon
and Esperanto. A warrior language didn't appeal to me, which is why I'm
learning Esperanto!
D. Coenen
> >The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
> >harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
> >be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
>
>
> What the hell do we want another Language for?,
>
> I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
> going to bother with another.
May I remind you that English is by far not the easiest and the most
widespread language in the European Union??? This arrogance pisses me off.
Nobody forces you to learn another language if you don't want to, although
I think it would do you very good!
I am waiting for your response in GERMAN, the language most people speak
in the EU. This would be, according to your argument, the best solution.
Phil Hunt
In article <AAnj_...@cile.msk.su> ty...@cile.msk.su "Uzulo" writes:
> Phil Hunt:
> > Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> > (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> > on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> > places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> > recognisability.
>
> like to say a phrase just a bit more complicated than "I'm eating
> gruel"...
I'm not sure I follow you.
> > Recognisability of words
> > ************************
> >
> > The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
> > harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
> > be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
> >
> > Esperanto Eurolang English
> > ========= ======== =======
> > sxipo ship ship
> > akvo aquo water
> > konstruado construction construction
> > ekzisti exist exist
> > vojo route road
> > baldaux prox-futurae soon(1)
> > kvalito qualiti quality
> > libereco liberiti liberty
> >
> >
> > Example (1) is interesting: there is no word for "soon" common to
> > most of EL's source languages, so it makes up a word from 2 existing
> > roots: _prox_ meaning "near", and _future_ (whose meaning you can
> > probably guess). The -ae ending denotes that it is an adverb.
>
> Equally, the Esperanto -avx ending denotes the same.
Sort of. I agree that -aux in baldaux denotes adverb, but in general
Esperanto adds -e to a root to denote an adverb. EL -ae performs
much the same function as E-o -e.
> > Note that Esperanto, unlike Eurolang, uses diacritical marks.
>
> Among the natural languages of Europe, probably only English and
> Dutch successfully use the standard Latin alphabet. _All the rest_
> use some kind of diacritics. Old English also used several
> "non-standard" letters...
Indeed. However there are problems using non-ascii characters on
computers.
> > I have tried with EL to make the affixes more recognisable than E-o, eg:
> > [...]
> > -ebla -abla logxebla habitabla 'habitable'
> > -eco -iti moraleco moraliti 'morality'
> > -igi -iz legxigi legaliz 'legalize'
>
> Seems like the author "volens-nolens" tries to make Eurolang more
> near to English than to any other language...
I don't think so.
EL -iti -abla -iz
English -ity -able -ise/ize
French -it'e -able -iser
German -itaet
Spanish -idad -able -isar
Italian -it`a -abile -isare
Note that _legaliz_ is the present tense; the infinitive in EL is
_legalizar_.
--
Phil Hunt
In article <ryz6VJAq...@virgin.net> old....@virgin.net "Sean Gabb" writes:
> In article <34F9B83E...@os.com>, Alan Tubman <atu...@os.com>
> writes
> >The answers to these questions will tell us that
> >Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
>
In what way is Esperanto not a real language?
Phil Hunt
In article <34FBF69C...@cphling.dk>
je...@cphling.dk "Jens Stengaard Larsen" writes:
> But what _is_ the point then? I never can tell, when
> Phil Hunt's been around.
The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
language.
Phil Hunt
In article <6dgu3k$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
gram...@worldnet.att.net "Peter T. Daniels" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > Most Eurolang root words have recognisable cognates in English. Some
> > that do not are _ante_ ("before"), _capro_ ("goat"), _kohl_ ("cabbage"),
> > _besen_ ("broom"). Each EL root word is chosen to be as recognizable
> > as possible to the largest number of EU people as possible.
>
> Sheesh, you're not even a good propagandist for your own folly.
>
> ante-bellum, antediluvian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ...
"ante" does not appear as a word in English but only as a part of
several words. I am aware of this, which is one of the reasons I chose
it.
> caprine (goat-like),
I venture to guess thast most native English speakers don't know this
word. I didn't.
> Capricorn (the constellation)
Not a owrd meaning "goat". In any case this is a proper noun.
Phil Hunt
In article <35000726...@news.qmw.ac.uk>
D.S....@qmw.ac.uk "David Toube" writes:
> Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su> wrote:
> :> Even when E-o and EL use words from the same source,
> :> the EL version is usually more recognisable, eg:
> :>
> :> E-o Mi vidas la sxipojn.
> :> EL Me vid la ships.
> :> I see the ships.
> :
> : It's disputable. For WHOM? For English speakers?
>
> should strive to make oneself understood merely by speaking English
> SLOWLY and LOUDLY
>
> . . . I'll get my hat . . .
It also helps, when talking to foreigners, to make lots of
gesticulations...
Phil Hunt
In article <34fc7...@news1-hme0.mcmail.com>
asym...@mcmail.com "Adrian C Symonds" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote in message <888761...@vision25.demon.co.uk>...
> >at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
>
>
> I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
> going to bother with another.
That's fine for you, because you are a xenophobic Europhobe.
Kjell Rehnström
>In article <34F9B83E...@os.com> atu...@os.com "Alan Tubman" writes:
>> Phil Hunt wrote:
>> > Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
>> > (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
>> > on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
>> > places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
>> > recognisability.
>>
>> Phil,
>> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
>> Eurolang?
>
>Hard to tell. Someone could learn Eurolang from the material on
>the website without informing me. However, between 10 and 20 people
>have written in Eurolang to me, so that's one datum.
>
>> Can you tell us how many people can read, write, speak, and understand
>> Esperanto?
>
>I've seen estimates between 15,000 and 15,000,000.
>
>I'd guess that the lower figure is approximately the number of
>fluent speakers, and the upper figure is approx the number of
>people with a slight aquaintance with E-o.
>
>> How many books and magazines are and have been published in Esperanto
>> compared to Eurolang?
>
>Obviously a lot more in Esperanto.
>
>> The answers to these questions will tell us that
>> Esperanto is the preferred constructed language.
>
>Not at all. Eurolang is about at the same stage now as Esperanto
>was in 1887. How many speakers did E-o have then?
>
>BTW, arguably ASL and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages. They
>both have more fluent users than E-o.
Tio estas preskau ridinda, du sinjoroj diskutas en esperanta listo pri la
meritoj de esperanto kaj eurolang. Uzu la lingvachojn anstatau diskuti pri
la avant- kaj malavantaghoj de viaj lingvoj. Uzu ilin.
Chie en preskau chiuj listoj oni vidas la samajn diskutojn de
anglalingvanoj pri la utilo de tiu lingvo favore al la alia, chiam angle
kaj chiam la samon. Se Eurolang estas tiom komprenebla, do almenau skribu
en ghi demonstrante ghian avantaghon kaj ne chiam uzu vian gepatran
lingvon. Ni aliaj devas lerni aliajn lingvojn kaj pro tio ni estas favoraj
al artefaritaj lingvoj. Ni uzu ilin kaj vidu kiu estas la plej bona.
En la esperanta listo oni skribu esperante kaj en la interlingua listo oni
skribu interlingue (haha - neintenca vortludo).
Yury Finkel
Simon Payne:
>Sed priparolante kvaliton, oni unue devas difini, laý kiuj kriterioj oni
>entute mezuru řin. Evidente, ćiu planlingvo havis pli aý malpli
>diverřantajn desegnumajn celojn. Ekzemple la desegnumaj celoj de LoĽbano
>estis ege aliaj ol tiuj, kiujn Zamenhofo havis en la kapo. Pro tio la du
>"kvalitoj" estas ne vere kompareblaj. Se mi prenas la kvalitkoncepton de
>Esperanto por mezuri LoĽbanon, ři plenumas tiun eble je nur 2%. Inverse,
>LoĽbano plenumas la desegnumcelojn de Esperanto same je nur 2%. Kompare,
>Esperanto kaj Interlingvo eble reciproke mezuris sin je 50%.
Nu, se preni kiel desegnuman celon "esti dua/tria komuna lingvo por la
_tuta_ mondo kaj _cxiu_ homo", mi opinias, ke preskaux aprioraj lingvoj kiel
Lojxbano apenaux povus esti realaj kandidatoj. Tiaj lingvoj estas egale
_malfacilaj_ por cxiuj, kaj mi opinias, ke meza homo apenaux kapablus bone
ellerni tian lingvon.
Aliflanke, "natrualisma" lingvo kiel Interlingua estas tro euxropcentrisma
por esti tauxga kandidato por la _tuta_ mondo (kvankam pro euxrop-usona
imperiismo gxi ja povus igxi reala kandidato).
Laux mi, lingvoj kiel Esperanto, Ido, Idiom Neutral, Novial ktp (do, tiel
nomataj auxtonomismaj lingvoj) estas _optimuma_ direkto por planlingvo,
celanta igxi vera tutmonda komunikilo. Kaj el tiaspecaj lingvoj nur
Esperanto estas vaste uzata.
>Vi pli poste supozis, ke Esperanto plenumas la kvalitpostulojn por
>internacia planlingvo je (arbitra) 90%. Pro tio apenaý valoras la penon
>ţanři al alia planlingvo, kiu eble atingus 95%. Tio estas memkompreneble
>ne malvera.
> [...]
>Tamen, kion fari, se ni estas atingintaj nur la nivelon de 50%? Ću
>tiuokaze niaj centmiloj da krokodiloj vere rajtu malhelpi kompletan
>refasonadon aý la kreon de ideala solvo?
Ili neniokaze rajtu malhelpi. Cxiu ja rajtas fari kion ajn, inklude krei
novan planlingvon. Sed ekzemploj de antauxaj lingvoprojektoj (kiel Ido,
Novial, Nov-Esperanto ktp) montras, ke apenaux aperos io _principe_ nova kaj
kvalite draste pli alta.
Tamen cxio cxi supre dirita estas nur mia senpruva opinio. Simple al mi
_sxajnas_ tiel.
--
Jurij FINKEL
Pit Kreiner
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <34F94557...@microdelta.es>
> dari...@microdelta.es "dariorod" writes:
> > Today the Euro, tomorrow a common language. Please visit:
> >
> > http://www.esperanto.net
> >
> > Information in your own language (31 languages)
>
> Alternately, you could decide to learn Eurolang instead of Esperanto.
>
> at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
>
> (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> recognisability.
>
volas. Gxi estas lingvo facile (semajnfine) lernebla nur por Anglojn.
Sed ni scias, ke la plej gravaj kontrauxuloj kontraux lingvo internacia
estas tiuj, kies lingvo estas jam la plej disvastigita.
Imagu du lingvojn: la unua estas tre facile lernebla, multe pli facile
ol Esperanto, sed neniu komprenas gxin sen lerni gxin.
La dua estas komprenebla por preskaux cxiuj homoj sen lerni gxin, sed
multe pli malfacile lernebla por skribi aux paroli gxin.
Kiun vi lernus? Mi elektus la unuan, cxar mi esperus, ke multaj homoj
lernus gxin pro gxia lerneblegeco kaj pro la malgranda necesa tempo por
lerni gxin.
Por disvastigi internacian lingvon oni plifaciligu la lerneblecon, ecx
se la komprenebleco suferus. Plifaciligi la kompreneblecon per
malfaciligi la lerneblecon ne estas la gxusta vojo.
--
o + | _ o _ _ Por respondi retpostxe forigu .no.spam.
o | |_ |< | e | | | e | Reklamo nur Esperante!
|
Simon Payne
En artikolo <009701bd472e$1feaef40$72617cc1@fin. simt ts.mv.ru> skribis
yu...@mv.ru (Yury Finkel) jene:
> Ili neniokaze rajtu malhelpi. Cxiu ja rajtas fari kion ajn, inklude
> krei novan planlingvon. Sed ekzemploj de antauxaj lingvoprojektoj
> (kiel Ido, Novial, Nov-Esperanto ktp) montras, ke apenaux aperos io
> _principe_ nova kaj kvalite draste pli alta.
>
> Tamen cxio cxi supre dirita estas nur mia senpruva opinio. Simple al
> mi _sxajnas_ tiel.
Ankaý ţajnas al mi tiel - aý preskaý tiel.
Aliflanke mi tre konscias pri du mankoj en Esperanto. Unue ři estas jam
ekirbaze vere tre Eýropeca, due la adeptaro śaosigas la lingvon pli kaj
pli ćiun jaron. La rezulto de tiuj du mankoj estas jam antaývidebla.
Esperanto evoluos al naturalisma eć pli Eýropeca kaj tuta senplana
lingvo.
Nur tio bremsas mian entuziasmon pri Esperanto.
David Toube
ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) wrote:
:
:> Perhaps instead of learning to speak either Eurolang or Esparanto, one
:> should strive to make oneself understood merely by speaking English
:> SLOWLY and LOUDLY
:>
:> . . . I'll get my hat . . .
:
:It also helps, when talking to foreigners, to make lots of
:gesticulations...
That is also true. It also helps if you wave money about when you are
gesticulating.
. . .sorry . . . that's enough of me . .. .
Uzulo
Phil Hunt wrote:
> BTW, arguably [...] and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages.
It's not altogether so. The Jews always (and very justly, IMO)
underline the point that the revival of Hebrew during the last 2
centuries was strongly due to the fact that the language was never
dead in the sense Latin and ancient Greek are. On rare occasions, it
was even spoken. So I don't think that comparing E-o and Hebrew is
justified.
--
Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su>
Perique des Palottes
Phil Hunt wrote:
> asym...@mcmail.com "Adrian C Symonds" writes:
> >
> > I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
> > going to bother with another.
>
> That's fine for you, because you are a xenophobic Europhobe.
Many others are simply anglophonephile europhiles,
and are not going to bother either.
--
...Si hoc tibi placet mitte nobis XX dollaria...
Jens Stengaard Larsen
Simon Payne wrote:
[...]
> Sed aliflanke, ege ne estas klare, ke la desegumkriterioj de
> Esperanto - jen fakte ideoj naskiřintaj en la antaýa jarcento
> - kongruas kun la hodiaýaj postuloj por internacie uzebla
> planlingvo. Ni ne forgesu, ke Zamenhofo fakte desegnumis sian
> planlingvon laý sia tiama koncepto pri la "internacia mondo".
Ne Zamenhof faris tion, sed Otto Jespersen.
> Efektive jam la nocio "mondo" dum longa tempo estis pli ol nur
> iomete limigata. Tute honeste, simple ţanři "flugmaţino" al
> "aviadilo" ne sufićas.
La sola kio "suficxos" kompreneble estas normo ke aviadistoj
interkomuniku Esperante. Cxu ili flugas en aviadiloj aux flugmasxinoj
ne rilatas al tiu afero.
> Do, se la kvalito de planlingvo de projekto al projekto povas
> vere nur eksponenciale proksimiři al la optimumo de la
> "ideala" kvalito, nu, se Esperanto estus jam sur la 90%a
> nivelo, mi plene akordus kun vi, ke vere ne valorus la penon
> "ţanři la ćevalon duonvoje traire de la rivero".
>
> Tamen, kion fari, se ni estas atingintaj nur la nivelon de
> 50%? Ću tiuokaze niaj centmiloj da krokodiloj vere rajtu
> malhelpi kompletan refasonadon aý la kreon de ideala solvo?
Lernu la Gronlandan kaj la Vietnaman lingvojn, unue per la Germana,
kaj poste per Esperanto. Vi konstatos ke la dua metodo estas multe
pli facila. Cxu tio estas simptomo de 50%a aux 90%a estas nedireble,
cxar ambaux centonajxoj estas arbitre elektitaj; sed la Gronlanda kaj
la Vietnama estas kvazaux du polusoj en la lingvotipoj de la mondo,
kaj se oni volas plibonigi Esperanton, la rezulto devas esti
plilernebligxo de ambaux tiuj naciaj lingvoj por Euxropano.
> Ću nur, ćar en kelkaj industriţtataj urbegoj el miliono da
> ties lořantoj 50 pagas iun E-kluban kotizon, jen valida motivo
> akcepti specife Esperanton por io ajn?
Se la kluba vivo estas suficxe interesa, ne gravas la nombro de gxia
membraro.
--
Jens S. Larsen * <"http://dorit.ihi.ku.dk/~steng/index">
Jens Stengaard Larsen
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <34FBF69C...@cphling.dk>
> je...@cphling.dk "Jens Stengaard Larsen" writes:
> > But what _is_ the point then? I never can tell, when
> > Phil Hunt's been around.
>
> The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
> terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
> language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
> language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
> language.
Somehow this looks more like a splat than like a point. One the one
hand, what's the point of restricting the scope to Europe? The
European languages are vastly different anyway. And OTOH, if
there's a point in a narrowly European scope, what do we need easiness
of learning for? Why not just declare the one national language that
happens to be Europe's biggest as the first language of the Union and
then open a program for recognizing the value of dialects?
Kjell Rehnström
>John Cartmell wrote:
><snip>
>
>> > I don't have anything for besen.
>> Isn't a broom sometimes called a bisom (?sp) ?
>
Tim Rowe:
>"Besom" --- the type of broom made from a bundle of twigs tied to a pole (the
>traditional "witches broomstick"
>
>Tim Rowe
>(wishing his Esperanto was good enough to have this discussion in the right
>language!)
Ne timu, skribu!
Don't be afraid, write!
Oni lernas per la eraroj.
You learn by your mistakes.
Mark RISON
Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su>:
> > Note that Esperanto, unlike Eurolang, uses diacritical marks.
> Among the natural languages of Europe, probably only English and
> Dutch successfully use the standard Latin alphabet. _All the rest_
> use some kind of diacritics. Old English also used several
> "non-standard" letters...
AFAIK not all letters in the English alphabet are from the standard
Latin alphabet. Q, U, W, X, Y are suspects.
Also, ISTR that Dutch uses some sort of diacritic. Unfortunately
I can't remember the details; maybe someone else can help.
Mark RISON
Stelverd Malsteletflav <ro...@zaza.gea>:
> > Not at all. Eurolang is about at the same stage now as Esperanto
> > was in 1887. How many speakers did E-o have then?
> Kiom da parolantoj havos Eurolang post 111 jaroj, kara?
321657509 (321657508 se vi kalkulos tiun homesta^jon kun du kapoj
kiel nur unu).
> > BTW, arguably ASL and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages. They
> > both have more fluent users than E-o.
> BTW ???, ASL ???
By The Way. American Sign Language.
Edmund Grimley-Evans
|> > BTW, arguably [...] and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages.
|>
|> It's not altogether so. The Jews always (and very justly, IMO)
|> underline the point that the revival of Hebrew during the last 2
|> centuries was strongly due to the fact that the language was never
|> dead in the sense Latin and ancient Greek are. On rare occasions, it
|> was even spoken. So I don't think that comparing E-o and Hebrew is
|> justified.
If Hebrew was only spoken on rare occasions then it was more "dead"
than Latin, which was in constant spoken use until this century ...
Se la hebrean oni parolis nur malofte, ^gi estis pli "mortinta" ol
la latina, kiun oni parolis ^ciutage ^gis en ^ci tiu jarcento.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FC93FF...@cix.co.uk> dig...@cix.co.uk "Tim Rowe" writes:
> Adrian C Symonds wrote:
> > What the hell do we want another Language for?,
> >
> > going to bother with another.
>
> I needed French, German, Spanish, Italian & Dutch. I can still only manage 2
> of those, and not well.
Needing to learn something is one of the best motivations for doing
so.
> But the original question, "What the hell do we want another Language for?"
> is interesting. I think it's an (almost?) inevitable effect of constructed
> languages.
Some people have a subconscious repulsion to the whole idea of
constructed languages -- I suspect that this breaks the taboo against
interferring with nature that exists even in technologically advanced
societies.
> One person's ideal language is another person's horror. I'm a
> beginner in Esperanto (so apologies for writing in English on
> soc.culture.esperanto) and have already found things I don't like in the
> language. But they're not the same things as other critics claim not to
> like.
What are they?
> In a natural language the instinct is to maybe change it from within
> (eg, the "political correctness" movement), whereas with constructed
> languages
I think there is also change from within in Esperanto (e.g. _riismo_).
Franck Arnaud
> Why not just declare the one national language that
> happens to be Europe's biggest as the first language of the Union
nu, la germana estas iom malfacila lingvo.
Chris Hempsall
D. Coenen wrote in message ...
>
>> >The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
>> >harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
>> >be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
>>
>>
>> What the hell do we want another Language for?,
>>
>> I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
>> going to bother with another.
>
>May I remind you that English is by far not the easiest and the most
>widespread language in the European Union??? This arrogance pisses me off.
>Nobody forces you to learn another language if you don't want to, although
>I think it would do you very good!
>I am waiting for your response in GERMAN, the language most people speak
>in the EU. This would be, according to your argument, the best solution.
Whilst I agree with the general point of your argument, I'm not sure that
claiming German is the most spoken language in the EU is true (I have no
evidence, it's merely supposition). What happens when you add in all the
second languages people speak, I'm pretty sure this would boost the amount
of English speakers?
Chris
Chris Hempsall
Adrian C Symonds wrote
>What the hell do we want another Language for?,
I probably agree here, I don't really see the point in another "artificial"
language.
>I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
>going to bother with another.
Adrian please try to realise that this type of thinking only inhibits
British trade overseas, and furthermore makes the Brit's seem extremely
arrogant and unthinking. It is not unreasonable to expect one to at least
attempt to converse in another language, especially when you are in their
countries (although I confess I'm as guilty of this as anyone, my foreign
language skills are limited to asking for the car to be filled up with
petrol (and I can never remember all the different variations of unleaded
!), and ordering beer (a necessity anywhere surely?).
Chris
Phil Hunt
In article <ant04191...@ether251.acorn.co.uk>
mri...@acorn.com "Mark RISON" writes:
> AFAIK not all letters in the English alphabet are from the standard
> Latin alphabet. Q, U, W, X, Y are suspects.
Surely Q and X are normal Latin letters? IIRC, the Romans also used
Y, but only in loan words.
Phil Hunt
In article <AAopK...@cile.msk.su> ty...@cile.msk.su "Uzulo" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > BTW, arguably [...] and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages.
>
> It's not altogether so. The Jews always (and very justly, IMO)
> underline the point that the revival of Hebrew during the last 2
> centuries was strongly due to the fact that the language was never
> dead in the sense Latin and ancient Greek are.
What sense is this?
> On rare occasions, it
> was even spoken.
I think you will find that Latin is still spoken "on rare occasions".
And there are radio broadcasts in the language, and new work written
in it, for example.
> So I don't think that comparing E-o and Hebrew is
> justified.
Comparing anything is justified, even apples and pears. BTW I wasn't
attempting to insult either language by the comparison.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FD06BC...@astrum.de.no.spam>
Pit.K...@astrum.de.no.spam "Pit Kreiner" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > Alternately, you could decide to learn Eurolang instead of Esperanto.
> >
> > Information about Eurolang is available at the all-new Eurolang website
> > at <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm>.
> >
> > Eurolang is designed to be easy to read by people who don't know it
> > (it is like Interlingua in that respect). Esperanto, while also based
> > on European languages and therefore containing many familiar words,
> > places a higher priority on its own internal consistency than on easy
> > recognisability.
>
> Jam la nomo de tiu cxi lingvo montras, ke gxi ne estas tio, kion ni
> volas. Gxi estas lingvo facile (semajnfine) lernebla nur por Anglojn.
> Sed ni scias, ke la plej gravaj kontrauxuloj kontraux lingvo internacia
> estas tiuj, kies lingvo estas jam la plej disvastigita.
[Translation for people who don't speak E-o: already the name of
this language shows, that it isn't what we want. It is a language
easily (in a week) learnable only for English people. But we know, that
the most serious adversaries against an international language are
those, whose language is already the most widespread]
Yes, Eurolang is easy for people who speak English. But it is based
on the 5 main EU languages: German, French, Italian and Spanish as
well as English, so it should also be easy for speakers of these
languages, especially the Romance languages.
> Imagu du lingvojn: la unua estas tre facile lernebla, multe pli facile
> ol Esperanto, sed neniu komprenas gxin sen lerni gxin.
> La dua estas komprenebla por preskaux cxiuj homoj sen lerni gxin, sed
> multe pli malfacile lernebla por skribi aux paroli gxin.
[Tr: Imagine 2 languages: the first is very easily learnable, much
easier than Esperanto, but no-one understands it without learning
it. The second is understandable for almost everyone without
learning it, but much harder to learn for writing and speaking it.]
It seems to me that the first language sounds a bit like Eurolang,
and the second sounds like Interlingua. (But Interlingua is not
readable at first sight, IMO).
> Kiun vi lernus? Mi elektus la unuan, cxar mi esperus, ke multaj homoj
> lernus gxin pro gxia lerneblegeco kaj pro la malgranda necesa tempo por
> lerni gxin.
[Tr: Which would you learn? I would choose the first, because I would
hope, that many people would learn it for its easy learnability and
for the smallness of the necessary time to learn it.]
In this case you would choose Eurolang. Good. I would be happy to
help you learn it.
> Por disvastigi internacian lingvon oni plifaciligu la lerneblecon, ecx
> se la komprenebleco suferus. Plifaciligi la kompreneblecon per
> malfaciligi la lerneblecon ne estas la gxusta vojo.
[Tr: to make an internationl language widespread, one would have to
make it more easy to learn, even if the recognisability suffers [I
assume you mean 'recognisability' here]. Making the recognisability
easier, by making it less easy to learn, isn't the correct road.]
Eurolang tries to be as recognisable as possible without making it
harder to learn.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FD6777...@cphling.dk>
> > The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
> > terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
> > language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
> > language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
> > language.
>
> Somehow this looks more like a splat than like a point. One the one
> hand, what's the point of restricting the scope to Europe? The
> European languages are vastly different anyway.
I have on my desk a dictionary of six European languages. Turning to
a page at random, the first entry I read is:
English mandatory
French obligatoire
German obligatorisch
Spanish obligatorio,a
Italian obbligatorio,a
Portuguese obligat'orio,a
Given that another word for "mandatory" is "obligatory", and given that
I could quote many more examples, I think you should agree that there
is a considerable common vocabulary among the main western European
languages.
> And OTOH, if
> there's a point in a narrowly European scope, what do we need easiness
> of learning for?
There are 370 million people in the EU. It will save a lot of time and
money if they learn an easy lanuage instead of a hard one. Also, the
easier it is, the more of them will successfully learn it.
> Why not just declare the one national language that
> happens to be Europe's biggest as the first language of the Union and
> then open a program for recognizing the value of dialects?
Because it would be politically unacceptable to use of the existing
national languages. It would also be less practical, becaues the
natlangs are hard to learn.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FD57...@nowhere.noland.etc>
no...@nowhere.noland.etc "Perique des Palottes" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > asym...@mcmail.com "Adrian C Symonds" writes:
> > >
> > > going to bother with another.
> >
>
> Many others are simply anglophonephile europhiles,
What's wrong with being an anglophonephile? Lots of people who
speak English are quite nice.
Michel S.
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <6dgu3k$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
> gram...@worldnet.att.net "Peter T. Daniels" writes:
> > Phil Hunt wrote:
> > > Most Eurolang root words have recognisable cognates in English. Some
> > > that do not are _ante_ ("before"), _capro_ ("goat"), _kohl_ ("cabbage"),
> > > _besen_ ("broom"). Each EL root word is chosen to be as recognizable
> > > as possible to the largest number of EU people as possible.
> >
> > Sheesh, you're not even a good propagandist for your own folly.
> >
> > ante-bellum, antediluvian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ...
>
> "ante" does not appear as a word in English but only as a part of
> several words. I am aware of this, which is one of the reasons I chose
> it.
>
> > caprine (goat-like),
>
> I venture to guess thast most native English speakers don't know this
> word. I didn't.
I did ! Like the island, Capri, or the American film director Frank
Capra ( born in Sicily ) ? Or the Spanish " queso de cabra " ? Or the
Spanish city, Cabra ?
> > Capricorn (the constellation)
>
> Not a owrd meaning "goat". In any case this is a proper noun.
>
> --
> * * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
> * Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
> * <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
> * * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
latin already exists for the same purpose ?
Adrian C Symonds
Chris Hempsall wrote in message
<6dkf2a$g1j$2...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
i DID NOT GET THE REPLY FROM MY MESSAGE, SO WILL REPLY TO THIS ONE.
>
>>>
>>> What the hell do we want another Language for?,
>>>
>>> I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
>>> going to bother with another.
>>
>>May I remind you that English is by far not the easiest and the most
>>widespread language in the European Union??? This arrogance pisses me off.
>>Nobody forces you to learn another language if you don't want to, although
>>I think it would do you very good!
Why?, I got no intention of going to any other european country, as they all
crap anyway, if I was going to learn another language, I would learn
Japanese.
English is easiest for me.
>>I am waiting for your response in GERMAN, the language most people speak
>>in the EU. This would be, according to your argument, the best solution.
I speak English, and will only speak english, and as for German being what
most people speak in europe, I think you are wrong, even if English is not
their native Language, a lot of people speak it.
>Whilst I agree with the general point of your argument, I'm not sure that
>claiming German is the most spoken language in the EU is true (I have no
>evidence, it's merely supposition). What happens when you add in all the
>second languages people speak, I'm pretty sure this would boost the amount
>of English speakers?
Of cause it do.
Maybe we should all speak Chinese, after all, that is most spoken Language.
Adrian
Keep Britain Free from E.U junk, keep the British pound
Website www.graphi.mcmail.com
Adrian C Symonds
Phil Hunt wrote in message <888969...@vision25.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age, I am not
>> going to bother with another.
>
>That's fine for you, because you are a xenophobic Europhobe.
So what?, I am entitled to my view, and also entitled to be anti-Europe.
As I said before, we should stick to our own, and tell the the E.u, to get
lost.
Adrian C Symonds
Tim Rowe wrote in message <34FC93FF...@cix.co.uk>...
>
>
>
>But the original question, "What the hell do we want another Language for?"
>is interesting. I think it's an (almost?) inevitable effect of constructed
>languages. One person's ideal language is another person's horror. I'm a
>beginner in Esperanto (so apologies for writing in English on
>soc.culture.esperanto) and have already found things I don't like in the
>language. But they're not the same things as other critics claim not to
What is the use of learning a langurage where there is only a limited amout
of people that is speaking it?
>like. In a natural language the instinct is to maybe change it from within
>(eg, the "political correctness" movement), whereas with constructed
>languages the instinct is to say "I could do better than that" and create a
>new language. So far, I know of the following constructed languages:
Why?, why have a new one?,
>Adjuvilo, Alwato, Anglo-franca, Blaia Zimondal, Blue, Cabe aban, Cosman,
two I know of with a reasonably large following at the moment are Klingon
>and Esperanto. A warrior language didn't appeal to me, which is why I'm
>learning Esperanto!
Klingon is about as real as Eurolang, and if I was going to learn another
language, I would choose something a bit more widely spoken.
Paul O Bartlett
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Tim Rowe wrote (excerpt):
> BTW, this thread is being spread across rather a lot of newsgroups. I can
> understand soc.culture.esperanto (which is where I am reading it), but that's
> putting rather a lot of English on a newsgroup which may contain a significant
> number of non-English speakers. Alt.language.artificial makes sense. Maybe
> alt.politics.europe.misc. Is it worth cutting a few of the others out?
From past experience, I would say that sci.lang should be taken out
of the newsgroup list. I will make this one followup to sci.lang as
well, so that anyone there can read my suggestion, but hereafter any
followups I might make will not go to sci.lang.
Paul <pob...@access.digex.net>
..........................................................
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Home Page: http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart
Michel S.
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <AAopK...@cile.msk.su> ty...@cile.msk.su "Uzulo" writes:
> > Phil Hunt wrote:
> > > BTW, arguably [...] and Modern Hebrew are constructed languages.
> >
> > It's not altogether so. The Jews always (and very justly, IMO)
> > underline the point that the revival of Hebrew during the last 2
> > centuries was strongly due to the fact that the language was never
> > dead in the sense Latin and ancient Greek are.
>
> What sense is this?
>
> > On rare occasions, it
> > was even spoken.
>
> I think you will find that Latin is still spoken "on rare occasions".
> And there are radio broadcasts in the language, and new work written
> in it, for example.
>
> > So I don't think that comparing E-o and Hebrew is
> > justified.
>
> Comparing anything is justified, even apples and pears. BTW I wasn't
> attempting to insult either language by the comparison.
>
> * * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
> * Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
> * <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
> * * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
I know a dissident priest said Latin is alive and well as a language -
its just called Italian now.
Marko Rauhamaa
Franck Arnaud <Franck...@stratus.com>:
> nu, la germana estas iom malfacila lingvo.
Ĉu vi estas certa, ke la germanan lingvon estas pli malfacile lerni ol
la anglan?
Mi ĵuse legis pri suoma esploro, laŭ kiu la suomoj ordinare lernas bone
nur sian ĉefan fremdan lingvon en lernejo. Tiuj, kiuj studis la germanan
lingvon dum dek jaroj (la tn "longa lingvo") kaj la anglan dum kvin (la
tn "mallonga lingvo"), ne atingis utilan nivelon de lingvoscio en la
angla lingvo. Kaj male.
Antaŭ la jardeko 1960 suomoj ordinare studis la germanan kiel longan
lingvon kaj poste la anglan. Iu graveta ŝtata oficisto devis antaŭ
nelonge maldungiĝi, ĉar li studis la germanan kiel longan lingvon kaj ne
povas komuniki per la angla lingvo, kiun oni rigardas necesa en la
ofico.
La esploro demandigas pri la utileco de la suoma instrupolitiko, kiu
lernigas 2-5 fremdajn lingvojn al ĉiu lernejano. Ekzemple mi studis en
lernejo la anglan lingvon dum dek jaroj, la svedan dum ses, la germanan
dum kvin kaj la francan dum tri -- po kvar horoj semajne. Mi lernis
konversacii kaj skribe komuniki nur per la angla lingvo. Multmaniere tre
multekosta praktiko.
Marko
--
Marko Rauhamaa mailto:ma...@iswest.com http://www.iswest.com/~marko/
Suomenkielinen esperantokurssi http://www.iswest.com/~marko/esperanto/kurssi/
Free Esperanto Course http://www.iswest.com/~marko/esperanto/course/
Tim Rowe
Mi opinii ke germana estas pli facila ol la lingvo kimra!
Franck Arnaud wrote:
> > Why not just declare the one national language that
> > happens to be Europe's biggest as the first language of the Union
>
Tim Rowe
Michel S. wrote:
> Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
> it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
> latin already exists for the same purpose ?
I'm trying to remember the name of the comic writer who suggested that back in the
70's (pretending the suggestion had come from the Vatican). But it would surely be
vastly easier for speakers of the romance languages to learn than for the speakers
of germanic languages?
Tim Rowe
Phil Hunt wrote:
> > One person's ideal language is another person's horror. I'm a
> > beginner in Esperanto (so apologies for writing in English on
> > soc.culture.esperanto) and have already found things I don't like in the
> > language. But they're not the same things as other critics claim not to
> > like.
>
> What are they?
The thing that really jumps out at me is the gender bias. As in English it's hard
to talk about somebody without talking about their gender, which frankly is
irrelevant most of the time. The personal pronouns are gendered, and roots seem to
be assumed to be male: "in" can be added to make them female. I speak a little
Cantonese, bits of which I really like in this regard. "Kui" means he, she, or it,
completely gender free. On the other hand, the (admittedly archaic, but still
known) Cantonese term for ones own wife, which translates as "Subordiante person
who stays in the house" perhaps leaves a little to be desired in the politically
correct stakes!
> > In a natural language the instinct is to maybe change it from within
> > (eg, the "political correctness" movement), whereas with constructed
> > languages
>
> I think there is also change from within in Esperanto (e.g. _riismo_).
My understanding is that Zamenhof intended that and built it into the language. I
think that's one of Esperanto's strengths. When I tried to learn Lojban, the
language authorities were in a frantic discussion over how to translate "She
looked through the window", which it seems is too vague for that language (is the
window a direction or an instrument?) I doubt if Esperanto could get bogged down
in an argument like that, as people are using it for real. This might lead to
slight inconsistencies, but that doesn't worry me.
Tim Rowe
Kjell Rehnström wrote:
> Ne timu, skribu!
> Don't be afraid, write!
>
> Oni lernas per la eraroj.
> You learn by your mistakes.
>
Today I bought an Esperanto-English-Esperanto dictionary. That should help!
Tim Rowe
Adrian C Symonds wrote:
> What is the use of learning a langurage where there is only a limited amout
> of people that is speaking it?
There is only a limited number of people speaking English, but we both seem to
find it quite useful. The number of people with at least a basic understanding
of Esperanto is possibly higher than, say, Welsh, Breton, or Finnish (can anyone
put me right on that?)
> Why?, why have a new one?,
Rather my point.
> Klingon is about as real as Eurolang, and if I was going to learn another
> language, I would choose something a bit more widely spoken.
Rather more real, IMHO.
Tim Rowe
D. Coenen wrote:
> May I remind you that English is by far not the easiest and the most
> widespread language in the European Union???
> This arrogance pisses me off.
> Nobody forces you to learn another language if you don't want to, although
> I think it would do you very good!
> I am waiting for your response in GERMAN, the language most people speak
> in the EU. This would be, according to your argument, the best solution.
Vieleicht ist Englisch nicht so einfach vie Deutsch, aber der
Hollywoodeinfluss bedeutet das viele Leute English schon versteht. Englisch
hat auch beide latienisches und deutsches Grunde, so findet fast alles ewas
gewohnt.
Jan Turnwald
Tim Rowe wrote in message <34FDF83C...@cix.co.uk>...
>Vieleicht ist Englisch nicht so einfach vie Deutsch, aber der
>Hollywoodeinfluss bedeutet das viele Leute English schon versteht. Englisch
>hat auch beide latienisches und deutsches Grunde, so findet fast alles ewas
>gewohnt.
>
Man versteht's zwar, aber wenn ich mir dieses Elaborat so ansehe, komme ich
zu dem Schluß, daß das Englische wohl doch als Zweitsprache leichter zu
erlernen sein dürfte als die obig verunstaltete deutsche Zunge :-)))
jt
Paolo Rossetti
Greetings All,
I'd like to add my opinion on the necessity of finding a common language
and determining which one it should be.
Language can be as inclusive as it is exclusive - it can allow you to
join or it can shut you out.
As we hopefully move towards a more inclusive world the necessity of a
common language is more important than ever.
Can you imagine aliens looking at us and thinking: "The inhabitants of
this planet speak hundreds of different languages that are for the most
part unintelligible (not understandable) to each other." It doesn't make
sense, but it's reality.
Tradition and culture strongly support the use of the language we grew
up with, so there can be no control or unanimous decision on which
language should be chosen as the lingua franca of the world.
Therefore, there is no debate. If you are monolingual simply learn a
second language, and if your first language is not English, then I would
recommend it to you on the basis that it is the most widely spoken
language and the default language for computer communication. It doesn't
make sense, but it's reality.
BTW, you can also study it for free at many places on the Internet.
Regards,
Prossett
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes:
>The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
>terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
>language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
>language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
>language.
Economically probably. Politically not at all. The creation of a tiny
priviledged class of people who know this artificial language, and thus
has a monopoly on jobs with the EU, would not be a good move. Requireing
every company or citizen to go to one of these whenever they need to
write to the EU would be even worse. Companies who do a lot of this
correspondance would of course hire one. The enthusiasm for the EU is
already severely limited in the populations of many member states. This
nightmare scenario may be the death blow to the union.
What people who work with languages either professionally or as a hobby
seem incapable of understanding is that learning a new language is a
very great effort for most of us. Learn a new language because I might
some day want to apply for a job with the EU? Get real.
You get so much out of learning English. Access to several centuries of
litterature, to the latest in scientific publications, to several world
wide news services. You can travel in many countrues and talk with the
locals. What do you get out of learning this EUish? The ability to
write your own letters, should you ever need to write to the EU (except
that you would most likely want to have lawyer write them anyway). I
know which one I would prefer as a second language.
Klaus O K
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>Michel S. wrote:
>> Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
>> it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
>> latin already exists for the same purpose ?
Maybe a language with 90 different forms of every adjective is not such
a good idea.
Klaus O K
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>Phil Hunt:
>> Recognisability of words
>> ************************
>>
>> The way Esperanto spells words often obscures them and makes them
>> harder to recognise. Also Eurolang tries to use the word that will
>> be maximally recognisable by EU citizens. Eg:
>>
>> Esperanto Eurolang English
>> ========= ======== =======
>> konstruado construction construction
Danish konstruktion.
>> ekzisti exist exist
Danish eksistere
>> vojo route road
Danish vej, English way, German Weg
>> kvalito qualiti quality
Danish kvalitet
>> Aesthetics:
>> ***********
>>
>> I personally find that written Esperanto looks somewhat ugly, because
>> it has lots of "k"s
You don't like German or the Scandinavian languages much, I guess.
Klaus O K
Simon Payne
En artikolo <34FD6C24.C5DC5111@cphling. dk> skribis Jens Stengaard
Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> jene:
>> Efektive jam la nocio "mondo" dum longa tempo estis pli ol nur
>> iomete limigata. Tute honeste, simple ţanři "flugmaţino" al
>> "aviadilo" ne sufićas.
>
> La sola kio "suficxos" kompreneble estas normo ke aviadistoj
> interkomuniku Esperante. Cxu ili flugas en aviadiloj aux flugmasxinoj
> ne rilatas al tiu afero.
Tiuokaze, la flugmaţinoj prefere maţinu sen mi! Mi diru nur -
dekstren, maldekstren!
supren, malsupren!
> sed la Gronlanda kaj
> la Vietnama estas kvazaux du polusoj en la lingvotipoj de la mondo
Mi iel supozas, ke estas pli da polusoj - ekzemple en Afriko.
> Lernu la Gronlandan kaj la Vietnaman lingvojn, unue per la Germana,
> kaj poste per Esperanto. Vi konstatos ke la dua metodo estas multe
> pli facila.
Mi ne konsciis, ke oni povas lerni ion ajn per Esperanto. Nu, eble jen
troigo. Sed aliflanke multe da faklibroj ni verdire ne havas. Neniam
estas eblo elekti el dek faklibroj koncene unu temon. Pro tio mi ne vere
ekkonas, kiel mi lernu aý la Gronlandan, aý la Vjetnaman, per Esperanto.
Simono
--
TTT:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/simono/
Retposxto:
1001...@compuserve.com
Perique des Palottes
Phil Hunt wrote:
> "Perique des Palottes" writes:
>
> > Phil Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > asym...@mcmail.com "Adrian C Symonds" writes:
> > >
> > > > I will stick with English, I suits me, and at 32 years of age,
> > > > I am not going to bother with another.
> > >
> > > That's fine for you, because you are a xenophobic Europhobe.
> >
> > Many others are simply anglophonephile europhiles,
> > and are not going to bother either.
>
> What's wrong with being an anglophonephile? Lots of people who
> speak English are quite nice.
Nothing is wrong with being an anglophonephile, and I am happy
to be one, as you could deduce from my previous statement. So
what? And yes, lots of people who speak English are quite nice,
others not so, as with any other language.
--
...Si hoc tibi placet mitte nobis XX dollaria...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jens Stengaard Larsen
Phil Hunt wrote:
> In article <34FD6777...@cphling.dk>
> je...@cphling.dk "Jens Stengaard Larsen" writes:
[...]
> > One the one hand, what's the point of restricting the
> > scope to Europe? The European languages are vastly
> > different anyway.
> I have on my desk a dictionary of six European languages. Turning to
> a page at random, the first entry I read is:
>
> English mandatory
> French obligatoire
> German obligatorisch
> Spanish obligatorio,a
> Italian obbligatorio,a
> Portuguese obligat'orio,a
>
> Given that another word for "mandatory" is "obligatory", and given that
> I could quote many more examples, I think you should agree that there
> is a considerable common vocabulary among the main western European
> languages.
Surely, but you could find quite a lot of that in Swahili and Japanese
too. It's not an argument for restricting the focus to Europe, it's
an argument to construct the vocabulary of a new language (or evaluate
the vocabulary of an existing conlang) in one way rather than another,
assuming that we already agree that there's a need for a non-national
common language, and that we are interestend and competent to do
something about it.
> > And OTOH, if there's a point in a narrowly European
> > scope, what do we need easiness of learning for?
> There are 370 million people in the EU. It will save a lot of
> time and money if they learn an easy lanuage instead of a hard
> one. Also, the easier it is, the more of them will
> successfully learn it.
Why is successful learning of a standard language more important than
tolerance towards dialects and foreigner speech?
> > Why not just declare the one national language that
> > happens to be Europe's biggest as the first language
> > of the Union and then open a program for recognizing
> > the value of dialects?
> Because it would be politically unacceptable to use of the
> existing national languages. It would also be less practical,
> becaues the natlangs are hard to learn.
What makes you think that a language that noone speaks is politically
more acceptable?
--
Jens S. Larsen * <"http://dorit.ihi.ku.dk/~steng/index">
Sean Gabb
In article <888967...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>It also helps, when talking to foreigners, to make lots of
>gesticulations...
Which probably gets better results than addressing them in Eurolang.
Ki moze byt meltion is ke les orando Eurolangui.
--
Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own |
E-mail: old....@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual|
<http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" |
Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 |
Sean Gabb
In article <889049...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>Yes, Eurolang is easy for people who speak English. But it is based
>on the 5 main EU languages: German, French, Italian and Spanish as
>well as English, so it should also be easy for speakers of these
>languages, especially the Romance languages.
It discriminates against Gaelic and Greek, among others. And what is to
be done when the Czechs, Poles and Hungarians come into the EU? Is
Eurolang to be revised? Or are these peoples to be expected to learn an
"easy" language that draws nothing from their own?
Besides, almost every educated person in the world now speaks some
English and is trying to learn more.
Sean Gabb
In article <34FDF07A...@cix.co.uk>, Tim Rowe <dig...@cix.co.uk>
writes
>> Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
>> it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
>> latin already exists for the same purpose ?
I have a soft spot for Latin. But what is wrong with English?
Sean Gabb
In article <889042...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>Some people have a subconscious repulsion to the whole idea of
>constructed languages -- I suspect that this breaks the taboo against
>interferring with nature that exists even in technologically advanced
>societies.
No. I just regard it as silly - rather like matchbox label collecting.
I have no objection if others like this sort of thing, or if they
proselytise for it. But contemptuous is how I feel.
Sean Gabb
In article <888969...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>In what way is Esperanto not a real language?
It's slightly more real than Eurolang, though both are a waste of time
for anyone interested in communication among peoples.
Jens Stengaard Larsen
Simon Payne wrote:
>
> En artikolo <34FD6C24.C5DC5111@cphling. dk> skribis Jens Stengaard
> Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> jene:
>
> >> Efektive jam la nocio "mondo" dum longa tempo estis pli ol nur
> >> iomete limigata. Tute honeste, simple ţanři "flugmaţino" al
> >> "aviadilo" ne sufićas.
> >
> > La sola kio "suficxos" kompreneble estas normo ke aviadistoj
> > interkomuniku Esperante. Cxu ili flugas en aviadiloj aux flugmasxinoj
> > ne rilatas al tiu afero.
>
> Tiuokaze, la flugmaţinoj prefere maţinu sen mi! Mi diru nur -
>
> dekstren, maldekstren!
>
> supren, malsupren!
???
> > sed la Gronlanda kaj
> > la Vietnama estas kvazaux du polusoj en la lingvotipoj de la mondo
>
> Mi iel supozas, ke estas pli da polusoj - ekzemple en Afriko.
Miascie apenaux ekzistas pli kunmetema lingvo ol la Inuita aux
pli dismetema ol la Vietnama.
> > Lernu la Gronlandan kaj la Vietnaman lingvojn, unue per la Germana,
> > kaj poste per Esperanto. Vi konstatos ke la dua metodo estas multe
> > pli facila.
>
> Mi ne konsciis, ke oni povas lerni ion ajn per Esperanto. [...]
Se vi scius kiom praktika estas io tiel banala ke oni povas noti "-ig-"
anstataux "(faktativo)"...
Esperanto League N America
Sean Gabb <old....@virgin.net> writes in a recent posting (reference <m2ViwyAlfg$0E...@sufo.demon.co.uk>):
>In article <888969...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
><ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In what way is Esperanto not a real language?
>
>It's slightly more real than Eurolang, though both are a waste of time
>for anyone interested in communication among peoples.
>--
Well, at least *half* defeated. ;-)
--
Miko SLOPER el...@esperanto-usa.org USA (510) 653 0998
Direktoro de la http://www.esperanto-usa.org fax (510) 653 1468
Centra Oficejo de la Learn Esperanto! Free lessons: e-mail/snail-mail
Esperanto-Ligo de N.A. Write to above address or call: 1-800-ESPERANTO
Esperanto League N America
Mark RISON <mri...@acorn.com> writes in a recent posting (reference <ant04191...@ether251.acorn.co.uk>):
>
>AFAIK not all letters in the English alphabet are from the standard
>Latin alphabet. Q, U, W, X, Y are suspects.
>
I believe that the other differences were that "I" gave birth to "J"
and "V" to "U". But "Q" was pretty common.
Joerg Knappen
Mirko Sloper skribis:
>> AFAIK not all letters in the English alphabet are from the standard
>> Latin alphabet. Q, U, W, X, Y are suspects.
> I believe that the other differences were that "I" gave birth to "J"
> and "V" to "U". But "Q" was pretty common.
La originala latina alfabeto ne havis J, V, W, Y kaj Z. X estis la
lasta litero. Y kaj Z estis enkondukataj pro skribi grekajn vortojn.
J, V, kaj W estas mezepokaj novajhoj.
--J"org Knappen
Tim Rowe
That "verunstaltete deutsche Zunge" is *much* easier to learn than correct
German (and a few glasses of Calvados help with the creative spelling --- "vie"
for "wie" usw.;-)! But one thing I've learned from listening to poor speakers of
English is just how far you can twist it and still be understood. The same seems
to be true of most natural languages, and in what I'd consider the better of the
constructed languages. So although I'd *like* to get it right, that's secondary
to communicating...
Phil Hunt
In article <34FDF07A...@cix.co.uk> dig...@cix.co.uk "Tim Rowe" writes:
> Michel S. wrote:
> > Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
> > it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
> > latin already exists for the same purpose ?
>
> that back in the 70's (pretending the suggestion had come from the
> Vatican). But it would surely be vastly easier for speakers of the
> romance languages to learn than for the speakers of germanic languages?
It would be easier, but I don't think "vastly" easier, because Germanic
languages have a lot of Latin loanwords.
But the main objection to Latin is that the grammar is too hard. There
are too many inflexions and irregular words.
--
* * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
* Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
* <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
* * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
Phil Hunt
In article <34FE56...@mailcity.com>
pros...@direct.ca "Paolo Rossetti" writes:
> I'd like to add my opinion on the necessity of finding a common language
> and determining which one it should be.
>
> Language can be as inclusive as it is exclusive - it can allow you to
> join or it can shut you out.
The most inclusive language would be one which is both easy to learn,
and which the existing speaking population welcomes new learners.
Phil Hunt
In article <6dm5gs$k...@ask.diku.dk> kl...@diku.dk "Klaus Ole Kristiansen" writes:
> ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes:
> >The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
> >terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
> >language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
> >language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
> >language.
>
> Economically probably. Politically not at all. The creation of a tiny
> priviledged class of people who know this artificial language, and thus
> has a monopoly on jobs with the EU, would not be a good move.
I agree, which is why I am not arguing for it. The way the EU could
introduce it is to encourage it to be taught in schools, either as
an optional subject or a compulsory one. (If it was an optional
subject, I am sure many kids would take it in preference to learning
another harder language). Also they could have TV programs instructing
people in it, and produce texts in it for people to read (for example
an Internet newspaper like the Electronic Telegraph in the common
language). The EU could make instructional material available, both
on the Internet and in traditional formats.
EU staff could be trained in using the new language. New recruits
to jobs with the EU could go on a one-month training course, if they
don't already know the language, to learn it thoroughly. (Of course,
this policy only works if the common language is easy to learn).
> Requireing
> every company or citizen to go to one of these whenever they need to
> write to the EU would be even worse.
Then don't do it.
> Companies who do a lot of this
> correspondance would of course hire one. The enthusiasm for the EU is
> already severely limited in the populations of many member states. This
> nightmare scenario may be the death blow to the union.
I agree. But if a common language was introduced in a sensible way,
and not done in a way which pisses everyone off, it could greatly
benefit the EU.
> What people who work with languages either professionally or as a hobby
> seem incapable of understanding is that learning a new language is a
> very great effort for most of us.
That's why we need a common EU language that is easy to learn.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FDD8...@earthlink.net> ba...@earthlink.net "Michel S." writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > * * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > * Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
> > * Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
> > * <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
> > * * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
>
> it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
> latin already exists for the same purpose ?
Latin's grammar is very hard. A better idea would be Latino sine
Flexione, which is Latin without inflections.
Phil Hunt
In article <34FDF3D8...@cix.co.uk> dig...@cix.co.uk "Tim Rowe" writes:
> Phil Hunt wrote:
> > > One person's ideal language is another person's horror. I'm a
> > > beginner in Esperanto (so apologies for writing in English on
> > > soc.culture.esperanto) and have already found things I don't like in the
> > > language. But they're not the same things as other critics claim not to
> > > like.
> >
> > What are they?
>
> The thing that really jumps out at me is the gender bias. As in
> English it's hard to talk about somebody without talking about
> their gender, which frankly is irrelevant most of the time. The
> personal pronouns are gendered, and roots seem to be assumed to be
> male: "in" can be added to make them female.
for example:
_frato_ brother
_fratino_ sister
_gefratoj_ brothers and sisters together
_gefrato_ presumably means "sibling" although I'm not sure its an
official word.
There are two problems with this: firstly some people find it sexist
and insulting to women, and secondly it introduces inconsistencies,
because other sets of sexually-differentiated words behave differently,
eg:
_hundo_ dog (male or female)
_hundino_ bitch
_virhundo_ male dog
In Eurolang these words are:
_frater_ sibling _canis_ dog
_mal-frater_ brother _mal-canis_ male dog
_fem-frater_ sister _fem-canis_ bitch
Also Eurolang has a pronoun _ge_ which means "he or she".
There are reforms of Esperanto which address this problem, but I am
not sure how widespread they are.
> I speak a little
> Cantonese, bits of which I really like in this regard. "Kui" means he, she, or
> it,
> completely gender free. On the other hand, the (admittedly archaic, but still
> known) Cantonese term for ones own wife, which translates as "Subordiante
> person who stays in the house" perhaps leaves a little to be desired
> in the politically correct stakes!
Indeed!
> When I tried to learn Lojban, the
> language authorities were in a frantic discussion over how to translate "She
> looked through the window", which it seems is too vague for that language (is
> the
> window a direction or an instrument?) I doubt if Esperanto could get bogged
> down
> in an argument like that, as people are using it for real.
As I understand it, Lojban is intended as a logical language, not an IAL.
> This might lead to slight inconsistencies, but that doesn't worry me.
I think that a certain degree of vagueness and potential confusion
of meaning is bound to happen when language is used by people.
Phil Hunt
In article <34fde...@news1-hme0.mcmail.com>
> >>widespread language in the European Union??? This arrogance pisses me off.
> >>Nobody forces you to learn another language if you don't want to, although
> >>I think it would do you very good!
>
> they all crap anyway,
As I said, you are a xenophobe. You are, of course, perfectly entitled
to be like this if you wish, but I think your attitude is spiritually
and culturally impoverished.
> if I was going to learn another language, I would learn Japanese.
Presumably you don't think they are "crap" too?
> English is easiest for me.
Only because you already know it.
> >>I am waiting for your response in GERMAN, the language most people speak
> >>in the EU. This would be, according to your argument, the best solution.
>
> I speak English, and will only speak english,
Quite right! You don't want to be like the bloody foreigners, reeking
of garlic, do you?
> and as for German being what
> most people speak in europe, I think you are wrong,
German is the language with the most L1 speakers in the EU.
> even if English is not
> their native Language, a lot of people speak it.
I doubt if accurate figures exist for L2 competence of English and the
other European languages.
> Keep Britain Free from E.U junk, keep the British pound
Keep Europe free from xenophobes and bigots, let's all learn a common
language, to further European Unity.
Arnold VICTOR
Although your English is excellent, just two spelling errors I casually
noticed reveal you as a foreigner or a careless writer("priviledged" and
"litterature). To "write to the EU" means writing to someone in the EU,
i. e., a business, a friend, or any interest, not just to an official. A
simple auxiliary language would facilitate communication between those
without your considerable skills. It is also a matter of politeness: one
can't count on one's intelocutor knowing English. A simple auxiliary
language would spread communication to the less linguistically talented;
and success in communication might encourage their learning a more
difficult natural language. Far less than half of those who study a
natural language have operational use of it even after several years of
study.Ã
Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote:
>
> ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes:
>
> >The point is that the EU would be better off (economically and in
> >terms of political unity) if it adopted an easy-to-learn constructed
> >language as its common second language. And that Eurolang is a
> >language that IMO is a potential candidate for this common
> >language.
>
> Economically probably. Politically not at all. The creation of a tiny
> priviledged class of people who know this artificial language, and thus
> has a monopoly on jobs with the EU, would not be a good move. Requireing
> every company or citizen to go to one of these whenever they need to
> write to the EU would be even worse. Companies who do a lot of this
> correspondance would of course hire one. The enthusiasm for the EU is
> already severely limited in the populations of many member states. This
> nightmare scenario may be the death blow to the union.
>
> What people who work with languages either professionally or as a hobby
> seem incapable of understanding is that learning a new language is a
> very great effort for most of us. Learn a new language because I might
> some day want to apply for a job with the EU? Get real.
>
> You get so much out of learning English. Access to several centuries of
> litterature, to the latest in scientific publications, to several world
> wide news services. You can travel in many countrues and talk with the
> locals. What do you get out of learning this EUish? The ability to
> write your own letters, should you ever need to write to the EU (except
> that you would most likely want to have lawyer write them anyway). I
> know which one I would prefer as a second language.
>
> Klaus O K
--
++=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
||<arvi...@mars.superlink.net> ||
|| ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
||<arvi...@mars.superlink.net> ||
|| ||
||"Wer die Fragen nicht beantwortet, hat die Pruefung ||
||bestanden." Kafka, "Die Pruefung" ||
|| ||
||'Kiu ne respondas al la demandoj, tiu sukcesis en la ||
||ekzameno.' Kafka, "La ekzameno" ||
++=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====++
Kjell Rehnström
>Michel S. wrote:
>
>> Instead of Eurolang, why not just use Latin ? I know the church has kept
>> it updated through the years. Why is there a need for Eurolang when
>> latin already exists for the same purpose ?
Tim Rove wrote:
>I'm trying to remember the name of the comic writer who suggested that
>back in the
>70's (pretending the suggestion had come from the Vatican). But it would
>surely be
>vastly easier for speakers of the romance languages to learn than for the
>speakers
>of germanic languages?
Kompreneble oni povas revivigi la klasikan latinan lingvon. Oni principe
jam faris tion dum la renesanco. Sed intertempe la naciaj lingvoj havis
sian "renaskighon". Se la volo ekzistas oni povas jam post du generacioj
uzi la latinan lingvon. Ghi ankorau estas instruata en kelkaj landoj. Pere
de la radioelsendoj de novajhoj en klasika latino de la Eksterlanda Servo
de la Finlanda nacia radio Yleisradio oni povas chiun semajnfinon ausculti
5 minutojn da novajhoj en klasika latino.
Probu tiun version en interlingua, la lingvo kiu uzas la en la okcidentaj
lingvoj ankorau vivantan latinan lingvon en la formo de interlingua:
Waiting for the dream of Classical Latin in general use, try this version
in Interlingua, a language using the still living Latin vocabulary in the
western languages.
Naturalmente on pote reviver le latino classic. On faceva isto,
principalmente, jam durante le renascentia. Tamen interim le linguas
national habeva su renascentia. Si le voluntate existe on pote jam post duo
generationes usar le lingua latin. Illo es ancora inseniate in alcun
paises. Via le emossiones del Servicio Exterior del Radio National,
Yleisradio, de Finlandia on pote cata fin de septimana ascoltar 5 (cinque)
minutas de notitias in latino classic.
Brush up your classical latin, listening to 5 minutes of news in latin
every weekend on the Yle international radio service.
Chris Hempsall wrote:
>Whilst I agree with the general point of your argument, I'm not sure that
>claiming German is the most spoken language in the EU is true (I have no
>evidence, it's merely supposition). What happens when you add in all the
>second languages people speak, I'm pretty sure this would boost the amount
>of English speakers?
Mi povas nur jughi de mia horizonto. Chi tie en Svedio la plej multaj
gvidantaj politikistoj parolas la anglan lingvon en komprenebla maniero.
Tiel estas ankau en la resto de la skandinaviaj landoj. La angla lingvo jam
funkcias en interpopola interkomprenigho en multaj rilatoj. En unu
generacion uni povus havi anglalingvan Europon.
La avantagho kiun havas la angla lingvo estas ke ghi estas devige instruata
en la lernejoj en la tuta Europo.
From my horizon I can say that here in Sweden many leading politicians do
speak English in an understandable manner. It's the same thing in the other
Scandinavian countries. English alredy is functioning as a medium for
communication for people with different languages in many fields. In one
generation we could have an English-language Europe.
An advantage for English is that it is compulsary in nearly all European
countries.
Grava punkto estas ke chiuj helplingvoj - kiel esperanto kaj interlingua -
estas preskau senescepte libervole studataj. Ili ne estas trudataj al iuj.
Il es un puncto importante, que omne linguas auxiliar - como esperanto e
interlingua - es studiate in un maniera voluntari - illos es fortiate a
necuno!
There is one important point about the auxiliary languages like Esperanto
and Interlingua - they are studied on a voluntary basis - they are not
forced on anyone.
Kjell Rehn...@abc.se
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64 UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden
Kjell Rehnström
Deleted text:
Tim Row wrote:
>The thing that really jumps out at me is the gender bias. As in English
>it's hard
>to talk about somebody without talking about their gender, which frankly is
>irrelevant most of the time. The personal pronouns are gendered, and roots
>seem to
>be assumed to be male: "in" can be added to make them female. I speak a little
>Cantonese, bits of which I really like in this regard. "Kui" means he,
>she, or it,
>completely gender free. On the other hand, the (admittedly archaic, but still
>known) Cantonese term for ones own wife, which translates as "Subordiante
>person
>who stays in the house" perhaps leaves a little to be desired in the
>politically
>correct stakes!
Deleted text:
Tim Rowe:
>My understanding is that Zamenhof intended that and built it into the
>language. I
>think that's one of Esperanto's strengths. When I tried to learn Lojban, the
>language authorities were in a frantic discussion over how to translate "She
>looked through the window", which it seems is too vague for that language
>(is the
>window a direction or an instrument?) I doubt if Esperanto could get
>bogged down
>in an argument like that, as people are using it for real. This might lead to
>slight inconsistencies, but that doesn't worry me.
Io crede que quando on necessitara un lingua que es neutral in relation al
sexo, un tal lingua va exister. Il es sufficiente que un gruppo de alte
stato (status) usa un tal lingua e le resto va sequer.
Mi kredas ke kiam oni bezonos sekse neutralan lingvon tia lingvo jam
ekzistos. Sufichas ke altstatusa grupo usa tian lingvon kaj la resto sekvos.
Oni devas kompreni ke esperanto estas produkto de sia tempo. Le lingvoj
kiujn scipovis Zamenhof havis seksajn distingojn pri pronomoj kaj
substantivoj signifikantaj profeciojn ktp. Nuntempe multaj personoj volas
sekse neutralan lingvon, kaj kiam granda plimulto havos la saman opinion ni
havos tian lingvon.
One has to understand that Esperanto is a product of its time. The
languages that Zamenhof knew had a distinction of gender for pronouns and
nouns denoting e.g. trades and professions. In our times, when many people
want a gender-neutral language and when a big majority will have the same
opinion, then we will have such a language.