a few questions about Esperanto
Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy
German. They range from the obvious (being able to speak with over one
hundred million native speakers of German in their native tongue) to the
less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the original). Are
there corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn Esperanto?
Am I correct in assuming that there are no native speakers of Esperanto?
Am I correct in assuming that language skills in Esperanto are more a
question of enthusiasm than actual fluency in the language?
Is there any prose or poetry originally written in Esperanto?
I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What does
'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
How many people speak Esperanto?
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
This is incorrect information. There are indeed native speakers of Esperanto.
They are almost always bilingual in the language of the country they live in.
>
>Am I correct in assuming that language skills in Esperanto are more a
>question of enthusiasm than actual fluency in the language?
Well, in my case, that's not true. I can read very well, and converse as well
as I do Russian (fair to middlin'), but am not a "fanatic"
>
>Is there any prose or poetry originally written in Esperanto?
>
oh, lots!! email me and i'll get you the url for a site for it.
>I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What does
>'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
Well it really depends on who you talk to.
>
>How many people speak Esperanto?
>
Heh, the question for the ages! I plead the fifth. I personally know three
(other than myself)
dmitri
>
>
>
>
X. Rayburn
"Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the original). Are
> there corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn Esperanto?
People study constructed languages (ranging from Esperanto to Klingon)
because they are attracted to the language aestheticallly and/or
they want to be part of the movement/subculture that goes along with
the language.
chr...@my-deja.com
"Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> German. They range from the obvious (being able to speak with over one
> hundred million native speakers of German in their native tongue) to
the
> less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the original).
Are
> there corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn Esperanto?
Most esperantists are initially attracted by a mixture of curiosity and
"one-world" idealism, combined with the perhaps naive notion that a
single artificial world language is both desirable and achievable. Those
who stick with it usually do so because they've made friends through
esperanto and find it an interesting hobby. They may or may not retain
the traditional Esperanto ideology. A lot don't really believe in it.
> Am I correct in assuming that there are no native speakers of
Esperanto?
There are generally thought to be about 1000 native speakers, or
"denaskoj". Strange but true! Generally speaking they are not the
offspring of linguistically mixed marriages where the parents use
Esperanto as a lingua franca. Rather, the parents are usually hard core
believers in the cause. Typically the father speaks Esperanto to the
child, while the mother uses the language of the milieu -- so at least
there are no monolinguals.
> Am I correct in assuming that language skills in Esperanto are more a
> question of enthusiasm than actual fluency in the language?
The Finnish linguist Joukko Lindstedt, who's made a study of the
"denaskoj", has argued for the following, very schematic description of
the Esperanto community:
1000 native speakers
10,000 expert speakers with native-like capability (one of the
conclusions of his research is that there is no effective difference in
competence between these first two groups)
100,000 reasonably fluent speakers
1,000,000 can read a fair amount, and maybe produce some phrases.
10,000,000 know something about the language.
In short, there are lots of excellent speakers/writers, but most people
who identify with the movement don't speak Esperanto very well.
> Is there any prose or poetry originally written in Esperanto?
An astonishing amount, both original and in translation, and some of it
is said to be very good.
> I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What
does
> 'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
Zamenhof, its inventor, was strictly an amateur linguist, so he
eliminated all the obvious irregularities (strange verbal forms, etc.),
but there are plenty of semantic and other complexities below the
surface. Later generations of speakers have tried to patch some of the
obvious gaps in Z's system, but on the other hand, there's been a mild
drift towards idiom, as in any language. So, while Esperanto is
undeniably a regular language, and for Westerners, an easy one, it fall
short of any rigorously logical standard.
> How many people speak Esperanto?
Respectabile estimates range between 50,000 to 1.6 million fluent
speakers. The consensus is gravitating towards lower figures, such as
Lindstedt's 100,000. The main organisation, the Universala
Esperanto-Asocio modestly claims that some hundreds of thousands know
some Esperanto.
Cheers,
Chris
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
sd...@eti.hku.hk
Przemyslaw> There are many reasons why someone might want to learn
Przemyslaw> a language like German. They range from the obvious
Przemyslaw> (being able to speak with over one hundred million
Przemyslaw> native speakers of German in their native tongue) to
Przemyslaw> the less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg'
Przemyslaw> in the original). Are there corresponding reasons why
Przemyslaw> someone might want to learn Esperanto?
For some people, the reasons are similar although Esperanto has only a
million speakers.
For other peoples, it is their vision that "a global language would
bring eternal peace" that makes them love the language.
Przemyslaw> Am I correct in assuming that there are no native
Przemyslaw> speakers of Esperanto?
Wrong. There are couples whose only common language is Esperanto, and
needless to say, Esperanto is their familie language.
Przemyslaw> Am I correct in assuming that language skills in
Przemyslaw> Esperanto are more a question of enthusiasm than
Przemyslaw> actual fluency in the language?
Add to this the knowledge of a European language, esp. Western
European ones.
Przemyslaw> Is there any prose or poetry originally written in
Przemyslaw> Esperanto?
Yes.
Przemyslaw> I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical
Przemyslaw> language'. What does 'logical language' mean?
It conforms to Western European logics on which is "logical" for the
grammar of a language. To me, an Asian speaking Chinese (Cantonese)
natively, Esperanto is just as logical as English and French: lots of
European idioms and norms to be mastered before fluency is possible.
Przemyslaw> Assuming it means something, is it true?
Yes. You'd be better off with this assumption, or you'll be
disappointed soon.
Przemyslaw> How many people speak Esperanto?
It's hard to estimate. What qualifies as "speak Esperanto"? Being
able to say "Saluton"? Being able to introduce oneself? Being able
to bargainat markets? Being able to debate in it? Or being able to
write songs and poems in it?
Despite these difficulties, many Esperantists claim an order of
magnitude of 1 million for the Esperanto-speaking population.
Well... many Esperantists think this is a very large figure.
But... the whole world has over 6 billion people. 1 million is a very
small portion indeed.
And many Esperantists would tell you that Esperanto is popular in
China (because they happen to know many Chinese Esperantists).
However, a simple calculation would tell you they're wrong: Assuming
all the 1 million Esperanto speakers are Chinese, how much is that
against a national population of 1.2 billion? That's less than 0.1%.
And the Esperantists would claim that Esperanto is popular in China...
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: sd...@eti.hku.hk http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
sd...@eti.hku.hk
chris> There are generally thought to be about 1000 native
chris> speakers, or "denaskoj". Strange but true! Generally
chris> speaking they are not the offspring of linguistically mixed
chris> marriages where the parents use Esperanto as a lingua
chris> franca. Rather, the parents are usually hard core believers
chris> in the cause. Typically the father speaks Esperanto to the
chris> child, while the mother uses the language of the milieu --
chris> so at least there are no monolinguals.
I don't think a monolingual Esperanto native speaker could survive in
the REAL world up to the age of going to school and making his own
friends.
Stefano MAC:GREGOR
"Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> There are many reasons why someone might want to learn a language like
> German. They range from the obvious (being able to speak with over one
> hundred million native speakers of German in their native tongue) to
> the less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the
> original). Are there corresponding reasons why someone might want to
> learn Esperanto?
One is that a year of study of Esperanto, followed by many years of
study of a second language, yields a better command of that second
language than of a study of only that second language for the total
amount of time. Learning Esperanto first helps learning virtually any
other language.
> Am I correct in assuming that there are no native speakers of
> Esperanto?
No. Surprisingly, there are a few hundred native speakers,
called "denaskuloj" in Esperanto.
> Am I correct in assuming that language skills in Esperanto are more a
> question of enthusiasm than actual fluency in the language?
Hard to say. Are you asking whether there is such a thing as fluency?
> Is there any prose or poetry originally written in Esperanto?
Yes. Many volumes, some of it later translated to other languages.
> I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What
> does 'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
To me it means that I can apply some logic to making up a word in
Esperanto for a term I can't find in a dictionary, and expect a logical
reader to understand a word he has never seen before.
> How many people speak Esperanto?
Some claim ten million, but most avid Esperantists don't believe that.
Some say only a few hundred thousand, but that's too cynical an
answer. The most usual good guess is about two million.
--
http://www.geocities.com/esperantujo
Viktoro
"Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> There are many reasons why someone might want to learn a language like
> German. They range from the obvious (being able to speak with over one
> hundred million native speakers of German in their native tongue)
> to the less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the
> original). Are there corresponding reasons why someone
> might want to learn Esperanto?
>
The whole Esperanto language itself can be thought of as a
generative "poem" mainly written by a single author. So there's an
aesthetic reason to want to learn it. At least, that's one reason I
did.
--
Viktoro
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/9798/
sd...@eti.hku.hk
>> There are many reasons why someone might want to learn a
>> language like German. They range from the obvious (being able
>> to speak with over one hundred million native speakers of
>> German in their native tongue) to the less obvious (being able
>> to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the original). Are there
>> corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn
>> Esperanto?
Stefano> One is that a year of study of Esperanto, followed by
Stefano> many years of study of a second language, yields a better
Stefano> command of that second language than of a study of only
Stefano> that second language for the total amount of time.
Really? I don't think so when the second language is Vietnamese or
Japanese.
Stefano> Learning Esperanto first helps learning virtually any
Stefano> other language.
Any experimental or practical evidence on this? Is that really true
for ANY other language?
>> I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical
>> language'. What does 'logical language' mean? Assuming it means
>> something, is it true?
Stefano> To me it means that I can apply some logic to making up a
Stefano> word in Esperanto for a term I can't find in a
Stefano> dictionary, and expect a logical reader to understand a
Stefano> word he has never seen before.
But many of these are not logical, indeed, IMO. For example "vortaro"
is compounded from the roots "vort" (meaning "word") and "ar" (meaning
"collection" or "group"). So, I would expect that it means
"vocabularies" or "lexicon" or a "word list". However, it actually
means "dictionary"!!! How illogical that is! Even German
"woerterbuch" is more logical than Esperanto's "vortaro".
X. Rayburn
> But many of these are not logical, indeed, IMO. For example "vortaro"
> is compounded from the roots "vort" (meaning "word") and "ar" (meaning
> "collection" or "group"). So, I would expect that it means
> "vocabularies" or "lexicon" or a "word list". However, it actually
> means "dictionary"!!! How illogical that is! Even German
> "woerterbuch" is more logical than Esperanto's "vortaro".
Esperanto cannot withstand that kind of rigorous analysis. But
every constructed language seems to have features that people
can criticize. In pre-Internet days, it was hard for a language
designer to find people who could detect all the flaws in his
project and discourage him from continuing. Now the swarm of
critics is only a mouse-click away.
sd...@eti.hku.hk
X> Esperanto cannot withstand that kind of rigorous analysis. But
X> every constructed language seems to have features that people
X> can criticize. In pre-Internet days, it was hard for a language
X> designer to find people who could detect all the flaws in his
X> project and discourage him from continuing. Now the swarm of
X> critics is only a mouse-click away.
At least, the Esperanto design has never taken Far East languages in
mind.
chr...@my-deja.com
Stefano MAC:GREGOR <esper...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > How many people speak Esperanto?
>
> Some claim ten million, but most avid Esperantists don't believe that.
> Some say only a few hundred thousand, but that's too cynical an
> answer. The most usual good guess is about two million.
The "cynics", then, must include the Universala Esperanto-Asocio and
such committed Esperantists as the linguists Mark Fettes (former editor
of Esperanto magazine) and Joukko Lindstedt whom I mentioned, all of
whom suggest figures in the low hundred-thousands. Objective indicators
such as publications and attendence at Esperanto congresses suggest that
growth has been somewhere between stagnation and doubling since the
1920s, when a "census" undertaken by the German Esperanto organisation
produced a figure of 126,000 Esperantists world-wide.
The 1.6 million figure (rounded up to 2 million by the World Almanac)
was produced by Sidney Culbert, a retired professor at the University of
Washington. It is the highest figure with any credibility.
Cheers,
Chris
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
X. Rayburn <ix...@nil.com> wrote:
>In article <m18znha...@ibmp3-4.eti.hku.hk>, sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>
>> But many of these are not logical, indeed, IMO. For example "vortaro"
>> is compounded from the roots "vort" (meaning "word") and "ar" (meaning
>> "collection" or "group"). So, I would expect that it means
>> "vocabularies" or "lexicon" or a "word list". However, it actually
>> means "dictionary"!!! How illogical that is! Even German
>> "woerterbuch" is more logical than Esperanto's "vortaro".
>
>Esperanto cannot withstand that kind of rigorous analysis. But
>every constructed language seems to have features that people
>can criticize.
With good reason! Language design is difficult and requires a lot of
trade-offs.
>In pre-Internet days, it was hard for a language
>designer to find people who could detect all the flaws in his
>project and discourage him from continuing. Now the swarm of
>critics is only a mouse-click away.
I think you're selling short the kind of spirited debate that was possible
around the turn of the century, when each major city had several daily
newspapers and some of these had up to two dozen daily editions--and the
British post made two deliveries of mail a day. Not as easy as a mouse-
click, perhaps, but more people read then than have Internet access today.
I don't think 19th and early 20th century conlang designers had it any
easier than their modern descendents. The latter even have the ability to
learn from these earlier debates, though not enough do.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
the most even-handed summary of Esperanto and the Esperantist movement
I've ever seen on this newsgroup, which had witness more than its share of
Esperanto flamewars. (Lee Sau Dan is notorious for his attacks on the
"Eurocentricity" of Esperanto; Steve MACGREGOR is clearly too much of a
booster for his facts to be taken at face value.)
pricer...@my-deja.com
de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
> I don't have anything to add to Chris' post. I just want to say that
it's
> the most even-handed summary of Esperanto and the Esperantist movement
> I've ever seen on this newsgroup, which had witness more than its
share of
> Esperanto flamewars. (Lee Sau Dan is notorious for his attacks on the
> "Eurocentricity" of Esperanto; Steve MACGREGOR is clearly too much of
a
> booster for his facts to be taken at face value.)
Amen and amen!
I really enjoyed reading Chris's* post. There's just one niggling thing
wrong with it: the word is actually "denaskuloj", not "denaskoj" (or
"denaskaj Esperanto-parolantoj" = "from-birth esperanto-speakers").
But that really _is_ a niggling detail! And although he's certainly
correct in saying that the majority of them, or at least about half,
come from families where both parents have the same L1, I personally
know some where the parents _do_ come from different language
backgrounds (about half the ones I happen to know come from that kind
of home, although that's hardly a scientific sample!). An example, for
anyone who's interested, is <http://www.geocities.com/Paris/9231/>.
George
*an attack of the strunkandwhite virus...
pricer...@my-deja.com
"Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Are
> there corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn Esperanto?
Others, particularly Chris, have dealt with your other questions
adequately, but you might want to look at
<http://home.wxs.nl/~lide/paspserv.htm> for a (very partial) answer to
this particular question.
George (an Alaskan "host" of "Pasporta Servo")
chr...@my-deja.com
pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I really enjoyed reading Chris's* post. There's just one niggling
thing
> wrong with it: the word is actually "denaskuloj", not "denaskoj" (or
> "denaskaj Esperanto-parolantoj" = "from-birth esperanto-speakers").
At best I'm one of those 900,000 who (according Lindstedt) can read a
fair amount of (sufficiently interesting) Eo, but can't produce more
than a few phrases (and in my case, not accurately).
The use/non-use of -ulo- strikes me as one of those subsurface
complexities I mentioned, e.g., ANGLA 'English', 'English language',
ANGLO 'English-speaker'; RICHA 'rich', RICHULO or RICHA
(nominalised) 'rich person'. It's nothing compared to what you find in
ethnic language, but it is an unexpected difficulty.
> But that really _is_ a niggling detail! And although he's certainly
> correct in saying that the majority of them, or at least about half,
> come from families where both parents have the same L1, I personally
> know some where the parents _do_ come from different language
> backgrounds (about half the ones I happen to know come from that kind
> of home, although that's hardly a scientific sample!). An example,
for
> anyone who's interested, is <http://www.geocities.com/Paris/9231/>.
I was just going on an article of Lindstedt's I read.
Cheers,
Chris
chr...@my-deja.com
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
> I don't think a monolingual Esperanto native speaker could survive in
> the REAL world up to the age of going to school and making his own
> friends.
I knew a Serbo-Canadian couple who were raising their child entirely in
Serbian on the rational that he would learn English anyway once he
started school, but wouldn't otherwise become fluent in Serbian. On the
other hand, they had a large network of Serbian speaking friends and
relatives, which an Esperanto couple probably would not have. (There
are probably exceptions, though. I remember the Esperanto poet William
Auld writing (in English) that *all* his close friends were Esperanto
speakers.)
sd...@eti.hku.hk
pricerbumanto> I really enjoyed reading Chris's* post. There's
pricerbumanto> just one niggling thing wrong with it: the word is
pricerbumanto> actually "denaskuloj", not "denaskoj" (or "denaskaj
pricerbumanto> Esperanto-parolantoj" = "from-birth
pricerbumanto> esperanto-speakers").
So, what would "denasko" mean, if it isn't synonmous with "denaskulo"?
Why "Frenchman" is not "franculo", but "franco" then?
There are lots of such logical inconsistencies in the Esperanto
lexicon for it to deserve the title "a logical language". Yes, its
grammar is quite (but not completely) logical, but the structure of
its lexicon is a mess.
ind...@yahoo.com
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
> So, what would "denasko" mean, if it isn't synonmous with "denaskulo"?
'Denasko' would be, literally, a 'from-birth', which is meaningless,
as far as I can tell.
> Why "Frenchman" is not "franculo", but "franco" then?
The word 'ulo' means 'person'. The word 'franco' means
'French person'. Adding 'ulo' to 'franc' would be redundant.
It would be like saying 'dentistman' or 'customerperson'.
> There are lots of such logical inconsistencies in the Esperanto
> lexicon for it to deserve the title "a logical language".
In Esperanto there is no requirement that all words which
refer to a person must end in ulo.
> Lee Sau Dan
--
Klivo
ind...@yahoo.com
http://purl.oclc.org/net/klivo/
pricer...@my-deja.com
chr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The use/non-use of -ulo- strikes me as one of those subsurface
> complexities I mentioned, e.g., ANGLA 'English', 'English language',
> ANGLO 'English-speaker'
... but ANGLO does not mean 'English-speaker', it means "(ethnically)
English person", which is not the same thing. The complication is
there, but it's not, perhaps, quite what you think it is: the PAG
analysis is that E-o roots are of 3 types, verb-type, noun-type, and
adjective-type (in the examples you give, ANGL- is a noun-type root,
RICH- is an adjective-type root, and NASK- is a verb-type root. Adding
an -O to a verb-type root does not give the same kind of result as
adding -O to an adjective-type root.
> RICHA 'rich', RICHULO or RICHA
> (nominalised) 'rich person'. It's nothing compared to what you find in
> ethnic language, but it is an unexpected difficulty.
Well, my cynical take on it is that it's unexpected only to someone
naive enough (to use the adjective you used in your post! ;-) ) to
think that 16 rules can contain all you need to know to speak a human
language... but perhaps I'm too cynical (or not naive enough... anymore.
;-) )
>
> > But that really _is_ a niggling detail! And although he's certainly
> > correct in saying that the majority of them, or at least about half,
> > come from families where both parents have the same L1, I personally
> > know some where the parents _do_ come from different language
> > backgrounds (about half the ones I happen to know come from that
kind
> > of home, although that's hardly a scientific sample!). An example,
> for
> > anyone who's interested, is <http://www.geocities.com/Paris/9231/>.
>
> I was just going on an article of Lindstedt's I read.
Quite right; it was more a very slight change in slant (it happens that
Jouko and Sofia are an example of a same-background couple with
denaskuloj... but I believe she also speaks Esperanto). I may be wrong,
but I thought you gave the impression that different-background couples
are rarer than they really are. but I would certainly defer to Jouko
Lindstedt, who surely knows more about the subject than I... and
besides, he's a professional linguist, which I'm not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
Indeed.
George
pricer...@my-deja.com
chr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On the
> other hand, they had a large network of Serbian speaking friends and
> relatives, which an Esperanto couple probably would not have.
Well, actually, there may very well be an "Esperanto couple" with large
network of Serbian speaking friends and relatives... in Beograd or Banja
Luka! ;-) ;-)
(Yes, I _know_ that's not what you meant, but I just couldn't resist,
this time!)
George
[BTW, you may want to look at
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/pmego?d=pmeg/pmeg9/vfqsig.htm> with reference
to our discussion about denaskulo/anglo/ricxulo... and example both of
the complications, and of some clarity _about_ the complications]
Zeborah
> In article <eVig6.12037$Qb7.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
> "Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Are there corresponding reasons why someone might want to
> > learn Esperanto?
>
> One is that a year of study of Esperanto, followed by many years of
> study of a second language, yields a better command of that second
> language than of a study of only that second language for the total
> amount of time. Learning Esperanto first helps learning virtually any
> other language.
Learning any language first helps learning any other language, because
you get used to the fact that... well, languages are different. OTOH, I
really doubt that my experience of Esperanto helped when I came to learn
Chinese.
> > I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What
> > does 'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
>
> To me it means that I can apply some logic to making up a word in
> Esperanto for a term I can't find in a dictionary, and expect a logical
> reader to understand a word he has never seen before.
I can do that in English. My CD/stereo system has been permanently
dubbed, in my family, as "the black music box". (The first time I said
it, it was a noun phrase. Nowadays it's a compound word.) Anytime
people make jokes about someone being 'ept' or 'ebriated' they're
applying logic to make up a word. 'Chocaholic' and 'telethon' are even
better examples because they're not jokes.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.crosswinds.net/~zeborahnz
chr...@my-deja.com
pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Quite right; it was more a very slight change in slant (it happens
that
> Jouko and Sofia are an example of a same-background couple with
> denaskuloj... but I believe she also speaks Esperanto). I may be
wrong,
> but I thought you gave the impression that different-background
couples
> are rarer than they really are. but I would certainly defer to Jouko
> Lindstedt, who surely knows more about the subject than I... and
> besides, he's a professional linguist, which I'm not.
Basically, I recall Lindstedt saying that most people assume that most
denaskuloj are progeny of mixed-language marriages where Esperanto
serves as the common language, but that in fact, most are from
Esperantist parents of the same mother tongue. I didn't mean to imply
that mixed-parentage denaskuloj were a rarity.
Chris
Wolf Kirchmeir
These are examples of so-called "living affixes". Every language has them.
There are IMO two points of great ineterst about them:
A) How words are parsed to create new affixes. Both the -holic and the -thon
are invented affixes. The model word "alcoholic" is parsed as "alco + holic",
which is etymological nonsense. Similarly, "mara+ + thon". Question: are
there similar invented affixes in other languages?
B) The fact tha perefcetly good affixes "die", ie, are no longer used to make
new words. Eg. a- in words like abide, awake, aglow. We could use a word like
amush (for the recent condition of my driveway), for example. :-)
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can see a lot by just looking.
(Yogi Berrs, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
And that's how we get what I call "instruction booklet English", i.e. English
so severely garbled that not even a native speaker can make much sense out of
it.
(snip)
Anytime
>people make jokes about someone being 'ept' or 'ebriated' they're
>applying logic to make up a word.
Maybe so, but those words are not considered to be "real" words for maybe
decades until they have been used for so long, they "have to be" accepted in
standard English. Esperanto accepts them unhesitatingly.
'Chocaholic' and 'telethon' are even
>better examples because they're not jokes.
>
>Zeborah
>--
>Gravity is no joke.
>http://www.crosswinds.net/~zeborahnz
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dmitri nedostoiny
IC | XC
---+---
NI | KA
sd...@eti.hku.hk
indriko> In article <m1y9vg7...@ibmp3-4.eti.hku.hk>,
indriko> sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>> So, what would "denasko" mean, if it isn't synonmous with
>> "denaskulo"?
indriko> 'Denasko' would be, literally, a 'from-birth', which is
indriko> meaningless, as far as I can tell.
Then, why is "franco" meaningful, and "franculo" strange?
Can't you get the point? Esperanto's lexicon is so inconsistent.
>> Why "Frenchman" is not "franculo", but "franco" then?
indriko> The word 'ulo' means 'person'. The word 'franco' means
indriko> 'French person'.
So, why does "franco" means a person, and "denasko" not?
indriko> Adding 'ulo' to 'franc' would be
indriko> redundant. It would be like saying 'dentistman' or
indriko> 'customerperson'.
That illustrates the inconsistencies of Esperanto's word stock.
>> There are lots of such logical inconsistencies in the Esperanto
>> lexicon for it to deserve the title "a logical language".
indriko> In Esperanto there is no requirement that all words which
indriko> refer to a person must end in ulo.
That's an inconsistency.
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
Already answered: "franco" means in and of itself "a French person"
>Can't you get the point? Esperanto's lexicon is so inconsistent.
If you accept the theory of noun-root, verb-root, and adjective-root, then it
is perfectly consistent. And speaking of consistency, I wouldn't talk if I
were you. Is it not true that Chinese words take on whatever (we in the west
consider) parts of speech that it's position in the sentence dictates?
>So, why does "franco" means a person, and "denasko" not?
Because, "franco" was given the meaning "a French person" by LLZ. "nask" was
given a verbal meaning by the same authority. By their very meanings, Verbal
roots do not refer to persons, rather to actions.
>That illustrates the inconsistencies of Esperanto's word stock.
>
I illustrates no such thing, Sau Dan. It only illustrates that Esperanto does
not work like Chinese. I know that's a near-crime in your book, but that's
your problem.
>That's an inconsistency.
>
No it's not. Esperanto is not an a priori language, therefore there is no
reason to demand that all person words end in -ulo.
Kim Bastin
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:11:21 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>
> >GREGOR <esper...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <eVig6.12037$Qb7.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
> >> "Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I've often heard that Esperanto is a very 'logical language'. What
> >> > does 'logical language' mean? Assuming it means something, is it true?
> >>
> >> To me it means that I can apply some logic to making up a word in
> >> Esperanto for a term I can't find in a dictionary, and expect a logical
> >> reader to understand a word he has never seen before.
> >
> >I can do that in English. My CD/stereo system has been permanently
> >dubbed, in my family, as "the black music box". (The first time I said
> >it, it was a noun phrase. Nowadays it's a compound word.) Anytime
> >people make jokes about someone being 'ept' or 'ebriated' they're
> >applying logic to make up a word. 'Chocaholic' and 'telethon' are even
> >better examples because they're not jokes
>
> These are examples of so-called "living affixes". Every language has them.
> There are IMO two points of great ineterst about them:
>
> A) How words are parsed to create new affixes. Both the -holic and the -thon
> are invented affixes. The model word "alcoholic" is parsed as "alco + holic",
> which is etymological nonsense. Similarly, "mara+ + thon". Question: are
> there similar invented affixes in other languages?
An example is the Finnish feminine suffix _-tar ~ -tär_, quite
unetymologically abstracted from _tytär_ "daughter", with possibly some
encouragement from _sisar_ "sister" (both IE loans, of course).
One could also compare the interrogative clitic /ti/ (variously spelled) in
colloquial French, originally _-t-il_.
Kim Bastin
Thomas Bauermann
"Douglas Dmitri Mosier" <domo...@aol.comorzinio> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20010211234444...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >So, why does "franco" means a person, and "denasko" not?
>
> Because, "franco" was given the meaning "a French person" by LLZ. "nask"
was
> given a verbal meaning by the same authority. By their very meanings,
Verbal
> roots do not refer to persons, rather to actions.
"grandegULo" for example, altough it also has an adjective root?
I really can't see a rule for when to use "anto", "o" and " ulo".
Thomas
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Douglas Dmitri Mosier <domo...@aol.comorzinio> wrote:
>> can do that in English.
>
>And that's how we get what I call "instruction booklet English", i.e. English
>so severely garbled that not even a native speaker can make much sense out of
>it.
>
>(snip)
> Anytime
>>people make jokes about someone being 'ept' or 'ebriated' they're
>>applying logic to make up a word.
>
>Maybe so, but those words are not considered to be "real" words for maybe
>decades until they have been used for so long, they "have to be" accepted in
>standard English. Esperanto accepts them unhesitatingly.
Unless, of course, they run afoul of the lexical distinctions between
nominal, verbal, and adjectival roots...
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
>"grandegULo" for example, altough it also has an adjective root?
All the nationality words are nominal roots, and with the -o ending denote a
person of that nationality.
>
>I really can't see a rule for when to use "anto", "o" and " ulo".
>
-anto is used on verbal roots to denote the agent of the action expressed in
the root. -ulo is used on adjectival roots to denote a person characterized by
the adjectival concept of the root. -o is used on nominal roots to, well,
denote nouns. All the nationality roots are taken to be nominal and denote a
person of that nationality. Other nominal roots denote tools, animals, other
things, etc. As I've said before, Esperanto is not an a priori language, so
will not be classified to such a niggling extent.
sd...@eti.hku.hk
>> Can't you get the point? Esperanto's lexicon is so
>> inconsistent.
Douglas> If you accept the theory of noun-root, verb-root, and
Douglas> adjective-root, then it is perfectly consistent.
1. This theory is not found in the so called "16 basic rules of
Esperanto". Is it ever mentioned in a more elaborate grammar book
of Esperanto?
2. The spellings of the words themselve never indicate whether a root
is noun-root, verb-root or adjective-root. This is INCONSISTENT
with Esperanto's marking of word class: "-o" ==> noun; "-a" ==>
adjective; "-i" (and inflected forms) ==> verb.
Douglas> And
Douglas> speaking of consistency, I wouldn't talk if I were
Douglas> you. Is it not true that Chinese words take on whatever
Douglas> (we in the west consider) parts of speech that it's
Douglas> position in the sentence dictates?
Basically, yes. This is more true in Cantonese than in Mandarin,
though. In Cantonese, even the word "rat/mouse" can be used as a verb
and an adjective. The word "dog" can be used as an adjective. The
word "car" can also be used as a verb. ...
Moreover, in Chinese and Japanese, we form the words for peoples and
countries regularly. Taking Chinese as example <De2> = German-thing;
<De2guo2> = Germany (<guo2> = country); <De2guo2ren2> = Germans
(<ren2> = man/people); <De2yu3> = German language (<yu3> = spoken
language); <De2wen2> = written German (<wen2> = "writing" or "text").
Now, given that <Ying1> = English/British-thing and <Fa3> =
French-thing, what would be the Chinese words for England, Englishman,
English language, written English, France, Frenchman, French language
and written French?
Japanese is similar on this, except that the word roots are different
(but they are Sino-Japanese). doitchi = German-thing; doitchi-goku =
Germany (goku/koku <== Chinese <guo2> = country); doitchijin = Germans
(jin <== Chinese <ren2> = people); doitchigo = German language (go <==
Chinese <yu3> = spoken language), etc. Now, try to derive the
equlivents for French and English, given that igilisu = English-thing;
furantsu(?) = French-thing.
Viktoro
>
>Japanese is similar on this, except that the word roots are different
>(but they are Sino-Japanese). doitchi = German-thing; doitchi-goku =
>Germany (goku/koku <== Chinese <guo2> = country); doitchijin = Germans
>(jin <== Chinese <ren2> = people); doitchigo = German language (go <==
>Chinese <yu3> = spoken language), etc. Now, try to derive the
>equlivents for French and English, given that igilisu = English-thing;
>furantsu(?) = French-thing.
>
>
>
They're 'Doitsu', 'Ingirisu', and 'Furansu'. There's no 'Doitsu-goku'
because
'Doitsu' already is the country itself. The pattern is different from
Esperanto as the base radical in Esperanto, 'Germano', is German PERSON, but
the base radical in Japanese, 'Doitsu', is the German LAND. 'Doitsu' is not
'German THING'. 'Doitsu-jin' is 'Germany person'. It's the same for other
Katakana radicals 'Furansu', 'Itaria', etc. They're countries.
--
Viktoro
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
> Japanese is similar on this, except that the word roots are different
> (but they are Sino-Japanese). doitchi = German-thing; doitchi-goku =
> Germany (goku/koku <== Chinese <guo2> = country); doitchijin = Germans
> (jin <== Chinese <ren2> = people); doitchigo = German language (go <==
> Chinese <yu3> = spoken language), etc. Now, try to derive the
> equlivents for French and English, given that igilisu = English-thing;
> furantsu(?) = French-thing.
Not quite :-). The root for "German" is "doitsu", not "doitchi" -- but the
country is "doitsu" and not "doitsukoku". And England is "igirisu" and not
"igirisukoku" (though I think you can also call it "eikoku" = "ying1guo2").
Doitsujin and doitsugo are correct, but "English" to my knowledge is always eigo
and never igirisugo. I'm not sure whether an Englishman is an eikokujin or an
igirisujin. With "furansu - furansugo - furansujin" it's the same as with
"doitsu".
Hm, I think "koku" is used fairly seldomly: chuugoku (China), kankoku (Korea),
beikoku (America), taikoku (Thailand -- though usually just "tai" in katakana as
far as I know). Any others?
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
That really is my address; no need to remove anything to reply.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
> Esperanto". Is it ever mentioned in a more elaborate grammar book
> of Esperanto?
Nobody, especially Dr. Zamenhof himself, EVER claimed that the 16 Rules were an
exhaustive treatment of the grammer. And to answer your question, the PMEG, a
VERY extensive treatment, discusses this idea to a great extent.
>
>2. The spellings of the words themselve never indicate whether a root
> is noun-root, verb-root or adjective-root. This is INCONSISTENT
> with Esperanto's marking of word class: "-o" ==> noun; "-a" ==>
> adjective; "-i" (and inflected forms) ==> verb.
>
SO??????? That's WHY we *have* the -o, -a, -i endings. And nothing requires
the roots to be marked to show their grammatical character. That is not an
inconsistency.
>This is more true in Cantonese than in Mandarin,
>though. In Cantonese, even the word "rat/mouse" can be used as a verb
>and an adjective. The word "dog" can be used as an adjective. The
>word "car" can also be used as a verb. ...
Without marking them as such????? OH THE HORROR!!!! How inconsistent of you.
>Moreover, in Chinese and Japanese, we form the words for peoples and
>countries regularly. Taking Chinese as example <De2> = German-thing;
><De2guo2> = Germany (<guo2> = country); <De2guo2ren2> = Germans
>(<ren2> = man/people); <De2yu3> = German language (<yu3> = spoken
>language); <De2wen2> = written German (<wen2> = "writing" or "text").
>Now, given that <Ying1> = English/British-thing and <Fa3> =
>French-thing, what would be the Chinese words for England, Englishman,
>English language, written English, France, Frenchman, French language
>and written French?
Um, excuse me, but it works the same in Esperanto: German- "German thing"
Germano, a German; Germanio, Germany; Germana lingvo, German language (sorry we
don't have a suffix for 'language')
>Japanese is similar on this, except that the word roots are different
>(but they are Sino-Japanese). doitchi = German-thing; doitchi-goku =
>Germany (goku/koku <== Chinese <guo2> = country); doitchijin = Germans
>(jin <== Chinese <ren2> = people); doitchigo = German language (go <==
>Chinese <yu3> = spoken language), etc. Now, try to derive the
>equlivents for French and English, given that igilisu = English-thing;
>furantsu(?) = French-thing.
>
Sorry to break this to you, but "doichi" and "furantsu" are not sino-japanese
roots as you claim in teh above paragraph. They are borrowings from the
respective languages.
sd...@eti.hku.hk
>> 2. The spellings of the words themselve never indicate whether
>> a root is noun-root, verb-root or adjective-root. This is
>> INCONSISTENT with Esperanto's marking of word class: "-o" ==>
>> noun; "-a" ==> adjective; "-i" (and inflected forms) ==> verb.
>>
Douglas> SO??????? That's WHY we *have* the -o, -a, -i endings.
Douglas> And nothing requires the roots to be marked to show their
Douglas> grammatical character. That is not an inconsistency.
That's inconsistency from a design point of view. You do mark the
word classes explicitly, but the classes of word roots are not marked.
That's misleading and confusing.
>> This is more true in Cantonese than in Mandarin, though. In
>> Cantonese, even the word "rat/mouse" can be used as a verb and
>> an adjective. The word "dog" can be used as an adjective. The
>> word "car" can also be used as a verb. ...
Douglas> Without marking them as such????? OH THE HORROR!!!! How
Douglas> inconsistent of you.
We ARE consistent: we don't have grammatical markers in any case, be
it word roots or standalone words.
Consistency != marking
Consistency means consistency. It means applying the same LOGIC or
philosophy thoroughly. If you like grammatical markers, OK, do it
thoroughly. If you like case endings, fine! Do it consistently and
mark all cases with endings. If you like using prepositions to mark
the roles of words, fine! mark all roles (even the nominative and
accusative) then with a preposition. Using case endings for some
cases (accusative) and prepositions for some others (dative, ablative,
etc.) and yet nothing for some others (nominative and predicative) is
INCONSISTENT and hence difficult.
>> Moreover, in Chinese and Japanese, we form the words for
>> peoples and countries regularly. Taking Chinese as example
>> <De2> = German-thing; <De2guo2> = Germany (<guo2> = country);
>> <De2guo2ren2> = Germans (<ren2> = man/people); <De2yu3> =
>> German language (<yu3> = spoken language); <De2wen2> = written
>> German (<wen2> = "writing" or "text"). Now, given that <Ying1>
>> = English/British-thing and <Fa3> = French-thing, what would be
>> the Chinese words for England, Englishman, English language,
>> written English, France, Frenchman, French language and written
>> French?
Douglas> Um, excuse me, but it works the same in Esperanto:
Douglas> German- "German thing" Germano, a German; Germanio,
Douglas> Germany; Germana lingvo, German language (sorry we don't
Douglas> have a suffix for 'language')
No. "Germana" is ambiguous. Sometimes, it is an adjective for
"german-"; sometimes, it acts as a NOUN meaning "the German language".
This is a flaw, which is obviously a flaw copied from European
languages.
>> Japanese is similar on this, except that the word roots are
>> different (but they are Sino-Japanese). doitchi =
>> German-thing; doitchi-goku = Germany (goku/koku <== Chinese
>> <guo2> = country); doitchijin = Germans (jin <== Chinese <ren2>
>> = people); doitchigo = German language (go <== Chinese <yu3> =
>> spoken language), etc. Now, try to derive the equlivents for
>> French and English, given that igilisu = English-thing;
>> furantsu(?) = French-thing.
Douglas> Sorry to break this to you, but "doichi" and "furantsu"
Douglas> are not sino-japanese roots as you claim in teh above
Douglas> paragraph. They are borrowings from the respective
Douglas> languages.
What's wrong with that? Yes, Japanese is that **flexible**. Japanese
roots, Chinese roots and foreign roots can be combined freely to
produce meaningful compounds. What do you think a <keshi-gumu> is?
<keshi> is a Japanese native root for "erasing", whereas <gumu> is a
loan from English "gum". What does it mean? That's a "rubber", or
"eraser". (For the more knowledgable people, yes, the word
<keshi-gumu> is written with <gumu> in Katakana, <keshi> with a Kanji
followed by the Hiragana <shi>.)
Well... I know that you find this surprising. English, for instance,
does not easily combine roots from different origins to form
compounds. So, "synchronous" is possible, but "isochronous" and
"syntemporal" are awkward. "Isotemporal" looks OK. So, English is not
flexible enough (i.e. more restrictive).
Douglas Dmitri Mosier
Chinese is the most logical and flexible language on the face of the earth and
all other languages that don't work exactly like it are stupid.
There. Now go away.
Viktoro
>No. "Germana" is ambiguous. Sometimes, it is an adjective for
>"german-"; sometimes, it acts as a NOUN meaning "the German language".
>This is a flaw, which is obviously a flaw copied from European
>languages.
>
There should have been a language suffix like '-ezo': Anglezo, Chinezo,
etc.
It would have been better than using an adjective: Angla, China, etc.
No, Esperanto isn't perfect, but I'll take the morphology of Esperanto over
Spanish, French, and other European languages any day.
--
Viktoro
Richard Herring
> Well... I know that you find this surprising. English, for instance,
> does not easily combine roots from different origins to form
> compounds.
Television.
> So, "synchronous" is possible, but "isochronous" and
> "syntemporal" are awkward. "Isotemporal" looks OK. So, English is not
> flexible enough (i.e. more restrictive).
"isochronous" is in my dictionary, but not "isotemporal".
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Hessu
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>
> There are lots of such logical inconsistencies in the Esperanto
> lexicon for it to deserve the title "a logical language". Yes, its
> grammar is quite (but not completely) logical, but the structure of
> its lexicon is a mess.
>
> --
> Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
> .----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | e-mail: sd...@eti.hku.hk http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
> `----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
What can you expect. It's based on existing vocabulary of European
languages.
It's easy enough to learn, but if practising the pronunciation takes
several months I think it is not good for IAL.
Hessu
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>
> >>>>> "indriko" == indriko <ind...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> indriko> In article <m1y9vg7...@ibmp3-4.eti.hku.hk>,
> indriko> sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>
> >> So, what would "denasko" mean, if it isn't synonmous with
> >> "denaskulo"?
>
> indriko> 'Denasko' would be, literally, a 'from-birth', which is
> indriko> meaningless, as far as I can tell.
>
> Then, why is "franco" meaningful, and "franculo" strange?
If get a damage during your birth, that would be "denasko" or "denaska"
damage
sd...@eti.hku.hk
Hessu> What can you expect. It's based on existing vocabulary of
Hessu> European languages. It's easy enough to learn, but if
Hessu> practising the pronunciation takes several months I think
Hessu> it is not good for IAL.
No, it isn't easy at all for non-speakers of European languages.
Cvi Solt
>> There are lots of such logical inconsistencies in the Esperanto
>> lexicon for it to deserve the title "a logical language". Yes, its
>> grammar is quite (but not completely) logical, but the structure of
>> its lexicon is a mess.
>
>What can you expect. It's based on existing vocabulary of European
>languages.
Right, the vocabulary was designed to be easy to learn - or at least
to understand. And, yes, it is based on languages of European origin.
If we had to design such a language today, it would probably have more
influence from non-european languages. Also, English and spanish for
example, that have become stronger, would be considered more, and french
and german, that have grown weaker, less.
However, those were the logical choices at that time. And the idea is to
have a good functioning and stabile language and not reinvent it every
10-20 years.
Also the grammar
>It's easy enough to learn, but if practising the pronunciation takes
>several months I think it is not good for IAL.
I have never met anyone with that problem. You can often recognize the
mother language of Esperanto speakers by pronunciation. There is a
preferred pronunciation. There are sounds, like the "r" that are
difficult for some. However, I never heard of someone practising
pronunciation for months.
Cvi Solt
STAN MULAIK
>In article <eVig6.12037$Qb7.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
> "Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy" <przemyslaw_w...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> There are many reasons why someone might want to learn a language like
>> German. They range from the obvious (being able to speak with over one
>> hundred million native speakers of German in their native tongue) to
>the
>> less obvious (being able to read 'Der Zauberberg' in the original).
>Are
>> there corresponding reasons why someone might want to learn Esperanto?
>Most esperantists are initially attracted by a mixture of curiosity and
>"one-world" idealism, combined with the perhaps naive notion that a
>single artificial world language is both desirable and achievable. Those
>who stick with it usually do so because they've made friends through
>esperanto and find it an interesting hobby. They may or may not retain
>the traditional Esperanto ideology. A lot don't really believe in it.
[deletion]
>Chris
Il ha altere rationes pro apprender un lingua auxiliar. Io apprendeva
interlingua proque illo esseva facile de apprender mais natural. Io
discoperiva que io pote extender lo que io apprende a altere linguas
romance. Tosto post apprender interlingua io poteva leger le francese
e le espaniol, e post alcun parve studio del italiano, io poteva
comprender italiano scripte.
Io cognosce svedos qui usa lor interlingua in le sud de Europa pro
conversar con italianos e catalanos e espanioles. Io pone messages
in interlingua a gruppos de novas pro espaniol, italiano, francese
e io es immediatemente comprendite.
Proque interlingua es un constatation del vocabulario international,
que es basicamente le latino e le greco con alcun parolas del
francese e italiano e espaniol, io apprende multo del etymologia de
anglese. Mi technicas del analyse de parolas in anglese es melior
proque multe del radices de parolas latin in anglese existe como
verbos in interlingua. Assi io pote comprender que "legible" in
anglese es derivate de un verbo "legere" in latino que significa
"to read", proque in interlingua le plen familia derivational
existe in "leger", "legibile", "lector", "lectura", "lection",
"illegibilitate", "illegibile", etc..
Io ha multe amicos in le interrete con qui io excambia le messages
in interlingua. Isto es bon. Mais interlingua non ha le ideologia
que illo es destinate devenir le lingua auxiliar del mundo.
Illo justo es un lingua "auxiliar" pro usos ubicunque illo
facilita le communication. Isto usualmente es in le regiones del
civilization occidental.
--
Stanley A. Mulaik
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!pscccsm
Internet: psc...@prism.gatech.edu
sd...@eti.hku.hk
>> It's easy enough to learn, but if practising the pronunciation
>> takes several months I think it is not good for IAL.
Cvi> I have never met anyone with that problem.
That means you've never met a mono-lingual Asian struggling to learn
Esperanto.
Cvi> You can often
Cvi> recognize the mother language of Esperanto speakers by
Cvi> pronunciation. There is a preferred pronunciation. There are
Cvi> sounds, like the "r" that are difficult for some.
That's a bug, not a "feature".
Cvi> However, I
Cvi> never heard of someone practising pronunciation for months.
I know a German who found it ridiculous that Esperanto textbooks
printed in Beijing has "pronunciation drill sessions". He thought,
"How come? Isn't Esperanto pronunciation trivial?" He then tried
teaching Esperanto to some Chinese and then he knew why the
pronunciation drill sessions are *necessary*.
michael farris
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
> >>>>> "Cvi" == Cvi Solt <c...@esperanto.nu> writes:
>
> >> It's easy enough to learn, but if practising the pronunciation
> >> takes several months I think it is not good for IAL.
> Cvi> I have never met anyone with that problem.
>
> That means you've never met a mono-lingual Asian struggling to learn
> Esperanto.
I haven't either, but I have the linguistics background to realize it wouldn't be
easy. This fails to impressed die-hard Western Esperantists.
I support the Eo ideal of a more culturally neutral lingua franca than English and
would hope that you do too.
On the other hand, I realize that Eo is also Euro-centric (in phonology,
vocabulary and semantics, and while the mechanics of the grammar aren't
Euro-centric, the categories the grammar expresses are extremely so), but it does
have the potential to be considerably less so, unlike English which is far more
Euro-centric and will stay so despite how ever many Chinese people learn it. If
Unfortunately, the party-line Eists don't want to hear that and things won't get
better for Eo until they do realize the Euro-centric base of Eo.
>
> Cvi> You can often
> Cvi> recognize the mother language of Esperanto speakers by
> Cvi> pronunciation. There is a preferred pronunciation. There are
> Cvi> sounds, like the "r" that are difficult for some.
>
> That's a bug, not a "feature".
The overwhelming majority of Eo I've heard (mostly from Europeans, but with the
occasional speaker from Asia) don't come close the idealized ("from nowhere")
accent. That's not a bad thing, necessarily since it's still easy enough to
understand.
> I know a German who found it ridiculous that Esperanto textbooks
> printed in Beijing has "pronunciation drill sessions". He thought,
> "How come? Isn't Esperanto pronunciation trivial?" He then tried
> teaching Esperanto to some Chinese and then he knew why the
> pronunciation drill sessions are *necessary*.
Of course for speakers of Mandarin with it's narrow range of syllable types, lack
of any voiced stops and obligatory tone would need pronunciation drills in almost
_any_ other language, Asian, European or African (Okay maybe Japanese or some of
the more monosyllabic African languages wouldn't be too hard).
I imagine that speakers of some other Chinese languages, such as Cantonese with
it's more extensive list of syllable final consonants, might have a slightly
easier time of it.
- mike farris
sd...@eti.hku.hk
michael> I haven't either, but I have the linguistics background
michael> to realize it wouldn't be easy. This fails to impressed
michael> die-hard Western Esperantists. I support the Eo ideal of
michael> a more culturally neutral lingua franca than English and
michael> would hope that you do too.
Me too. But Esperanto is not a suitable candidate.
michael> but it does have the potential to be
michael> considerably less so,
Sorry, it's current user-base have buried this potential deep under
the ground.
michael> unlike English which is far more
michael> Euro-centric and will stay so despite how ever many
michael> Chinese people learn it.
English does have advantage of a wider user base. If Esperanto has
the potential to be less Eurocentric, so has English!
michael> If Unfortunately, the party-line
michael> Eists don't want to hear that and things won't get better
michael> for Eo until they do realize the Euro-centric base of Eo.
They're UNWILLING to realize it. That's a dead-end.
michael> I imagine that speakers
michael> of some other Chinese languages, such as Cantonese with
michael> it's more extensive list of syllable final consonants,
michael> might have a slightly easier time of it.
Yes, but only slightly. The problems with the difficult consonant
*clusters* and the difficulty of word stress (what's that, huh?) makes
it difficult to native speakers of most (if not all) Chinese languages
as well as many East/SouthEast-Asian languages.
Hessu
z, z^, g^, c^
these are really hard for me as native speaker of Finnish (European but
not Indo-European language).
I speak English fluently but still can't regocnize difference between b
and p.
The biggest mistakes conlangers or artlangers do, is assume that
learners of their IAL has same
backround (languages, culture, religion and education) than themselves.
If IAL learning isn't easy for person who can't even write and read and
is living
third world, it is not good IAL, that's my opinion.
michael farris
sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
> >>>>> "michael" == michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> writes:
> I support the Eo ideal of
> michael> a more culturally neutral lingua franca than English and
> michael> would hope that you do too.
>
> Me too. But Esperanto is not a suitable candidate.
>
> michael> but it does have the potential to be
> michael> considerably less so (Euro-centric: maf),
>
> Sorry, it's current user-base have buried this potential deep under
> the ground.
and
> They're UNWILLING to realize it (Eo's Euro-centricity:maf). That's a dead-end.
You have so little hope for the future. Why so cynical? No, the Eo movement has a
lot of problems. That doesn't surprise me. Your harshness toward it does surprise
me a little.
-mike farris
Rich Wales
> I speak English fluently but still can't recognize the
> difference between b and p.
Straying a bit from Hessu's original point about sound systems in
artifically constructed languages, but one important difference
between English /b/ and /p/ (when the contrast matters) is that
/p/ is generally aspirated (pronounced with a strong puff of air).
If you've ever heard English speakers trying to speak Finnish,
and if they sounded to you as if they were spitting out their /p/,
/t/, and /k/ sounds, this is a perfectly normal feature of native
English pronunciation, and English speech without this feature
sounds very strange -- even confusing -- to a native speaker.
Many linguists think the difference between English word-initial
/p/ and /b/ is primarily aspiration, even more than voicing. Some
years ago, I met a young lady (who was of Finnish ancestry and
fully bilingual in both English and Finnish) who said her name was
Päivi; she pronounced her name in Finnish fashion, and I initially
misheard her and thought she had said her name was "Baby".
Rich Wales ri...@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/
Hessu
Well, I also had "Baby" called "Päivi" once (he, I'm almost choking,
khm;)
Seriously, I now can hear difference you meant.
I think that the most dangerous thing when developing IAL is not grammar
or
vocabulary, but pronunciation and stress.
In myHumbleIAL thats for there's only one syllable words.
And stress has no meaning and it should be equal in all
syllables(here:words).
I included b,g,d anyway.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>
>sd...@eti.hku.hk wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "Cvi" == Cvi Solt <c...@esperanto.nu> writes:
>>
>> >> It's easy enough to learn, but if practising the pronunciation
>> >> takes several months I think it is not good for IAL.
>> Cvi> I have never met anyone with that problem.
>>
>> That means you've never met a mono-lingual Asian struggling to learn
>> Esperanto.
>
>I haven't either, but I have the linguistics background to realize it
>wouldn't be easy. This fails to impressed die-hard Western Esperantists.
>I support the Eo ideal of a more culturally neutral lingua franca than
>English and would hope that you do too. On the other hand, I realize
>that Eo is also Euro-centric (in phonology, vocabulary and semantics, and
>while the mechanics of the grammar aren't Euro-centric, the categories
>the grammar expresses are extremely so), but it does have the potential
>to be considerably less so, unlike English which is far more Euro-centric
>and will stay so despite how ever many Chinese people learn it.
What makes you think so? I have to agree with Sau Dan: If Esperanto can
become less Eurocentric, why not English? In fact, I would argue that
English has *more* potential for change in this respect than Esperanto!
Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct. It seems that everybody
with a little learning about Esperanto has their own laundry list of "im-
provements". (It goes without saying that no two lists are the same.)
Quite a few "improved" versions of Esperanto have been launched over time.
But where are they now? What too many IAL enthusiasts forget is that next
to nobody learns a language because of its design; they learn it for what
they can do with it. "Globalising" Esperanto's grammar might do more to
split the existing community of speakers than to expand it--and its that
community that keeps the language alive.
English grammar, like that of all natural languages, is in flux. Unlike
most national languages, however, its standards are multilocal. No one
country "owns" English and no one body sets the standards for its usage.
That the English have spoken the language longer than the rest of us cuts
no ice; we all insist on the acceptableness of our regional variations.
And the club of English-speaking nations is not exclusive. If the Indians
can take the language and make it their own, what's to stop the Chinese
from doing the same? Canadians don't have to speak or even understand
Singlish, but they can't deny its existence and they refuse to recognise
it as a kindred dialect at the risk of seeming snobbish and foolish. I'm
not sure what feaures of English grammar you consider "Eurocentric", but
if Asian speakers wish to, they are free to discard them.
michael farris
"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" wrote:
> I have to agree with Sau Dan: If Esperanto can
> become less Eurocentric, why not English? In fact, I would argue that
> English has *more* potential for change in this respect than Esperanto!
Well English will still have tens of millions of native Euro-centric speakers.
If Asian (or other non-European) populations start disregarding number
distinctions, try to add a classifier system or whatever, the native speakers
will (figuratively) slap them down.
Despite the cant from ESL materials, the fact remains that for native
speakers, only native varieties of English are "good enough". (what I think
about this will change nothing)
On the other hand, if a big majority of Chinese (or Japanese, or Korean) Eo
speakers disregard number create vocabulary to reflect important Asian
cultural concepts (like age grading for siblings, already used by some Asian
Eo speakers, 'frategino' (older sister) or 'fratetino' (younger sister) both
far superior to 'pli maljuna fratino' or 'pli juna fratino', then the
non-Europeans will have to deal with that. (there's already a significant gap
in accusative usage between formal written Eo and spontaneous speech where it
is often nowhere to be found).
It's a question of center of gravity. The Gravity of English remains with the
native speakers, the gravity of Esperanto moves with speaker
>
> Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct.
True, unfortunately.
> It seems that everybody
> with a little learning about Esperanto has their own laundry list of "im-
> provements". (It goes without saying that no two lists are the same.)
90% of these are the same (and concern the accusative and adjective agreement,
the pronounds and the correlatives)
>
> What too many IAL enthusiasts forget is that next
> to nobody learns a language because of its design; they learn it for what
> they can do with it.
True, unfortunately one can do little with Eo. All my proposals for finding
ways to use the language outside the movement are certainly not looked with
joy by movadistoj.
> "Globalising" Esperanto's grammar might do more to
> split the existing community of speakers than to expand it--and its that
> community that keeps the language alive.
No, I'm not a reformer (except that I think periodically standards need to be
adjusted based on usage). The natural changes that happen to Eo (or would
likely happen if it were used instrumentally instead of self-referentially)
would make most 'reform' projects look puny and uninspired.
> English grammar, like that of all natural languages, is in flux. Unlike
> most national languages, however, its standards are multilocal.
There are two basic standards. (centers of gravity if you will)
> No one
> country "owns" English and no one body sets the standards for its usage.
I don't believe that for a second.
>
> That the English have spoken the language longer than the rest of us cuts
> no ice;
wanna bet? Here at ground level central Europe (where I live) that's certainly
not the case. Non British English (soemtimes even American) is generally
looked upon as clearly inferior (even by people who should know better, like
university isntructors.
> we all insist on the acceptableness of our regional variations.
>
but you're talking about native usage.
>
> And the club of English-speaking nations is not exclusive. If the Indians
> can take the language and make it their own,
but can they? English has prestige in India but Indian English (aside from a
handful of pretentious novelists) has no prestige outstide of India.
> what's to stop the Chinese
> from doing the same? Canadians don't have to speak or even understand
> Singlish, but they can't deny its existence and they refuse to recognise
> it as a kindred dialect at the risk of seeming snobbish and foolish. I'm
> not sure what feaures of English grammar you consider "Eurocentric", but
> if Asian speakers wish to, they are free to discard them.
already addressed
Finally. There _are_ cases where what you're saying is true. I've only
experienced this twice (twice at the same conference in Hungary) where English
is the working language and native speakers were a tiny, tiny (maybe 2 or 3 %
minority). There I absolutely had to modify my usage to be understood, but
that's not the usual situation.
-mike farris
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>
>"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Sau Dan: If Esperanto can
>> become less Eurocentric, why not English? In fact, I would argue that
>> English has *more* potential for change in this respect than Esperanto!
>
>Well English will still have tens of millions of native Euro-centric speakers.
>If Asian (or other non-European) populations start disregarding number
>distinctions, try to add a classifier system or whatever, the native speakers
>will (figuratively) slap them down.
>Despite the cant from ESL materials, the fact remains that for native
>speakers, only native varieties of English are "good enough". (what I think
>about this will change nothing)
But varieties of English spoken in South and Southeast Asia *are* native.
There's nothing but inertia preventing Asians from selecting one of these
as their prestige variety. They're going to have to work out some sort of
compromise. The working language of ASEAN is English, but some countries
(Malaysia, Singapore) favour the usage of one of your two major centres of
gravity and others (Philippines, Vietnam) favour the other. In addition,
Australia has mighty ambitions in the area which could boost the fortunes
of its own variety (or sink them, if other countries begin to feel threat-
ened).
>On the other hand, if a big majority of Chinese (or Japanese, or Korean) Eo
>speakers disregard number create vocabulary to reflect important Asian
>cultural concepts (like age grading for siblings, already used by some Asian
>Eo speakers, 'frategino' (older sister) or 'fratetino' (younger sister) both
>far superior to 'pli maljuna fratino' or 'pli juna fratino', then the
>non-Europeans will have to deal with that. (there's already a significant gap
>in accusative usage between formal written Eo and spontaneous speech where it
>is often nowhere to be found).
>It's a question of center of gravity. The Gravity of English remains with the
>native speakers, the gravity of Esperanto moves with speaker
But the centre of gravity moves as well. Where was it in 1900? 1800?
Furthermore, the homelands of English as a native languages are filled
with non-native speakers--and the proportion looks certain to grow as
first world birth rates continue to fall.
>> Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct.
>
>True, unfortunately.
But isn't one of the virtues of an IAL consistency?
>> It seems that everybody
>> with a little learning about Esperanto has their own laundry list of "im-
>> provements". (It goes without saying that no two lists are the same.)
>
>90% of these are the same (and concern the accusative and adjective agreement,
>the pronounds and the correlatives)
Everyone wants to change the pronouns. But, like advocates of gender-
neutrality in English, no one can agree on the exact forms.
>> What too many IAL enthusiasts forget is that next
>> to nobody learns a language because of its design; they learn it for what
>> they can do with it.
>
>True, unfortunately one can do little with Eo. All my proposals for finding
>ways to use the language outside the movement are certainly not looked with
>joy by movadistoj.
>
>> "Globalising" Esperanto's grammar might do more to
>> split the existing community of speakers than to expand it--and its that
>> community that keeps the language alive.
>
>No, I'm not a reformer (except that I think periodically standards need to be
>adjusted based on usage). The natural changes that happen to Eo (or would
>likely happen if it were used instrumentally instead of self-referentially)
>would make most 'reform' projects look puny and uninspired.
>
>> English grammar, like that of all natural languages, is in flux. Unlike
>> most national languages, however, its standards are multilocal.
>
>There are two basic standards. (centers of gravity if you will)
>
>> No one
>> country "owns" English and no one body sets the standards for its usage.
>
>I don't believe that for a second.
Alright: Then name that one country and that one body.
>> That the English have spoken the language longer than the rest of us cuts
>> no ice;
>
>wanna bet?
Yup!
>Here at ground level central Europe (where I live) that's certainly
>not the case. Non British English (soemtimes even American) is generally
>looked upon as clearly inferior (even by people who should know better, like
>university isntructors.
Before WWII, British English was the indisputable standard there. And
now? These countries are changing in composition as well. Germany has
been debating the merits of importing South Asian labour for years, but
its a trend that looks certain to increase--as does the immigration of
English-speakers from Africa.
But even these trends are probably minor compared to the effects of in-
creased growth in the developing world. India has the potential to be a
stronger economic power than China; if it realises that potential, what do
you think that will do to attitudes toward South Asian English?
In some of the most economically powerful and political influential
countries in Africa (Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa), English is native.
This countries have the potential to become the nuclei of important eco-
nomic blocks with English as their language of intercommunication. How
long do you think such blocs will continue to look to their former colon-
iser to set norms for usage?
>> we all insist on the acceptableness of our regional variations.
>
>but you're talking about native usage.
English is native more places than you seem to think.
>> And the club of English-speaking nations is not exclusive. If the Indians
>> can take the language and make it their own,
>
>but can they? English has prestige in India but Indian English (aside from a
>handful of pretentious novelists) has no prestige outstide of India.
See above.
>> what's to stop the Chinese
>> from doing the same? Canadians don't have to speak or even understand
>> Singlish, but they can't deny its existence and they refuse to recognise
>> it as a kindred dialect at the risk of seeming snobbish and foolish. I'm
>> not sure what feaures of English grammar you consider "Eurocentric", but
>> if Asian speakers wish to, they are free to discard them.
>
>already addressed
>
>Finally. There _are_ cases where what you're saying is true. I've only
>experienced this twice (twice at the same conference in Hungary) where English
>is the working language and native speakers were a tiny, tiny (maybe 2 or 3 %
>minority). There I absolutely had to modify my usage to be understood, but
>that's not the usual situation.
It's the usual situation in quite a few multinationals. Several of these
are based in Switzerland, where an increasing number of residents are
turning to English for neutral intercantonal communication and the propor-
tion of immigrants in the population continues to climb as the Swiss birth
rate continues to fall.
What I see is that the prospects for the use of English among speakers of
English as a second language and among speakers of varieties outside the
two major centres look enormous while those within those centres look mod-
est. Even within those centres, usage is becoming more tolerant. Remem-
ber BBC English? Can such a thing be said to exist any more? And Broad-
cast English? Tell me you can't tell which of the three major network an-
chors is a Canadian and which is a Texan.
So how can you insist that there is less potential for English to become
less Eurocentric than for Esperanto?
sd...@eti.hku.hk
michael> Well English will still have tens of millions of native
michael> Euro-centric speakers.
India has a population size that you have to count with hundreds of
millions.
michael> If Asian (or other non-European)
michael> populations start disregarding number distinctions, try
michael> to add a classifier system or whatever, the native
michael> speakers will (figuratively) slap them down.
Why classifiers? We Asians do know that it is a difficult feature for
foreigners. So, we won't impose it on you. (On the other hand,
Esperantists like to impose case, tense, number on us.)
michael> Despite the
michael> cant from ESL materials, the fact remains that for native
michael> speakers, only native varieties of English are "good
michael> enough".
What are "native varieties" of English? Is Oxford English a native
variety? How about the American "accent"? And the Australian
"accent"? And the Singaporean "accent"? And the Filipino "accent"?
And the Scottish "accent"? Is Tok Pisin a variety of English? Is
Welsh a variety of English?
michael> (what I think about this will change nothing) On
michael> the other hand, if a big majority of Chinese (or
michael> Japanese, or Korean) Eo speakers disregard number create
michael> vocabulary to reflect important Asian cultural concepts
michael> (like age grading for siblings, already used by some
michael> Asian Eo speakers, 'frategino' (older sister) or
michael> 'fratetino' (younger sister) both far superior to 'pli
michael> maljuna fratino' or 'pli juna fratino', then the
michael> non-Europeans will have to deal with that.
This is still in a hypothetical stage. Wait and see... It's more
likely to see these Asians Europeanized. If not, you Esperantists
will say "Hey, your language is not true Esperanto. You don't speak
'properly'. Go away!"
michael> The Gravity of English remains with the native
michael> speakers, the gravity of Esperanto moves with speaker
If Esperanto really became popular one day, then native speakers will
emerge within one generation. Then, Esperanto will become hi-jacked
by this group of native speakers, making it no less denaskulo-centric
than English is nowadays.
Where is English's centre of gravity nowadays? England? North
America? India? Australia? Singapore? Malaysia?
>> Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct.
michael> True, unfortunately.
And I think this is a fatal problem of Esperanto.
>> What too many IAL enthusiasts forget is that next to nobody
>> learns a language because of its design; they learn it for what
>> they can do with it.
michael> True, unfortunately one can do little with Eo.
And the best is: to drop it. It's something obsolete. It is
something designed with a Eurocentric mindset and world-view of the
19-th century. It's something not properly designed. It's so ad-hoc
that it's inelegant.
>> No one country "owns" English and no one body sets the
>> standards for its usage.
michael> I don't believe that for a second.
Which country is owning English nowadays?
michael> Finally. There _are_ cases where what you're saying is
michael> true. I've only experienced this twice (twice at the same
michael> conference in Hungary) where English is the working
michael> language and native speakers were a tiny, tiny (maybe 2
michael> or 3 % minority). There I absolutely had to modify my
michael> usage to be understood, but that's not the usual
michael> situation.
That's the kind of situation many English L2 speakers encounters in
*international* events, such as international academic conferences,
transnational business meetings, etc.
sd...@eti.hku.hk
>>> Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct.
>> True, unfortunately.
D> But isn't one of the virtues of an IAL consistency?
Esperanto is already full of inconsistencies that are so obvious to
native speakers of non-European languages. We've just discussed a few
in passing. Read more past articles in sci.lang to dig out more
discussions about them.
D> Everyone wants to change the pronouns. But, like advocates of
D> gender- neutrality in English, no one can agree on the exact
D> forms.
So, inconsistencies never get fixed.
D> So how can you insist that there is less potential for English
D> to become less Eurocentric than for Esperanto?
And indeed, English has been becoming less and less Eurocentric after
WWII, while Esperanto remains as sacrosanct as its day one.
Viktoro
<sd...@eti.hku.hk> wrote in message
news:m1elwuy...@ibmp3-4.eti.hku.hk...
>
> English does have advantage of a wider user base. If Esperanto has
> the potential to be less Eurocentric, so has English!
>
>
In fact, there are derivatives of English, pidgin English, that have
grammars closer to Chinese: isolating, fixed SVO order, aspect markers, no
inflections, etc.
It's rather simple to concoct a derivative of Esperanto with similar
characteristics to pidgin, but the marginal returns for such changes are not
great. I look at Esperanto as basically a Romance language with a stripped
down, streamlined morphology. It's Eurocentric all right, but it's a
Eurocentric world; it's a question of whether reflecting Eurocentricity in
an IAL is a good idea or not. If we accept the fact that the world IS
Eurocentric anyway, then reflecting this trait in an IAL may be all right.
-Viktoro
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>>>>>> "D" == D Edward Gund v Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
> >>> Why? Because Esperanto grammar is sacrosanct.
> >> True, unfortunately.
>
> D> But isn't one of the virtues of an IAL consistency?
>
>Esperanto is already full of inconsistencies that are so obvious to
>native speakers of non-European languages. We've just discussed a few
>in passing. Read more past articles in sci.lang to dig out more
>discussions about them.
Ugh, why? I've been reading your anti-Esperanto articles for five years
now, Sau Dan. I've seen the same arguments so many times I don't have any
desire to review them.
What you're missing here is that there's more than one kind of consisten-
cy. You're focussing on one kind, internal consistency, which is syn-
chronic. I'm talking about diachronic consistency. Perhaps using the
term "continuity" might have led to less misunderstanding, but it has
other problems of vagueness. Any natural language that is still spoken e-
vinces continuity; however, its grammar is also on a state of flux. Es-
peranto's grammar may be flawed from some points of view, but it is sup-
posedly more stable than that of natural languages. We are guaranteed
from the outset that, say, a weakening of ustressed vowels won't lead to a
merging of the endings <o> and <a> with the loss of transparency that en-
tails.
> D> Everyone wants to change the pronouns. But, like advocates of
> D> gender- neutrality in English, no one can agree on the exact
> D> forms.
>
>So, inconsistencies never get fixed.
>
> D> So how can you insist that there is less potential for English
> D> to become less Eurocentric than for Esperanto?
>
>And indeed, English has been becoming less and less Eurocentric after
>WWII, while Esperanto remains as sacrosanct as its day one.
--
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>>>>>> "michael" == michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> writes:
>
> michael> Well English will still have tens of millions of native
> michael> Euro-centric speakers.
>
>India has a population size that you have to count with hundreds of
>millions.
How many of which speak English? And how many of those natively? Mr
Farris is right in saying that the centres of gravity for English usage
are still the USA and Britain. I think that they're shifting and that
India will one day rival them, but I acknowledge that it's not there yet.
[snip]
> michael> Despite the
> michael> cant from ESL materials, the fact remains that for native
> michael> speakers, only native varieties of English are "good
> michael> enough".
>
>What are "native varieties" of English?
I took this to mean "varieties spoken natively, i.e. from birth". "Mother
tongue varieties" if you prefer.
This definition excludes Singaporean and Filipino for the great majority
of speakers. (I'm certain some speakers learn them as first languages,
but they are still a tiny percentage of the respective totals.)
>Is Oxford English a native
>variety? How about the American "accent"? And the Australian
>"accent"? And the Singaporean "accent"? And the Filipino "accent"?
>And the Scottish "accent"?
>Is Tok Pisin a variety of English?
Based on some form of mutual intelligibility criteria, most experts answer
"No".
>Is Welsh a variety of English?
A-Dan, Now you're just being silly!
[snip]
> michael> Finally. There _are_ cases where what you're saying is
> michael> true. I've only experienced this twice (twice at the same
> michael> conference in Hungary) where English is the working
> michael> language and native speakers were a tiny, tiny (maybe 2
> michael> or 3 % minority). There I absolutely had to modify my
> michael> usage to be understood, but that's not the usual
> michael> situation.
>
>That's the kind of situation many English L2 speakers encounters in
>*international* events, such as international academic conferences,
>transnational business meetings, etc.
Yet it's true that the usage of these events is less influential than the
usage of daily interaction. I think it will take a few generations of L2
speakers using English on a daily basis to truly internationalise the
norms of usage. But I also think it's coming.
michael farris
"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" wrote (among other interesting things I cut):
> But varieties of English spoken in South and Southeast Asia *are* native.
I think you need to define how you're using "native" a little more clearly.
My definition (very quick and sloppy, please poke holes in it)
hinges on fulfilling at least 2 of the following 3 criteria (and actually I lean
towards requiring all 3)
1. home acquisition (the language is acquired from family and age-peers and not
primarily school)
2. language is (again 2 of 3) spoken/read/heard (and understood) on a daily basis
3. part of personal identity (yet one more sloppy undefined term, for now I'll just
say personal identity as in 'it's part of who I am' not 'it's something I've
learned')
> There's nothing but inertia preventing Asians from selecting one of these
> as their prestige variety.
No, and there's no reason anyone else would necessarily accept that (and _never_
underestimate the power of inertia).
> But the centre of gravity moves as well. Where was it in 1900? 1800?
But it moves (at least it has so far) with native speakers who use it all the time,
not with use as an auxialiary. Are you predicting that English will take over as
the primary native language in Sotuh Asia? (a pretty ghastly thought for many
reasons)
> Everyone wants to change the pronouns. But, like advocates of gender-
> neutrality in English, no one can agree on the exact forms.
In Eo, I go for 'ghi' since Zhof himself approved of it in such a role (and so it
can't really be criticised).
> >> No one
> >> country "owns" English and no one body sets the standards for its usage.
> >
> >I don't believe that for a second.
>
> Alright: Then name that one country and that one body.
There's no "academy" granted. But in every place, you'll find arbiters of
"correctness".
In Poland, standardized tests from Britain (in conjunction with teachers in English
departments) set the standard for usage.
> . Germany has
> been debating the merits of importing South Asian labour for years, but
> its a trend that looks certain to increase--as does the immigration of
> English-speakers from Africa.
And you're assuming that they'll bring English with them and set up their own press
and cultural processes as have Turkish speakers? (I just can't imagine them doing
that for English, alhtough I can imagine South Asians setting up Telugu or Bengali
newspapers in Germany and setting up Indian language video rental stores) They may
bring English as an auxiliary, but I would imagine that their children are learning
German and after a generation will have about the same attitude towards English as
other German speakers, that is, they'll think of it as a useful foreign language
and not 'my language'.
> What I see is that the prospects for the use of English among speakers of
> English as a second language and among speakers of varieties outside the
> two major centres look enormous while those within those centres look mod-
> est. Even within those centres, usage is becoming more tolerant.
One word. Ebonics.
Linguists realize that AAVE is a legitimate variety of American English and that
African American children who say "I be" or "Where yo car at?" aren't lazy, or
stupid. They've known this for around 30 years and it's done almost no good
whatsoever in addressing prejudice aimed against AAVE speakers.
I once unintentionally provoked a cousin into screaming, incoherent rage when I
foolishly attempted to use linguistic arguments on the subject of Black English
(saying yes, of course, speakers of AAVE should also be able to use SAE when
necessary, but AAVE isn't a sign of stupidity). (I think things may be slowly, very
slowly getting better, but with glacial slowness)
I don't know what makes you think that South Asian (or Chinese) English will meet
with more tolerance than has AAVE. Unless you're arguing that sheer economic power
will bring tolerance with it (which I don't find comforting either).
-mike farris
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>
>"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" wrote (among other interesting things I cut):
>
>> But varieties of English spoken in South and Southeast Asia *are* native.
>
>I think you need to define how you're using "native" a little more clearly.
>My definition (very quick and sloppy, please poke holes in it)
>hinges on fulfilling at least 2 of the following 3 criteria (and actually I lean
>towards requiring all 3)
>1. home acquisition (the language is acquired from family and age-peers and not
>primarily school)
>2. language is (again 2 of 3) spoken/read/heard (and understood) on a
>daily basis
>3. part of personal identity (yet one more sloppy undefined term, for
>now I'll just
>say personal identity as in 'it's part of who I am' not 'it's something I've
>learned')
Why include (3)? Most definitions I know only demand (1) (although (2) is
necessary is one is to be considered a *fluent* native speaker, which is
usually a prerequisite for having one's usage taken seriously).
The fact is, there are speakers in India (and, to a lesser extent, Singa-
por) who fit all three criteria. Their number is not large (accurate
estimates--let alone reliable figures--are hard to come by) by I think it
is growing.
>> There's nothing but inertia preventing Asians from selecting one of these
>> as their prestige variety.
>
>No, and there's no reason anyone else would necessarily accept that (and _never_
>underestimate the power of inertia).
You're right; let's just go back to Latin.
>> But the centre of gravity moves as well. Where was it in 1900? 1800?
>
>But it moves (at least it has so far) with native speakers who use it
>all the time, not with use as an auxialiary. Are you predicting that
>English will take over as the primary native language in Sotuh Asia? (a
>pretty ghastly thought for many reasons)
I doubt it will ever be *the* primary language there, native or not. But
it's bound to increase in importance as India globalises. Already, Amer-
ican firms are farming out more of their coding to India. There are even
firms that rely on Indians to do *English transcription* work for them.
Plus, call centres serving your "centres of gravity" are springing up
there. And this all despite the very limited nature of Indian market re-
forms! Can you imagine what's going to happen when a lot of the brakes on
foreign investment and trade are dismantled?
But I can hear you saying, "Yes, but none of this will necessarily in-
crease the number of *native* speakers in India." True, most people will
continue to learn English at school, but I wouldn't be surprised to find
more educated people speaking the language at home to give their children
an edge; I've already seen it happen. Other factors that could become im-
portant:
* English is already the preferred language for interstate communication
because it's viewed--particularly in the Dravidian South--as more "neu-
tral" than Hindi. The South also happens to be the part of the country
that's making the most investment in communications and IT.
* Indians have traditionally been very endogamous, but this may be chang-
ing. It's very possible that the number of couples with English as their
common language is on the increase, which likely means an increase in the
number of children learning English from birth.
* If business opportunities improve dramatically in India, you may see the
kind of return migration that's already taken place in countries like
Ireland and Korea. This will increase the number of native speakers,
particularly those with international connexions.
[...]
>> >> No one
>> >> country "owns" English and no one body sets the standards for its usage.
>> >
>> >I don't believe that for a second.
>>
>> Alright: Then name that one country and that one body.
>
>There's no "academy" granted. But in every place, you'll find arbiters of
>"correctness".
>In Poland, standardized tests from Britain (in conjunction with teachers
>in English
>departments) set the standard for usage.
But the arbiters don't agree! When I taught for a private firm in Ger-
many, we also used British materials. However, the owner and most of the
staff were North Americans, so our usage was a compromise. Now, imagine
if the supply of spoiled North American and British students who want to
accept low teaching wages in Europe dries up and South Asian students'
usage gets added to that compromise.
The more divergent standards of usage speakers are exposed to, the less
faith they'll put in any given one.
>> . Germany has
>> been debating the merits of importing South Asian labour for years, but
>> its a trend that looks certain to increase--as does the immigration of
>> English-speakers from Africa.
>
>And you're assuming that they'll bring English with them and set up
>their own press and cultural processes as have Turkish speakers?
Yup.
>(I just can't imagine them doing that for English, alhtough I can imagine
>South Asians setting up Telugu or Bengali newspapers in Germany and
>setting up Indian language video rental stores)
It depends where they're coming from. What if the mix is too hetero-
geneous to support such things?
>They may bring English as an auxiliary, but I would imagine that their
>children are learning German and after a generation will have about the
>same attitude towards English as other German speakers, that is, they'll
>think of it as a useful foreign language and not 'my language'.
Possibly. It depends what they see their prospects as. Most of the
people they're recruiting would rather work in the States. If Germany is
just a stepping stone to work in the USA or returning back home and set-
ing up shop--and you work in an English-medium multinational anyway--why
bother to learn German at all?
>> What I see is that the prospects for the use of English among speakers of
>> English as a second language and among speakers of varieties outside the
>> two major centres look enormous while those within those centres look mod-
>> est. Even within those centres, usage is becoming more tolerant.
>
>One word. Ebonics.
>Linguists realize that AAVE is a legitimate variety of American English and that
>African American children who say "I be" or "Where yo car at?" aren't lazy, or
>stupid. They've known this for around 30 years and it's done almost no good
>whatsoever in addressing prejudice aimed against AAVE speakers.
I strongly disagree. Can you imagine what wouldn't happened if we had had
the Ebonics debate thirty years ago? You can't, because we never would
have. You never would've found a high school faculty to support the kind
of statements Oakland was issuing.
>I once unintentionally provoked a cousin into screaming, incoherent rage when I
>foolishly attempted to use linguistic arguments on the subject of Black English
>(saying yes, of course, speakers of AAVE should also be able to use SAE when
>necessary, but AAVE isn't a sign of stupidity). (I think things may be
>slowly, very slowly getting better, but with glacial slowness)
So you have ignorant relatives; I do, too. I also have informed ones who
can grasp the arguments in support of Ebonics. More importantly, I have
ones who grew up *listening to* Ebonics. Depending on where you live, you
may have missed this, but Ebonics has acquired immense covert prestige a-
mong the young. Walk through an intergrated high school with your eyes
closed and listen to the kids; you may not be able to tell the whites from
the blacks.
You don't think these kids--with their Asian, Latino, Black, etc. class-
mates--are going to be more tolerant of other speech varieties than their
parents?
>I don't know what makes you think that South Asian (or Chinese) English
>will meet with more tolerance than has AAVE. Unless you're arguing that
>sheer economic power will bring tolerance with it (which I don't find
>comforting either).
I'm sorry you don't like the way the world works. Money talks. Would
AAVE be as influential as it is if rap stars weren't millionaires? Don't
bet on it.
But remember: In order to "globalise" English, one needn't convince the
USAmericans to speak like South Asians or Singaporeans, just the rest of
the world.
Emile Verhaagen
> Would
> AAVE be as influential as it is if rap stars weren't millionaires?
I think it would. I suspect it has more to do with covert prestige than with
money. The material success of a reference group needn't be a factor in the
succes of their variety's covert prestige.
Emile.
Steve MacGregor
>No. "Germana" is ambiguous. Sometimes, it is an adjective for
>"german-"; sometimes, it acts as a NOUN meaning "the German language".
No, it is always an adjective. We say "la germana", meaning "German (the
language", and it is an adjective, modifying the noun "lingvo". We could,
if
we wanted, always write this out in full as "la germana lingvo", but it is
customary to elide this. I expect that every language has certain ellipses
that are common.
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------