Do we need a common language?
Nikolai Grishin
maf
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> Do we need a common language?
This question is a little too general to answer, first define "we"
and then define "common" and I'll get back to you.
-maf
Matthew Hall
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
> Do we need a common language?
--
Dr. Matthew Hall
Exploration & Development
Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger
MY VIEWS, NOT STATOIL's
Christian Revillard
>Ka seie du for någe?
Det ser ganske nordisk ut...
What is it exactly ? It could be nynorsk, but I've only learned bokmål... Or
Nikolai Grishin
maf wrote in message...
>
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
>> Do we need a common language?
>
>and then define "common" and I'll get back to you.
>
Does the mankind need a common (international) language?
Nikolai
Christian Revillard
Christian Revillard wrote in message ...
>Matthew Hall wrote in message <37C516B3...@statoil.com>...
>>Ka seie du for någe?
>Det ser ganske nordisk ut...
>What is it exactly ? It could be nynorsk, but I've only learned bokmål...
Or
>?
>
>>
>>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we need a common language?
>>
Christian Revillard
>So "we" means humanity, ok. By 'common' do you mean 'single' as in
>'single European currency' if so, my answer is (obviousmente) no, no,
>no, no, no, no.
I agree, but that was not the idea, I think.
>If by 'common' you mean 'introduced to all schools from grade one so that
everybody will be bilingual in their own language and the common language'
I'd also say no.
I do not very well understand. If there is a "'commonly agreed upon language
for crossing international (not necessarily national) language barriers"
language (your third point), shouldn't everybody learn it at school ?
>If by 'common' you mean 'commonly agreed upon language for crossing
>international (not necessarily national) language barriers then I don't
>know if humanity _needs_ such a language, but my personal bias, is yes,
such a language (and not an ethnic language like French or English) would be
a nice idea..
>If you mean Esperanto (which I assume you do) then the jury's out.
He does, no doubt ! :o)
>Unfortunately, I have the impression that
>most esperanto speakers would prefer to keep the language as their private
hobby.
I think (and hope) that it is not true. I really believe that esperanto
could be an interesting tool for international communication. I am repeating
the arguments you can find on every esperanto web pages, but I think that a
Chinese and a Brazilian guy could more quickly and easily communicate in
Esperanto than in English. Of course no (or almost no) esperantist wants
this language to become a unique common language.
>But if we're going to talk about planned international languages, we
shouldn't limit things to >esperanto, there are some other worthy
candidates:
I will start now some esperanto advocacy :o) !
I must say that I didn't learn any other panned language. So I must tell
that I found these informations on http://www.webcom.com/~donh/conlang2.html
>Interlingua would work just as well as Esperanto and Interlingua
>speakers do have an (admittedly small) presence in the web and some good
ideas (if so so carry thru).
It seems that Interlingua has no word derivation, every word must be learned
individually. In Esperanto there are quite few basic words that can be
combined in a huge number of new words.
I've heard that a French, Italian or Spanish, or anybody who knows one of
these languages, can read Interlingua easily, but that speaking or writing
was much more difficult.
>Ido (basically an Esperanto dialect) would work too (and has the advantage
of being much easier to type in any medium).
The extra-letters in Esperanto alphabet ensure that it is phonatic. It seems
that Ido is not completely phonetic.
Ido has more complex and defined word-derivation rules. It could seem more
precise, but in fact, it is more difficult to create new words in Ido,
whereas the free word derivation in Esperanto, with no unnecessary
constraints, has been working well for a hundred years.
>Occidental is similar to Interlingua and would work well as a bridge
language.
The phoneticity is not perfectly reproduced in spelling in Occidental.
The derivation system has some complex rules.
It is probably too "occidental" to be acceptable worlwide (in fact, it seems
to be a direct product of european imperialism).
>Glosa is a dark horse but has some nice things going for it.
This site does not tell much on Glosa, execpt that it is almost totally
unknown outside England...
>Ekspreso (my personal favorite, sort of like Interlingua but spelled
>more rationally, unfortunately no speakers yet) I'm waiting for someone
>besides me to get interested in Ekspreso.
Where can I find information on it ?
>There are many other possibilities but these are the ones that have at
>least a few (in some cases very few) speakers.
And I think Esperanto has no serious competitor among the planned languages
if we consider the number of speakers. Of course, we can't say that there
are a lot of esperanto speakers. The most reliable number seems to be around
2 million people who know Esperanto. Not very impressive, but I do not think
that any other planned language has more....
Nikolai Grishin
>
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
>> Does the mankind need a common (international) language?
>
>personally would be very happy if Esperanto were to edge English (with
>all its built in cultural biases) out of the most commonly used
>international language slot. Unfortunately, I have the impression that
>most esperanto speakers would prefer to keep the language as their
>private hobby.
>
>But if we're going to talk about planned international languages, we
>shouldn't limit things to esperanto, there are some other worthy
>candidates:
>
I think Esperanto is the best solution as the most known planned language
with very rich literature and thousands of speakers. Take a look at
http://www.esperanto.net/.
>Ekspreso (my personal favorite, sort of like Interlingua but spelled
>more rationally, unfortunately no speakers yet) I'm waiting for someone
>besides me to get interested in Ekspreso.
>
Who created Ekspreso and when?
Nikolai
Roger Espel Llima
we need one so much that we can't do without less than a few hundred
common languages.
--
Roger Espel Llima, es...@iagora.com
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/espel/index.html
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Roger Espel Llima wrote in message ...
> >Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> >>Do we need a common language?
> >
> >we need one so much that we can't do without less than a few hundred
> >common languages.
> >
>
>
> More and more non-english speakers come to Internet. Naturally, they will
> use not english, but their native language. Esperanto could help them to
> understand each other.
If a Latvian, say, has to learn some other language to use the Internet,
why shouldn't it be English, which puts them in potential contact with a
billion or so people, rather than Esperanto, which puts them in
potential contact with a relative handful?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Jens S. Larsen
> If a Latvian, say, has to learn some other language to use the
> Internet, why shouldn't it be English, which puts them in potential
> contact with a billion or so people, rather than Esperanto, which puts
> them in potential contact with a relative handful?
Each Latvian can't decide for themself; they have to rely on the
school system to teach them the foreign languages they can be expected
to need to have some fluency in when they grow up. People who already
speak English at home and in the street are free to learn or not learn
whatever languages they like; they do not depend so much on what other
people choose to teach them during their childhood, to have easy
access to individual, international contacts.
Then again, perhaps life just can't be fair, and maybe the foreign
language curriculum of the Latvian elementary schools some day will
let the priviledge migrate by concentrating on German, Chinese or
Arabic, for the same reason they're switching their attention from
Russian to English now. But even if the school children must have one
or several foreign languages imposed on them, it can be a good idea to
teach Esperanto as the first one, because of the pedagogic principle
of teaching the simplest things first.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Jens S. Larsen
> On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:46:47 GMT, "Nikolai Grishin"
> <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
> >Do we need a common language?
> In my opinion, no, no, no, and no.
>
> There is already enough uniformity in the world. Having a single
> common language would cause further erosion of the linguistic
> variation that exists, to the detriment of the human spirit.
What's wrong in having one global language, while keeping all of the
localised idioms? With your yardstick, that would actually enhance
the human spirit with one unit. We could even go further and try to
revitalise languages that are dying out.
--
Jens S. Larsen
ruffnready
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> Roger Espel Llima wrote in message ...
> >Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> >>Do we need a common language?
> >
> >we need one so much that we can't do without less than a few hundred
> >common languages.
>
>
> What do you think about Esperanto?
>
> More and more non-english speakers come to Internet. Naturally, they will
> use not english, but their native language. Esperanto could help them to
> understand each other.
>
> Nikolai
Have you got an autoethnophobia?
And then if you want somebody THAT MUCH to understand you
try to learn his/her mother language.
RR
Nikolai Grishin
Rodger Whitlock wrote in message...
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
>>Do we need a common language?
>
>
>There is already enough uniformity in the world. Having a single
>common language would cause further erosion of the linguistic
>variation that exists, to the detriment of the human spirit.
>
I agree with you.
If english will become the international language (many people believe so),
it will push away other languages and cultures. Nevertheless, a common
language is needed. Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very
easy. It could serve as a bridge between nations without making uniformity
of the world.
Nikolai
maf
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> maf wrote in message...
> >
>
> >Ekspreso (my personal favorite, sort of like Interlingua but spelled
> >more rationally, unfortunately no speakers yet) I'm waiting for someone
> >besides me to get interested in Ekspreso.
> >
> Who created Ekspreso and when?
>
> Nikolai
I'm not sure. I think maybe Jay Books (sp?) an Interlingua supporter. If it
is him, I think he treats it more as a joke. But I find the tiny bit of
Ekspreso to be _muc_ more interesting and fun than Interlingua (personal
bias).
here's the only web-site I know of. The main languages going into Ekspreso
seem to be English, German and Spanish, but the result is elegantly
creole-like.
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Park/3096/ekspeng.html
-michael farris
maf
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> maf wrote in message...
> >
> Unfortunately, I have the impression that
> >most esperanto speakers would prefer to keep the language as their
> >private hobby.
> >
> It's my opinion. Have you any suggestions to change this situation?
Unfortunately no. If I did, I'd be hard at work at it. I should think about
the problem a lot more and analyze it like a linguistic problem (maybe next
life, when I have more time).
Some clues:
- Although there's a substantial Esperanto presence on the web, too much of
the material is simply material about Esperanto and not the world in general.
- Much of the non-Esperanto centered material on the web is literature. I
don't use the web to read literature, I use it for news and information. I
think the single best thing that the Esperanto movement could do is start an
on-line news magazine similar to Salon (www.salon.com). Maybe something like
Monato. Of course in the beginning daily updates would be unrealistic. But
I'd read a weekly news magazine in Esperanto provided the information was a)
new and interesting b) about the world in general and not the Esperanto
movement.
The second best thing the Esperanto movement could do is encourage academics
to start online-journals in their respective fields. I'm sure there are
enough Esperanto speaking chemists or physicists or ecnonomists to do this.
-michael farris
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
Nikolai> If english will become the international language (many
Nikolai> people believe so), it will push away other languages and
Nikolai> cultures.
English HAS ALREADY become AN international language. (I don't know
why you insist on using "the" for "international language". There can
be more than one international languages.) It is the lowest
denominator among many South-East Asian countries. Yet, it has not
pushed away the national languages and cultures of these countries.
Nikolai> Nevertheless, a common language is needed.
You have fallen into circular argument. In the subject of the
message, you posed the question "do we need a common language?"
However, you have already assumed that "a common language is needed"
well before you prepare to listen to any answers. So, whatever
answers we give, you'll try to IRRATIONALLY reject all those that
don't fit your assumption, and accept all those that are consistent
with your assumption.
I think this thread should be stopped, unless you're willing to give
up that assumption. The assumption makes your question meaningless.
Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very easy.
It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is complicated
(esp. for those from isolating languages). Yes, I know its grammar is
REGULAR, but regularity doesn't necessarily mean EASE.
(Indeed, the grammar of Esperanto is not that regular, and Esperanto
has so many illogical idiomatic expressions inherited from the
European culture.)
Nikolai> It could serve as a bridge between nations without making
Nikolai> uniformity of the world.
English does well on this.
--
Lee Sau Dan �,X)wAV(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: sd...@csis.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
maf
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote:
> >>>>> "Nikolai" == Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> writes:
>
> Nikolai> If english will become the international language (many
> Nikolai> people believe so), it will push away other languages and
> Nikolai> cultures.
>
> English HAS ALREADY become AN international language. (I don't know
> why you insist on using "the" for "international language".
True enough "the international language" is a relict (one of many) of Esperanto culture
that they need to forget about.
> There can
> be more than one international languages.)
I couldn't agree more. You're absolutely right.
> It is the lowest
> denominator among many South-East Asian countries. Yet, it has not
> pushed away the national languages and cultures of these countries.
It's one of two (German's the other) international languages in Central Europe as well.
But over reliance on English severely hampers the world view of many parts of the world
(you're absolutely right about _lowest_ common denominator).
> Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very easy.
>
> It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is complicated
> (esp. for those from isolating languages).
I'm a little confused. You're saying English _isn't_ Eurocentric and it's grammar
_isn't_ complicated (minimal fluency in English takes Polish speakers around four to five
years I doubt if it's substantially quicker for speakers of Thai or Malay.
> Yes, I know its grammar is
> REGULAR, but regularity doesn't necessarily mean EASE.
>
> (Indeed, the grammar of Esperanto is not that regular, and Esperanto
> has so many illogical idiomatic expressions inherited from the
> European culture.)
True enough, but you seem to be claiming that English doesn't have these flaws. Pointing
out flaws in esperanto that also exist in the main competition is basically a cheap shot
and indicates your own mind maybe isn't as open as you'd like to think.
> Nikolai> It could serve as a bridge between nations without making
> Nikolai> uniformity of the world.
>
> English does well on this.
I agree that currently English does well as a bridge language _(emphasis) provided that
native speakers aren't involved_. When you mix native and non-native speakers you get
inherently unequal unnecessarily hierarchical relations (but people do seem to like
those).
-michael farris
Nikolai Grishin
ago.
=============================================
From: KIM Hiongun <hio...@kt.co.kr>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Why I think English will fail...
Reply-To: hio...@kt.co.kr
Date: Tue Mar 24 09:15:07 1998
[This article is completely personal point of view. Pardonon!]
Just as you all know, the reality is "American-English increasingly
devours people from all over the world". People of non-English
countries eagerly learn English because that's a way to get more
economic benefit. And as the American economic power grows, that trend
becomes bigger and bigger, and it's so immense that I feel choking
when I think about the future.
In my country - South Korea, almost all people struggle to learn
English (even though almost 99% of them fail to get the very basic
command of English.)
Fortunately however, there are some major obstacles in that
American-English way.
First, English is a very difficult language, (especially
American-speaking-English is so). Linguistic structure of English is
relatively simpler than many European languages, but the sound is
quite complex and especially the American sound is quite weired for
foreigners. I think the sound system is the biggest obstacle in
learning the American English.
Simpler sound system of a second language is very important because
the sound is the first entry into the language. If you fail to get the
sound, you won't be able to achieve the fluency of that language.
That's because you have to "hear and understand" before you can
"speak".
Have you ever seen a Japanese speaking English? You will know what I
mean. For me, it was almost impossible to see a fluent English
speaking Japanese. Why? I think that's because, the Japanese language
has the simplest sound system in the world, so Japanese should
overcome the highest barrier first.
Anyway with all the difficulties in the sound system, people will
eagerly struggle to learn English, if it pays. That's another point.
People learn English, because it pays and ONLY if it pays. If the cost
of learnig is bigger than the expected benefit, then people easily
give up learning English any more.
Now the point is the learning cost and the expected benefit.
In Korea, a very unilingual society, we absorb American culture every
day or every moment, and I can say, that Korea is one of the biggest
"English-teaching" society. Last year, Korean parents paied more than
2,000,000,000,000 Won, only for English learning (== 2,000,000,000 $
US) by sending their children abroad. I guess they have paied several
times more within Korean territory. But the result is almost none. I
think Korean parents would eagerly pay 2 times more than that, even
though their children make no differences (in this case, the increased
payment is only for the satisfaction of parents themselves.) And they
would eagerly pay 3 times more, if their children make any difference.
And I'm also sure that they won't pay 4 times or more without any
remarkable difference.
Sound strange? Why two times more payment makes no difference? That's
because the English language is beyond the certain threashold. I bet,
at least 5 or 7 times more pay would make difference in English
teaching in Korea. That's from my personal experience. You will be
eye-popped if you see how much I have paied and am paying my resource
to English-learning.
I learned English for 16 years at regular English classes. During my
school days, English is one of the major three subjects for exams,
English, Math and Korean. Normally Korean students pay almost 1/3 of
their time to English, 1/3 to Math and the rest 1/3 to all the rest
subjects. Guess how many hours I had paied for English in my
highschool days. About 5 ~ 6 hours, EVERYDAY!
That was upto 6 years before. After that I attended several private
English schools. Even at the moment I learn speaking-English for three
hours a week in a class provided in my company, and I never stopped
reading English grammar/vocabulary books. Roughly about 7 hours a week
I pay in English studying. In order to get accustomed with American
sound, I dictate a casette tape (of Associated Press News) every
month, and the dictation takes at least 4 hours straight, and follows
repeated listening to it.
I have a master degree in computer science and I'm planning to get a
doctor degree in America. According to my calculation, I can achieve
three doctor degrees, if I use the same amount of time that I have
paied for English.
The problem is that, with all that much amount of investment, I got
too little. I'm still far from being a fluent English speaker. I will
pay even more, if it's necessary for studying in the United States,
but how about other Korean people? Definitely, NO! So the possibility
that Korea would become an English speaking society in my lifetime is
0, ZERO! English is that much difficult. (Perhaps any other foreign
tongue would go to the same story.)
Still the Korean society will pay more and more to English learning,
but I think the society will soon go beyond the limit.
Economy, is the reason why Korean people are learning English, and
economy will be the reason why Korean people stop continuing their
learning, in their prematured stage.
And there's even more higher barrier existing in the world. That's the
ethnic identity. I think this would be the more hopeful fact for
Esperanto. Linguistically speaking, some major countries in the world
like Japan, Germany, France, China, and even U.K. are "linguistic
minorities". They want to keep their own political power. In this
information society, the power heavily depends on the differencies of
langauges. The political bodies often claims that "if you lose your
langauge, you lose your spirit and you lose your identity." So the
political body of those countries will pay any amount of cost to keep
their languages safe. That's because language is one of the most
important culture and one of the most important sources of political
power.
Korean government, at the moment, is willing to accept as much as
possible, the American culture and English speaking culture. That's
not only because it gives more benefit, but also because it's almost
impossible to imagine that Korean people will speak the English
language within some imaginable time. I think the situation is the
same in many countries.
Those major countries will (just like Korea) pay more and more amount
of resources to English learning in the near future, and they will
soon go beyond the cost-effect limit.
That's all. Then those political bodies will immediately start talking
about the langauges. And the only feasible solution is a "common
langauge", a politically neutral "common language". Language debate
arises among major political bodies.
Note that the language debate happens only if the political bodies
don't want English as their common language, because English is
already the de facto "common language". (Even in UN, where many
professional interpreters and translaters are working.)
That's why I think the English-speaking world won't appear. Both
politics and economics refuse it.
Anyway my expectation is that the world will go much more to the
English-speaking direction and there will appear much more English
speaking people all around the world. But not enough. No enough to
change the entire world into an English world.
The growing English world is a good target to distribute Esperanto
because they know how difficult it is to learn a second langauge. And
they are the most successful persons in learning langauges. That's why
I think it's worth writing and speaking in English about Esperanto,
about the utility of Esperanto.
My suggestion to English speakers: Please make more and more
advertisement and information about Esperanto in English. I want to do
so, but as you will see above, my English is still troublesome.
Cheers,
--KIM Hiongun, a warrior against language barrier, hio...@kt.co.kr
Reader
>
> Rodger Whitlock:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:46:47 GMT, "Nikolai Grishin"
> > <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, no, no, no, and no.
> >
> > There is already enough uniformity in the world. Having a single
> > common language would cause further erosion of the linguistic
> > variation that exists, to the detriment of the human spirit.
>
Cost. Most people don't actually need to talk to the entire
world, except for useless chatting, no economic benefit here.
With people they will deal with on a daily basis they have a common
language already. Economic benefits can be gained by those few talented
enough to acquire other skills who will have to contact foreigners at
work and by translators. They should learn some usefulle international
language. Translators will be necessary for people having contacts with
foreigners occasionally.
Teaching all the people with law skills a language like English,
dominant in some countries, will only facilitate cultural and economical
expansion if its speakers, mostly native. They will gain
the economic benefits at the locals' expense, and replace the local
elites. It would be a form of colonialism, which is already happening.
This will enhance the human spirit of some who won't need to pay for
learning the language of their aboriginal underlings letting
all of them pay for learning the language of their employers
and overseers instead. The same thing happend to African-Americans who
forgot their native languages so that they could gain numerous economic
opportunities and enhance their human spirit by learning the language
of their masters. Human naivety is _immense_. They will sell their
spirits for absolutely _nothing_.
Reader
Roger Espel Llima
>To say slaves in the US abandoned
>their Africanness voluntarily, out of a naive hope of *economic advancement*
>(!!!), is not just ignorant, it's a grave insult to the slaves and their [...]
OTOH, it's hard to deny that exactly that is happening right *now*, with
immigrants (esp. to the US, e.g from Asia) teaching their children
English and not encouraging them to learn the parents' native language
(beyond being able to more or less understand it).
Roger Espel Llima
Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>How about two international languages: English (for who already knows it)
>and Esperanto (for who don't know English but wants to communicate with
>people of other nations)?
you're still making the basic mistake of thinking of this as a decision
to be made.
there is no decision to be made, because there is no body of authority
that could make it. there's no point in making proposals, "how about
two languages" or "how about three?".
people will use whatever is available, depending on convenience,
difficulty, status, cultural reasons, blah blah blah. in some
situations one party will learn enough of the other party's language, in
other situations they'll both use a non-native language (and that can be
anything, e.g English, Swahili, Hindi, Mandarin, German, Spanish,
Esperanto, Nepali, whatever comes handy), and in other cases they'll
find it more convenient to hire someone to do the translating, and in
other cases they'll find they didn't care that much about communicating
with that specific person anyway.
mith...@indiana.edu
Reader wrote:
> The same thing happend to African-Americans who
> forgot their native languages so that they could gain numerous economic
> opportunities and enhance their human spirit by learning the language
> of their masters. Human naivety is _immense_. They will sell their
> spirits for absolutely _nothing_.
False. Slaves were *forced* to speak English, often with the master's whip
on their backs if they were too uppity in keeping to their native
languages. Added to that, slaveowners frequently made a practice of buying
slaves from different tribes so that they would be unable to communicate
with each other in any languages besides English. (For the same reason,
they even prohibited slaves from playing African drums since they could be
used to communicate with other slaves and thus coordinate slave revolts--in
West African societies, whose languages are for the most part tonal, tuned
drums which can mimic human speech were used to communicate with the gods
and with other humans far away.) New world slavery was predicated upon the
African slave as beast of burden, and numerous checks were put in place to
eradicate all Africanness from slave society, which slaves often got around
surreptitiously even in the United States, where settled family life was
allowed and most slaves were native-born. African survivals are much
stronger in the Caribbean, where the high mortality in the sugar fields and
ready supply of African slaves worked against much acculturation. Even
today in Cuba many blacks speak Yoruba and practice a form of Catholicism
heavily mixed with West African religion. To say slaves in the US abandoned
their Africanness voluntarily, out of a naive hope of *economic advancement*
(!!!), is not just ignorant, it's a grave insult to the slaves and their
descendants who did their best to make a place for themselves and their
families and preserve their individuality in the face of a society that
first enslaved them, then exploited them and spat in their faces. And if
you're intending it as humor or irony, you failed miserably.
Mikael Thompson
maf
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote:
> No. You've taken me wrong. I just wanted to emphasize that Esperanto
> is NOT neutral NOR easy.
Okay, my mistake.This certainly is a problem (though Esperantists would rather be boiled
alive than admit it). Esperanto does have some too-European stuff (obligatory singular
plural, adjective agreement, obligatory accusative) but the beauty of an artificial
language is you can make your own rules. I just leave out a bunch of that stuff, and
people understand me (they don't always like it but they understand).
I found Esperanto pretty easy (after Polish and Hungarian what _wouldn't_ be easy?) but
for those without a European language it's considerably harder, something else the
Esperanto movement doesn't like to think about.
> Don't forget that Esperanto has also got some native speakers.
> Moreover, if Esperanto really one day became THE international
> language, monolingual native speakers would appear in one or two
> generations. The situation would not be better than the current
> situation with English.
Wouldn't be _quite_ the same, I don't think the monolingual speakers would appear
(blinguals are a much better bet) and the native speakers would be spread out instead of
concentrated in specific countries. But your right, the problem of native speakers
attaining undue influence/power is unfortuantely just one of many real world issues the
Esperanto movement doesn't want to think about.
-michael farris
maf
mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
> maf wrote:
>
> > Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote:
> >
> > > Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very easy.
> > >
> > > It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is complicated
> > > (esp. for those from isolating languages).
> >
> > I'm a little confused. You're saying English _isn't_ Eurocentric and it's grammar
> > _isn't_ complicated (minimal fluency in English takes Polish speakers around four to five
> > years I doubt if it's substantially quicker for speakers of Thai or Malay.
>
> Hmm, you must be new here.
Yeah, sort of.
> That's frequently precisely one of his points: Esperanto is just
> as eurocentric as English. (Or about as eurocentric; I'm sure he will correct me if need be
> on this.)
In the right ballpark, but it's a matter of degree. Esperanto is sort of Eurocentric (not as
much as it might seem at first glance) but it also has the potential of being a lot less
Eurocentric (with almost no native speakers) than English (with many millions of Eurocentric
native speakers keeping the Eurocentrism up).
michael farris
N.Aliic' ~{3I9zJ@=gSoU_!!~}
>Ekspreso (my personal favorite, sort of like Interlingua but spelled
>more rationally, unfortunately no speakers yet) I'm waiting for someone
>besides me to get interested in Ekspreso.
nur se temas pri kafo .
---
na iso 8859-3 , kurařu kaj uzu řin ankaý
ćar řis nun la reto ne estas preta por unikodo
germana esp-klavaro : x=ć q=ř y=ź w=ý #=ţ $=ś
N.Aliic' ~{3I9zJ@=gSoU_!!~}
>2 million people who know Esperanto. Not very impressive, but I do not think
>that any other planned language has more....
tio nombro estas ridinda , sed tio fakto ankaý ne gravas .
N.Aliic' ~{3I9zJ@=gSoU_!!~}
>Who created Ekspreso and when?
a rich polish student while trying to learn esperanto and drinking
a cup of coffee "ekspreso" .
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> If a Latvian, say, has to learn some other language to use the
>> Internet, why shouldn't it be English, which puts them in potential
>> contact with a billion or so people, rather than Esperanto, which puts
>> them in potential contact with a relative handful?
>
>Each Latvian can't decide for themself; they have to rely on the
>school system to teach them the foreign languages they can be expected
>to need to have some fluency in when they grow up. People who already
>speak English at home and in the street are free to learn or not learn
>whatever languages they like; they do not depend so much on what other
>people choose to teach them during their childhood, to have easy
>access to individual, international contacts.
I don't think that's true. It seems easier for the average non-English-
speaking European to gain access to useful foreign-language instruction
than it is for the average North American.
>Then again, perhaps life just can't be fair, and maybe the foreign
>language curriculum of the Latvian elementary schools some day will
>let the priviledge migrate by concentrating on German, Chinese or
>Arabic, for the same reason they're switching their attention from
>Russian to English now. But even if the school children must have one
>or several foreign languages imposed on them, it can be a good idea to
>teach Esperanto as the first one, because of the pedagogic principle
>of teaching the simplest things first.
This is akin to saying that every Latvian can't choose for himself or
herself what musical instrument to play. If one relies solely on the
state school system for instruction, it radically limits the possibility
of what one can learn.
A more serious limitation is the income and interests of the parents. If
they view a certain kind of knowledge (like Esperanto or cello) as import-
ant, they'll find a way to impart it, whether through the schools or not.
Unfortunately, the age at which the wishes of the individual become para-
mount is after the best window for this sort of instruction.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Nikolai Grishin
mith...@indiana.edu wrote in message...
>
>Hmm, you must be new here. That's frequently precisely one of his points:
>Esperanto is just as eurocentric as English.
>
Lee Sau Dan (who perfectly knows Esperanto) kriticize Esperanto because of
its eurocentrism. But the same reason is valid for English...
Not everybody knows English. More and more non-english speakers come on the
Net. They can't understand each other. Esperanto could help them. It is 10
times easier than English.
How about two international languages: English (for who already knows it)
and Esperanto (for who don't know English but wants to communicate with
people of other nations)?
Nikolai
Nikolai Grishin
maf wrote in message...
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>> maf wrote in message...
>> >
>> Unfortunately, I have the impression that
>> >most esperanto speakers would prefer to keep the language as their
>> >private hobby.
>> >
>> It's my opinion. Have you any suggestions to change this situation?
>
>Unfortunately no. If I did, I'd be hard at work at it. I should think about
>the problem a lot more and analyze it like a linguistic problem (maybe next
>life, when I have more time).
>
My idea is to create a newsgroup in Big-8 about Esperanto. There could be
very interesting discussions. There one could discuss about: Do we need a
common language? Which language it could be - nature or artificial one? Why
Esperanto won its concurents? Zamenhof, his life, works and ideas. History
and future of Esperanto. Opportunuities which could cause the international
language - second for everyone and common for everybody. And many other
topics.
If such a group will be, would you like participate in it? I think that the
new group (I propose to name it humanities.language.esperanto by analogy
with humanities.language.sanscrit, but may be a better name) will be very
interesting and lively, because its preferred language would be English (In
soc.culture.esperanto the preferred language is Esperanto) and it would be
readable for millions of Net-users.
>- Although there's a substantial Esperanto presence on the web, too much of
>the material is simply material about Esperanto and not the world in
>general.
>
Wright.
>- Much of the non-Esperanto centered material on the web is literature. I
>don't use the web to read literature, I use it for news and information.
>
May be, the best use for Esperanto in the Net is - friendship and
solidarity. Esperanto perfectly serve for friendly correspondence between
simple people.
>think the single best thing that the Esperanto movement could do is start
>an on-line news magazine similar to Salon (www.salon.com). Maybe something
like Monato.
>
Monato is on the Net. See at http://www.esperanto.be/
>Of course in the beginning daily updates would be unrealistic. But
>I'd read a weekly news magazine in Esperanto provided the information was
a)
>new and interesting b) about the world in general and not the Esperanto
>movement.
>The second best thing the Esperanto movement could do is encourage
academics
>to start online-journals in their respective fields. I'm sure there are
>enough Esperanto speaking chemists or physicists or ecnonomists to do this.
>
I think if english-language group about Esperanto would be created, it would
bring to Esperanto thousands of new people - fresh and active, and those new
esperantists could make everything we are dreaming about.
>-michael farris
>
Nikolai
Yongjik Kim
>
> I want you to read a letter from Korea which was posted in SCE a long time
> ago.
>
Well, but the situation in Korea (that is, South Korea) is rather anomalous.
They emphasize terribly to speak 'American' English fluently - in fact, most
Koreans won't even notice there are English-speaking countries where American
English is not a standard. They try desperately to imitate American phonetics,
which is of course nearly impossible for most of Koreans, including me.
This rather comical tragedy is a product of 1) decades of unrivaled influence
of USA on South Korea, 2) exceptionally (in fact, abnormaly) high desire for
education due to high social competition, 3) lack of enough experience on
democracy, i.e. the "resistence" against such kinds of social fever, 4) a large
mass of "English business", acting as a positive feedback, and 5) a complete
lack of intelligence in South Korean government.
(Yeah, those guys are among the greatest fools in the world. They even insist
every Korean should learn thousands of Chinese characters, and plan to add
those characters to everything including traffic signs, using the very tax
we Koreans pay. *sigh*)
I hope the Koreans should finally understand that we don't have to imitate
American sound. Who cares? British speak British English, Indians speak Indian
English, and what's wrong with Koreans speaking Korean English.
When we give up such unattainable goal and allow a little bit of 'native
phonology' to sneak into our own English pronunciation, English is not that
hard to learn. Although its spelling rule is monstrous, it's not a big problem
to foreign learners, who have to remember the spellings anyway. (It's mostly
a problem to native children, who can't simply use the sound they know to decide
spelling.) Its grammar is a lot simpler compared to, say, Korean, and most
people over the world communicate in English.
I would rather spend 10 years to learn English than 3 years to Esperanto;
it gives me more benefit.
Yongjik
Peter T. Daniels
> The second best thing the Esperanto movement could do is encourage academics
> to start online-journals in their respective fields. I'm sure there are
> enough Esperanto speaking chemists or physicists or ecnonomists to do this.
Academics are interested in communicating to fellow-academics, not to
Esperanto-hobbyists.
maf
Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> Does the mankind need a common (international) language?
So "we" means humanity, ok. By 'common' do you mean 'single' as in
'single European currency' if so, my answer is (obviousmente) no, no,
no, no, no, no.
If by 'common' you mean 'introduced to all schools from grade one so
that everybody will be bilingual in their own language and the common
language' I'd also say no.
If by 'common' you mean 'commonly agreed upon language for crossing
international (not necessarily national) language barriers then I don't
know if humanity _needs_ such a language (we've gotten this far without
one) but my personal bias, is yes, such a language (and not an ethnic
language like French or English) would be a nice idea.
Latin used to be such a language (to some degree) but it's
pain-in-the-ass grammar did it in.
If you mean Esperanto (which I assume you do) then the jury's out. I
personally would be very happy if Esperanto were to edge English (with
all its built in cultural biases) out of the most commonly used
international language slot. Unfortunately, I have the impression that
most esperanto speakers would prefer to keep the language as their
private hobby.
But if we're going to talk about planned international languages, we
shouldn't limit things to esperanto, there are some other worthy
candidates:
Interlingua would work just as well as Esperanto and Interlingua
speakers do have an (admittedly small) presence in the web and some good
ideas (if so so carry thru).
Ido (basically an Esperanto dialect) would work too (and has the
advantage of being much easier to type in any medium).
Occidental is similar to Interlingua and would work well as a bridge
language.
Glosa is a dark horse but has some nice things going for it.
Ekspreso (my personal favorite, sort of like Interlingua but spelled
more rationally, unfortunately no speakers yet) I'm waiting for someone
besides me to get interested in Ekspreso.
There are many other possibilities but these are the ones that have at
least a few (in some cases very few) speakers.
maf
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
>> It is the lowest denominator among many South-East Asian
>> countries. Yet, it has not pushed away the national languages
>> and cultures of these countries.
maf> It's one of two (German's the other) international languages
maf> in Central Europe as well.
And it's one of two (Spanish is the other) in the Americas.
maf> But over reliance on English
maf> severely hampers the world view of many parts of the world.
True.
Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very
Nikolai> easy.
>> It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is
>> complicated (esp. for those from isolating languages).
maf> I'm a little confused. You're saying English _isn't_
maf> Eurocentric and it's grammar _isn't_ complicated
No. You've taken me wrong. I just wanted to emphasize that Esperanto
is NOT neutral NOR easy.
>> (Indeed, the grammar of Esperanto is not that regular, and
>> Esperanto has so many illogical idiomatic expressions inherited
>> from the European culture.)
maf> True enough, but you seem to be claiming that English doesn't
maf> have these flaws.
I ain't.
maf> Pointing out flaws in esperanto that also
maf> exist in the main competition is basically a cheap shot and
maf> indicates your own mind maybe isn't as open as you'd like to
maf> think.
I'm just pointing out that Esperanto is not much better than English.
I never said that English didn't have such flaws. But Esperanto has
such flaws too!
maf> I agree that currently English does well as a bridge language
maf> _(emphasis) provided that native speakers aren't
maf> involved_. When you mix native and non-native speakers you
maf> get inherently unequal unnecessarily hierarchical relations
maf> (but people do seem to like those).
Don't forget that Esperanto has also got some native speakers.
Moreover, if Esperanto really one day became THE international
language, monolingual native speakers would appear in one or two
generations. The situation would not be better than the current
situation with English.
--
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
>> sure he will correct me if need be on this.)
maf> In the right ballpark, but it's a matter of degree.
0.95 isn't that different from 0.875.
maf> Esperanto
maf> is sort of Eurocentric (not as much as it might seem at first
maf> glance) but it also has the potential of being a lot less
........................................................^^^^^^^^^^
maf> Eurocentric (with almost no native speakers) than English
.........^^^^^^^^^^^
maf> (with many millions of Eurocentric native speakers keeping
maf> the Eurocentrism up).
"a lot less Eurocentric" is STILL Eurocentric.
Moreover, Esperanto is currently dominated by Europeans, who keep on
throwing more and more Eurocentrism into the language. English, OTOH,
is being used by more and more "foreigners", making the language more
and more international.
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
Nikolai> Lee Sau Dan (who perfectly knows Esperanto) kriticize
Nikolai> Esperanto because of its eurocentrism. But the same
Nikolai> reason is valid for English...
I have never attempted to deny tihs.
Nikolai> Not everybody knows English. More and more non-english
Nikolai> speakers come on the Net. They can't understand each
Nikolai> other.
When Chinese come onto the Net, they can understand each other via
Chinese. When Francophones use the Net, they use French among
themselves. Aren't you also aware of Web pages in Italian, Spanish,
Russian, ...?
Nikolai> Esperanto could help them. It is 10 times easier
Nikolai> than English.
This "10" is an exaggeration. It may be true for an Italian (because
Esperanto is so similar to Italian), but Esperanto is, IMHO, only 10%
easier than English for a Chinese. For a Chinese, both English and
Esperanto are VERY difficult. Esperanto being slightly easier is
hardly an advantage. So, what would a smart Asian do? With English,
you can reach a thousand times more people by spending 11% more
effort. In terms of business opportunities, Esperanto can't beat
English at all!
Nikolai> How about two international languages: English (for who
Nikolai> already knows it) and Esperanto (for who don't know
Nikolai> English but wants to communicate with people of other
Nikolai> nations)?
Why must the other one be Esperanto? Why not Chinese (which has the
largest speaking population) or Spanish (which comes third on the
list)?
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
Bertil> We think about it a lot. But since we have plenty of
Bertil> experience with native Esperanto speakers (I know lots of
Bertil> them personally), we have noticed that they do not gain
Bertil> any undue influence/power since they don't speak the
Bertil> language any better than others. Some of them are
Bertil> continually amazed when newcomers learn their native
Bertil> language to the same level as themselves in just a few
Bertil> months, and then often go on to surpass them.
There are many many Sinologists (far more than those super-fluent
Esperanto speakers you mentioned, I guess) who speak Mandarin (or even
a few more Chinese tongues) much better than I (and many other Chinese
pepole) do and know Chinese literature and history much better than I
do.
So, does that mean Chinese is suitable as international language,
because **SOME** people can learn it as L2 and surpass the native
speakers?
Moreover, are those "native speakers" of Espernto that you mentioned
really "native"? Or are they multi-lingual, doing coding-switching
often when they speak their "native" tongue? Has there been any
MONOGLOT Esperanto speaker for a fair comparison?
Mark Rosenfelder
>localised idioms?
Well, let's take a for-instance. I'm in Brazil right now, where about
170 million people speak Portuguese. What would be the cost of teaching
them all another language? What would be the cost of providing enough
media content so that they'll keep it up once they leave school?
And since no one who asks this question ever takes English as a solution,
what is the cost of translating everything in English that non-Anglo-
Saxons want to read into the interlanguage, so it actually has some use?
Would the opportunity to speak to Turks and Chinese and Danes have any
practical meaning for all these Brazilians, from the favela dwellers on up?
They have a big country and a substantial internal market just using
Portuguese. And even those that have learned English generally don't have
enough contact with English speakers to keep up their English very well.
Seems to me you're proposing a huge educational cost to the Brazilians,
for very little benefit.
Mark Rosenfelder
Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>If english will become the international language (many people believe so),
>it will push away other languages and cultures. Nevertheless, a common
>language is needed. Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very
>easy. It could serve as a bridge between nations without making uniformity
>of the world.
Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language that
begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another wouldn't?
There have been interlanguages throughout history, and they generally do
affect the cultures that use them-- check out the influence of Latin and
French in Europe, or Chinese in East Asia, or Spanish on Indian languages.
Why wouldn't E-o have this effect? Small languages are already dying off,
as speakers convert to English or Portuguese or Spanish; why wouldn't E-o
do the same?
We could have a nice argument over this; but the real argument you should
be having is with yourself. Try to answer your own questions-- "Do we
need a common language? Could it be E-o?"-- with something besides a
quick Yes! Yes!
You do realize, don't you, that this debate has been going on for more than
a century? And that the arguments for and against E-o have barely changed
in all that time? Do you have anything new to bring to the table this
time, to convert the few billion of us who haven't been converted by the
last hundred years of debate?
(By the way, Nikolai, I'm a former Esperantist-- I once had the same
enthusiasm for it you have. I haven't lost my interest in communicating
with people from other cultures; but now I prefer to do it by learning
their languages, rather than insisting that they come to share my hobby.
Learning languages isn't easy; but it's a lot easier than changing the
world.)
kl...@infotrans.or.jp
sd...@faith.csis.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}) wrote:
> Nikolai> Lee Sau Dan (who perfectly knows Esperanto) kriticize
> Nikolai> Esperanto because of its eurocentrism. But the same
> Nikolai> reason is valid for English...
>
> I have never attempted to deny tihs.
>
> Nikolai> Esperanto could help them. It is 10 times easier
> Nikolai> than English.
>
> This "10" is an exaggeration. It may be true for an Italian
> (because Esperanto is so similar to Italian), but Esperanto
> is, IMHO, only 10% easier than English for a Chinese.
It's interesting to see how your opinion changes, Mr. Lee.
Here's a snippet from one year ago in soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: Is Esperanto Really So Easy?
From: Lee Sau Dan <sd...@csis.hku.hk>
Date:1998/07/10
klivo> I've been reading your dreck for more than a year. You are
klivo> constantly writing that Esperanto is extremely difficult
klivo> for Asians, and yet you recently acknowledged that
klivo> Esperanto is twice as easy for Chinese to learn as English.
>I've never denied this, did I?
So last year it was twice as easy. This year it's 10% easier.
Get a life, fool.
> Lee Sau Dan �,X)wAV(Big5)
Klivo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Nikolai Grishin
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote in message...
Nikolai Grishin writes:
>
> Nikolai> Not everybody knows English. More and more non-english
> Nikolai> speakers come on the Net. They can't understand each
> Nikolai> other.
>
>When Chinese come onto the Net, they can understand each other via
>Chinese. When Francophones use the Net, they use French among
>themselves.
>
different nations don't understand each other. To intercommunicate, they
must spend years for studying English. Why, if the same result could be
acchieved much more rapidly by Esperanto. One can learn it within some day
or weeks.
> Nikolai> Esperanto could help them. It is 10 times easier
> Nikolai> than English.
>
>This "10" is an exaggeration. It may be true for an Italian (because
>Esperanto is so similar to Italian), but Esperanto is, IMHO, only 10%
>easier than English for a Chinese.
>
No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
esceptions. It has perfect ortopraphy - "one letter - one sound". The only
thing one must learn a long time is the Esperanto vocabulary. But it is much
littler than of English. In Esperanto you can make many words out of few
roots, prefixes, suffixes. Therefore even for Chinese (Korean, Japanese...)
Esperanto is at least 5 times easier than English.
>For a Chinese, both English and
>Esperanto are VERY difficult.
>
I don't think that Esperanto is VERY difficult for anybody. It is as easy as
a language can be (still, it is very rich).
>Esperanto being slightly easier is
>hardly an advantage. So, what would a smart Asian do? With English,
>you can reach a thousand times more people by spending 11% more
>effort. In terms of business opportunities, Esperanto can't beat
>English at all!
>
Why beat? They can peacefully conexist and be useful each in its own field.
There are thousand of esperantists in China; they don't think as you. I
think thank Esperanto is perfect to contact with Chineses.
> Nikolai> How about two international languages: English (for who
> Nikolai> already knows it) and Esperanto (for who don't know
> Nikolai> English but wants to communicate with people of other
> Nikolai> nations)?
>
>Why must the other one be Esperanto? Why not Chinese (which has the
>largest speaking population) or Spanish (which comes third on the
>list)?
>
Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It is
one of the most difficult languages. Please, speak seriously.
If you are ready to agree with Spanish as international, I can't understand
why you don't agree with Esperanto which is at least 2 times easier than
Spanish and _neutral_.
>--
>Lee Sau Dan
Nikolai
Reader
>
> Reader wrote:
>
> > The same thing happend to African-Americans who
> > forgot their native languages so that they could gain numerous
> > economic opportunities and enhance their human spirit by learning the
> > language of their masters. Human naivety is _immense_. They will sell
> > their spirits for absolutely _nothing_.
>
> False. Slaves were *forced* to speak English, often with the master's
> whip on their backs if they were too uppity in keeping to their native
> languages.
I'm aware of this and of what you included in your post scriptum
but the reasons a group abandons their native language weren't exactly
what I was interested in but the _effects_ they can bring.
The African slaves obviously didn't naively ask to be brought
to America hoping for economic advancement, if they cared about it at
all, and I am aware of this too. But the bottom line is that, once they
got to America, the sheer survival became the "economic advancement", in
a sense, available to them. They survived but their owners gained more
from their having learned English or any other lingua franca than they.
Once again, they didn't ask for it, for sure.
Those who want to teach all their people, however unskilled they are,
the language of a foreign nation, however useless it is for them, will
achieve a similar effect. They will have to pick up the tab, not the
native speakers of that language, only to possibly allowing cultural
colonization of their countries and destruction of their native
cultures.
The cost and time involved in learning a foreign language is the main
reason why many people would prefer rather others' learning their own
language than vice versa, considering also that even if all people
learned a common language the native speakers of it would always enjoy
and advantageous position.
This is a trap set for all the non-native speakers of a tentative
international language.
> To say slaves in the US abandoned
> their Africanness voluntarily,
This is just your insinuation. Who did say that they abandoned their
languages voluntarily? You? Certainly not I in my post.
> out of a naive hope of *economic advancement*
> (!!!), is not just ignorant,
Your suggesting that the slaveowners didn't want the slaves
to communicate with each other but finally had to let them communicate,
for obvious reasons was just as ignorant.
The slaveowners were just stupid and inconsistent but greedy.
They destroyed the slaves' ability to communicate with each other, but
at a cost to themselves, just because they were too lazy to learn the
slaves' language or to make a few overseers do it, or to get some
collaborators from among the slaves, if they wanted to control them.
Any large conspiration wasn't likely to be organized in open fields
under the eye of a slave driver, but mostly in the buildings.
What are worth workers who can't communicate with each other?
The learning of another common language took time and the slaveowners
had to give food and shelter to the slaves anyway.
Who needed animals should have brought animals instead of people.
> it's a grave insult to the slaves and their
> descendants who did their best to make a place for themselves and their
> families and preserve their individuality in the face of a society that
> first enslaved them, then exploited them and spat in their faces.
Oh, please, don't try the cheap trick of discrediting me by positioning
yoursef as their bleeding heart defendent and painting me as as their
enemy. I din't try to insult the slaves, they were just an example
of a group who abandoned their native language, for whatever reason that
was. I only wanted to state that learning foreign langauges isn't a
necessary survival skill. It is _a skill_, as any other, and some people
need it to earn a living, some not. The latter can occasionally use
services of those who posses that skill. Those who need it for pleasure
should pay for the lessons themselves, not use the taxpayers'
money. If wanted to insult anybody at all, it was those who want to
induce other people to learn their own native language only to take
advantage of the other guys who will bear all the cost.
> And if you're intending it as humor or irony, you failed miserably.
Oh sure, you're the official irony gauge. I can survive the lack
of your appreciation.
Regards
Reader
Nikolai Grishin
Mark Rosenfelder wrote in message >...
>
>Well, let's take a for-instance. I'm in Brazil right now, where about
>170 million people speak Portuguese. What would be the cost of teaching
>them all another language?
Internet changes the world. Now we living in Brasil, China, Europe or USA
can speak together as if we would be in one room. Now we use English as the
international. But esperantists think that Esperanto is the best solution.
The actual task is to inform everybody about this language that those who
wants to speak with other nations would learn Esperanto. May be, it is the
way to peace and universal brotherhood?
Nikolai
Brian M. Scott
> I only wanted to state that learning foreign langauges isn't a
> necessary survival skill.
That obviously depends on the time and place.
Brian M. Scott
mith...@indiana.edu
Reader wrote:
> mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> > Reader wrote:
> >
> > > The same thing happend to African-Americans who
> > > forgot their native languages so that they could gain numerous
> > > economic opportunities and enhance their human spirit by learning the
> > > language of their masters. Human naivety is _immense_. They will sell
> > > their spirits for absolutely _nothing_.
> ...
> > To say slaves in the US abandoned
> > their Africanness voluntarily,
>
> This is just your insinuation. Who did say that they abandoned their
> languages voluntarily? You? Certainly not I in my post.
Quite the contrary--you might not have *meant* to do so, but it is what you
said. Reread the way you phrased it. If you want to avoid being
misunderstood in the future, (1) don't use a purpose construction ("...forgot
their native languages *so that* they could gain numerous economic
opportunities...") when you don't mean it, and (2) learn to use better
transitions in the future. (Did the slaves sell their spirits for nothing?
Was their naivety immense? If not, then you should have made a paragraph
break at the very least.)
Mikael Thompson
Mike Wright
>
> Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote in message...
> Nikolai Grishin writes:
> >
> > Nikolai> Not everybody knows English. More and more non-english
> > Nikolai> speakers come on the Net. They can't understand each
> > Nikolai> other.
> >
> >When Chinese come onto the Net, they can understand each other via
> >Chinese. When Francophones use the Net, they use French among
> >themselves.
> >
> Members of the same nation of course understand each other. But members of
> different nations don't understand each other. To intercommunicate, they
> must spend years for studying English. Why, if the same result could be
> acchieved much more rapidly by Esperanto. One can learn it within some day
> or weeks.
I have a book that claims to teach Hungarian in four weeks. Perhaps Hungarian
would make a good international language.
> > Nikolai> Esperanto could help them. It is 10 times easier
> > Nikolai> than English.
> >
> >This "10" is an exaggeration. It may be true for an Italian (because
> >Esperanto is so similar to Italian), but Esperanto is, IMHO, only 10%
> >easier than English for a Chinese.
> >
> No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
> esceptions.
What are these "rules"? Are these only inflectional rules, or do they include
all the word order rules? Do adjectives precede or follow nouns? Do adverbs
precede or follow verbs? Do they precede or follow adjectives? Does it matter
where in a sentence one puts words that show "time spent" vs. where one puts
words that show "time when"? Does it have prepositions or postpositions? Are
plural pronouns created in the same way as plural nouns? Are possesive pronouns
created the same way as possessive nouns? Do possessive endings precede or
follow plural endings?
After all, Mandarin has zero inflectional rules, so it *must* be easier than
Esperanto. Likewise for Vietnamese, and Malay.
> It has perfect ortopraphy - "one letter - one sound".
I think one could say that Malay and Indonesian have "perfect orthography".
> The only
> thing one must learn a long time is the Esperanto vocabulary. But it is much
> littler than of English. In Esperanto you can make many words out of few
> roots, prefixes, suffixes. Therefore even for Chinese (Korean, Japanese...)
> Esperanto is at least 5 times easier than English.
So, if a Chinese didn't know the Esperanto word for "immediately", she could
just say "horse top" and everyone would understand? That's great!
> >For a Chinese, both English and
> >Esperanto are VERY difficult.
> >
> I don't think that Esperanto is VERY difficult for anybody. It is as easy as
> a language can be (still, it is very rich).
Yeah. He must be lying, eh? Shame on you, Sau Dan!!!
> >Esperanto being slightly easier is
> >hardly an advantage. So, what would a smart Asian do? With English,
> >you can reach a thousand times more people by spending 11% more
> >effort. In terms of business opportunities, Esperanto can't beat
> >English at all!
> >
> Why beat? They can peacefully conexist and be useful each in its own field.
> There are thousand of esperantists in China; they don't think as you. I
> think thank Esperanto is perfect to contact with Chineses.
It must be, if *thousands* speak it. I, myself, know of two Chinese who speak
it. Of course, one of them is Sau Dan and the other one is constantly posting
Chinese-language Esperantist spam to sci.lang.
Actually, I'll be meeting my first real Esperantist in person sometime next
November--but he's coming to study Mandarin. I'm sure he'll have something
interesting to contribute after graduation.
> > Nikolai> How about two international languages: English (for who
> > Nikolai> already knows it) and Esperanto (for who don't know
> > Nikolai> English but wants to communicate with people of other
> > Nikolai> nations)?
> >
> >Why must the other one be Esperanto? Why not Chinese (which has the
> >largest speaking population) or Spanish (which comes third on the
> >list)?
> >
> Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It is
> one of the most difficult languages.
No, it's one of the easiest. Based on my own experience, Mandarin is easier than
German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Arabic, or Hebrew. I'm sure it's easier than
English, and I'm willing to bet that it's easier than Hungarian, Finnish, Hindi,
or any of the Slavic or Baltic languages. Have you really found it difficult?
Sure the writing takes some effort, but the spoken language more than makes up
for it.
> Please, speak seriously.
> If you are ready to agree with Spanish as international, I can't understand
> why you don't agree with Esperanto which is at least 2 times easier than
> Spanish and _neutral_.
Let's see, how many people could I speak with in the Americas in Spanish,
compared with the number I could speak with in Esperanto? Between Mandarin and
English, I can already speak with a *big* bunch of people. Add Spanish and I'm
on top of the world. Spanish gives me access to two more TV stations right here
at home. Considering the returns, I'd be more than willing to put out twice the
effort to learn Spanish. I'm surprised at how much I still understand forty
years after a mild effort in school and absolutely no use of it since.
And why should anyone care whether it's neutral or not? What kind of culture
does neutrality get you? Latin American music is fabulous. Mexican food is
second to none. I don't know about Spanish food, but their music is pretty cool,
too--and they do have Mallorca. The variety of Latin American cultures is really interesting.
I don't have any problem with the non-neutrality of Mandarin, either. Since
there are already so many native speakers, not as many people have to learn it
from scratch. And all the people who already speak English will be pleasantly
surprised to find out how easy it is. The food and the culture alone are worth
the price.
I don't want to hurt any feelings, so I won't say that China (including Taiwan
for this purpose) has more of the most beautiful women in the world than any
other country, but if I did say that, you'd understand that it outweighs any
possible benefits of neutrality in my mind.
What were the benefits of Esperanto again? Small speaker base, Eurocentric, have
to make up your own vocabulary... What do the women look like? How's the food?
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
_____________________________________________________
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
-- Charles de Gaulle
Nikolai Grishin
Mark Rosenfelder skribis tre interesan leteron...
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
>Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language that
>begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another wouldn't?
>
Esperanto is neutral. Esperanto could protect the languages of little
nations and their culture from the English expansion.
>There have been interlanguages throughout history, and they generally do
>affect the cultures that use them-- check out the influence of Latin and
>French in Europe, or Chinese in East Asia, or Spanish on Indian languages.
>Why wouldn't E-o have this effect? Small languages are already dying off,
>as speakers convert to English or Portuguese or Spanish; why wouldn't E-o
>do the same?
>
Esperanto is something different than nature nation languages. It is
_international_ language. Esperanto-culture is sintesys of all nation
cultures.
>We could have a nice argument over this; but the real argument you should
>be having is with yourself. Try to answer your own questions-- "Do we
>need a common language? Could it be E-o?"-- with something besides a
>quick Yes! Yes!
>
But it is true. Esperanto is a genious solution of the problem. But not
everybody is genious... :)
>You do realize, don't you, that this debate has been going on for more than
>a century? And that the arguments for and against E-o have barely changed
>in all that time?
>
The arguments for Esperanto need not to change because they are right. Did
you read the article of Zamenhof "Esenco kaj estonteco de la ideo de lingvo
internacia?" All his reasons are still actual.
>Do you have anything new to bring to the table this
>time, to convert the few billion of us who haven't been converted by the
>last hundred years of debate?
>
Yes, I have. It is Internet. It (teknike) united the mankind. Now we need to
unite it (lingve). <I can't translate "teknike", "lingve" into English>
>(By the way, Nikolai, I'm a former Esperantist-- I once had the same
>enthusiasm for it you have.
>
Mi tre ghojas. How many of esperantists are in the world! Now it is time for
you to recall your knowledges and recommence activity on this field.
Esperanto-movement needs clever men (and women).
>I haven't lost my interest in communicating
>with people from other cultures; but now I prefer to do it by learning
>their languages, rather than insisting that they come to share my hobby.
>
But you can't learn all languages. Of course, if you will learn spanish
language, you will can speak with _every_ spanish-speaker, but _only_ with
spanish speakers. If you will learn Esperanto, you will not can speak with
everybody, but you will can speak with every esperantist from _every_
country. Now our aim is make that everybody who is interested in
communicating with people from other culture, learn Esperanto.
>Learning languages isn't easy; but it's a lot easier than changing the
>world.)
>
I see no contradiction in both adapting ourselves to the world and trying to
change the world. It is dialectic. Do not adapt ourselves to the world would
be stupidly, but also do not try change the world would be not right.
We can (and must) use English and promote Esperanto in the same time.
Nikolai
Gerard van Wilgen
> Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very easy.
>
>It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is complicated
>(esp. for those from isolating languages). Yes, I know its grammar is
>REGULAR, but regularity doesn't necessarily mean EASE.
Perhaps so, but if Esperanto would have been designed as an isolating
language, it would have been difficult to learn for speakers of
non-isolating languages (the majority of the world population).
Eble, sed se esperanto estus projektita estiel izolanta lingvo, ghi estus
malfacile lernebla por parolantoj de neizolantaj lingvoj (la plimulto de la
mondloghantaro).
>(Indeed, the grammar of Esperanto is not that regular
Ah, but just as regularity does not necessarily mean EASE, irregularity does
not necessarily mean DIFFICULTY :-)
A, sed same kiel reguleco ne necese signifas FACILECO, nereguleco ne necese
signifas MALFACILECO :-)
>and Esperanto
>has so many illogical idiomatic expressions inherited from the
>European culture.)
The use of any idiomatic expression in Esperanto, illogical or otherwise, is
the equivalent of literally translating idiom from one's native language to
a foreign language. It is an error of the user, not of the language itself.
Uzo de iu idioma esprimo en esperanto, nelogika au alia, estas la
ekvivalento de laulitere tradukti idiomon de onia gepatra lingvo al fremda
lingvo. Ghis estas eraro de la uzanto, ne de la lingvo mem.
> Nikolai> It could serve as a bridge between nations without making
> Nikolai> uniformity of the world.
>
>English does well on this.
>
Strange that you are so strongly an adversary of Esperanto, but seem to have
no problem with the dominant position of English. English is even more
Eurocentric than Esperanto, and in every respect that I can think of more
difficult to learn for somebody from East Asia than Esperanto.
Strange ke vi estas tiel forte kontrauulo de esperanto, sed ne shajnas havi
problemon je la superreganta pozicio de la angla. La angla estas ech pli
eurocentra ol la esperanto, kaj je chiu rilato kiun mi povas pripensi pli
malfacile lernebla por iu de Orientazio ol esperanto.
Gerard van Wilgen
Nikolai Grishin
Mike Wright wrote in message...
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>> >
>> No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
>> esceptions.
>
>What are these "rules"?
1) About article la (= the).
2) Nouns end by -o (domo - house).
Plural ends by -j (domoj - houses).
Accusative ends by -n (mi vidas amikon - I see a friend).
Genetive is formed by de (de amiko - of friend).
Dative is formed by al (al amiko - to friend).
3) Adjectives end by -a.
Comparative is formed by pli (more) ol (than) and plej (most) (bona - good,
pli bona - better, plej bona - best).
4) Numbers: unu (1), du (2), tri (3), kvar (4), kvin (5), ses (6), sep (7),
ok (8), nau (9), dek (10), cent (100), mil (1000).
Kvincent tridek tri = 533; kvara - fourth and so on.
There are suffixes -obl-, -on- -op- and preposition po.
5) Pronouns: mi (I), vi (you), li (he), shi (she), ghi (it); si (-self), ni
(we), ili (they), oni (one); mia - my, min - me and so on.
6) Verbs: mi faras - I do, la
patro faras - the father does, ili faras - they do).
Á) mi faras - I do.
b) li faris - he did.
Ó) ili faros - they will do.
ch) shi farus - she would do
d) faru! - do!
e) fari - to do.
f) faranta - doing.
g) farinta - ...
gh) faronta - ...
h) farata - ...
hh) farita - ...
i) farota - ...
Shi estas amata de chiuj - she is loved by everyone.
7) Adverbs end by -Å (rapide - quickly).
8) After all preposition one use nominative.
9) How you write, so you read.
10) Akcent is on the last-but-one syllable (Esper-A-nto).
11) About buiding complex words: vaporshipo - steamship (vaporo - steam,
shipo - ship).
12) About ne: mi neniam vidis - I haven't ever seen.
13) Kie? - where? kien? - to where?.
14) About indefinite preposition je.
15) About using of international lexic.
16) Instead of -o one can use ' (in poetry): dom' = domo.
That is FULL grammar of Esperanto. Now I would like you to write full
grammar of the "easy" chinese language.
Nikolai
Nikolai Grishin
Gerard van Wilgen wrote (to Lee Sau Dan) in message...
(Mi salutas vin, samideano!)
>
>Strange that you are so strongly an adversary of Esperanto, but seem to
have
>no problem with the dominant position of English. English is even more
>Eurocentric than Esperanto, and in every respect that I can think of more
>difficult to learn for somebody from East Asia than Esperanto.
>
>Strange ke vi estas tiel forte kontrauulo de esperanto, sed ne shajnas havi
>problemon je la superreganta pozicio de la angla. La angla estas ech pli
>eurocentra ol la esperanto, kaj je chiu rilato kiun mi povas pripensi pli
>malfacile lernebla por iu de Orientazio ol esperanto.
>
Mr Lee is good known in soc.culture.esperanto. He learned Esperanto to
struggle against it. He hates Esperanto (by _his own_ words). I think, he
hates English, too. His dream is to make mandarenan lingvon as the
international.
Nikolai
Peter T. Daniels
You still haven't answered my question: why learn a language that gives
access to a relative handful of people, rather than a language that
gives access to a billion or so? Not to mention most of the scientific
and technical literature of the last half century (or more)?
And as for that "peace and brotherhood" propaganda crap, how has a
common language served Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats? The North and South
in the American Civil War? The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia? The
Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda? The Cambodians and Cambodians in Cambodia?
Peter T. Daniels
> No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
> esceptions.
*If* that were true, then Esperanto would be enormously distant from any
human language. However, Mr. Zamenhof was tremendously ignorant of the
nature of language; he thought that what one read in grammar books was
the essence of language. Fortunately for you, he made thousands or
millions of unconscious assumptions, resulting in a reasonable facsimile
of a human language.
And, by insisting on maintaining the "16 rules," the little universe of
Esperantists have guaranteed that Esperanto continues to remain very
distinct from any human languages; for human languages are constantly
changing and adapting (and not as to vocabulary alone).
> It has perfect ortopraphy - "one letter - one sound".
And just this week you-all have been fighting about how to spell the
language on the internet, since Mr. Zamenhof invented some diacriticized
letters that were (and are) not used in any other langauge ...
> The only
> thing one must learn a long time is the Esperanto vocabulary. But it is much
> littler than of English. In Esperanto you can make many words out of few
> roots, prefixes, suffixes. Therefore even for Chinese (Korean, Japanese...)
> Esperanto is at least 5 times easier than English.
So you think Chinese is 1/2 as difficult as English. (For whom?)
> >For a Chinese, both English and
> >Esperanto are VERY difficult.
> >
> I don't think that Esperanto is VERY difficult for anybody. It is as easy as
> a language can be (still, it is very rich).
Then you're simply wrong. Lee Sau Dan is obviously an intelligent person
with great facility for languages.
> Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It is
> one of the most difficult languages. Please, speak seriously.
> If you are ready to agree with Spanish as international, I can't understand
> why you don't agree with Esperanto which is at least 2 times easier than
> Spanish and _neutral_.
And Spanish is 5 times easier than English ... where are you getting
these absurd numbers from, and what could they possibly mean?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Mark Rosenfelder skribis tre interesan leteron...
> >Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> >
> >Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language that
> >begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another wouldn't?
> >
> It is very easy to understand. English belongs to concrete nations.
> Esperanto is neutral. Esperanto could protect the languages of little
> nations and their culture from the English expansion.
How would it do that?
> >There have been interlanguages throughout history, and they generally do
> >affect the cultures that use them-- check out the influence of Latin and
> >French in Europe, or Chinese in East Asia, or Spanish on Indian languages.
> >Why wouldn't E-o have this effect? Small languages are already dying off,
> >as speakers convert to English or Portuguese or Spanish; why wouldn't E-o
> >do the same?
> >
> Esperanto is something different than nature nation languages. It is
> _international_ language. Esperanto-culture is sintesys of all nation
> cultures.
As Lee Sau Dan continually writes, though more elegantly, Bullshit.
Peter T. Daniels
> And why should anyone care whether it's neutral or not? What kind of culture
> does neutrality get you? Latin American music is fabulous.
Chacun à son goût.
> Mexican food is
> second to none.
Except Thai and Vietnamese, for starters.
I don't know about Spanish food,
Paella's pretty special ...
> but their music is pretty cool,
> too--
*Plácido Domingo* gave a *free* concert of zarzuela in connection with
the opening of the 1994 World Cup competition in Chicago. I had to leave
at intermission, it was so dull.
> and they do have Mallorca.
English tourists ...
> The variety of Latin American cultures is really interesting.
That's more like it ... just from Argentina: empanadas and ceviche ...
Reader
Quoted out of context. There were appropriate disclaimers in my posting
having the same meaning. It is not a skill evrybody needs.
Regards,
Reader
Jens S. Larsen
> In article <Pine.SO4.4.05.9908271400140.5573-100000@rask>,
> Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
[...]
>> People who already speak English at home and in the street are free
>> to learn or not learn whatever languages they like; they do not
>> depend so much on what other people choose to teach them during their
>> childhood, to have easy access to individual, international contacts.
> I don't think that's true. It seems easier for the average
> non-English-speaking European to gain access to useful
> foreign-language instruction than it is for the average North
> American.
As long as English is taught elsewhere, they don't need it. Whether
they actually want to take advantage of it is another question.
[...]
> This is akin to saying that every Latvian can't choose for himself or
> herself what musical instrument to play.
No, it's akin to saying that a Latvian must learn to play the piano in
school at the taxpayers' expense, whereas an English speaker learns it
at home for free.
> If one relies solely on the state school system for instruction, it
> radically limits the possibility of what one can learn.
The radicality depends on the state, I'd say.
> A more serious limitation is the income and interests of the
> parents. If they view a certain kind of knowledge (like Esperanto or
> cello) as important, they'll find a way to impart it, whether through
> the schools or not. Unfortunately, the age at which the wishes of
> the individual become paramount is after the best window for this
> sort of instruction.
If you learn just one instrument or language, learning a second one
becomes much easier, even after the window.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Jens S. Larsen
> >>>>> "Nikolai" == Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> writes:
[...]
> Nikolai> Esperanto could help them. It is 10 times easier
> Nikolai> than English.
> This "10" is an exaggeration. It may be true for an Italian (because
> Esperanto is so similar to Italian), but Esperanto is, IMHO, only 10%
> easier than English for a Chinese. For a Chinese, both English and
> Esperanto are VERY difficult. Esperanto being slightly easier is
> hardly an advantage. So, what would a smart Asian do? With English,
> you can reach a thousand times more people by spending 11% more
> effort.
Has there been any pedagogical experiments with Chinese speaking
learners to try and substantiate those numbers?
--
Jens S. Larsen
Jens S. Larsen
> I would rather spend 10 years to learn English than 3 years to
> Esperanto; it gives me more benefit.
It could well be that 3 years of Esperanto and 7 years of English will
give you (or rather your children) more English than 10 years of
English alone. Pedagogical experiments could substantiate that, but
AFAIK they have never been conducted in Asia. Results from Finland
and Hungary look promising, though.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Nikolai Grishin
Peter T. Daniels wrote in message...
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>>
>> The actual task is to inform everybody about this language that those who
>> wants to speak with other nations would learn Esperanto. May be, it is
>> the way to peace and universal brotherhood?
>
>You still haven't answered my question: why learn a language that gives
>access to a relative handful of people, rather than a language that
>gives access to a billion or so?
>
grow. The main problem is lack of information.
>Not to mention most of the scientific
>and technical literature of the last half century (or more)?
>
a) Actually, indeed, to study the scientific and technical literature you
must learn English. What I said is only that Esperanto good serves to
intercommunication between people which don't know languages of each other.
b) Now already exist good programs which can tranlate from nature language
to Esperanto.
c) You have what to read in Esperanto. Only in bibliothek of Vienna there
are 30 000 books in Esperanto. New books appear everyday.
>And as for that "peace and brotherhood" propaganda crap, how has a
>common language served Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats? The North and South
>in the American Civil War? The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia? The
>Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda? The Cambodians and Cambodians in Cambodia?
>
It isn't a good argument. Do you want to say that a common language
instigates wars? Of course, a common language by itself don't guarantee the
peace. Still, it is needed, and we must search it.
Nikolai
Nikolai Grishin
Peter T. Daniels wrote in message...
>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>
>> esceptions.
>
>*If* that were true, then Esperanto would be enormously distant from any
>human language.
>
theoretically. Come to any Esperanto-congress and you will see.
>However, Mr. Zamenhof was tremendously ignorant of the
>nature of language; he thought that what one read in grammar books was
>the essence of language. Fortunately for you, he made thousands or
>millions of unconscious assumptions, resulting in a reasonable facsimile
>of a human language.
>
I see, you are a great specialist in Esperanto. :)
Would you like to prove your words?
>And, by insisting on maintaining the "16 rules," the little universe of
>Esperantists have guaranteed that Esperanto continues to remain very
>distinct from any human languages; for human languages are constantly
>changing and adapting (and not as to vocabulary alone).
>
This 16 rules are basys of the language ("netushebla fundamento"). But you
can exsplore its grammar endlessly.
>> It has perfect ortopraphy - "one letter - one sound".
>
>And just this week you-all have been fighting about how to spell the
>language on the internet, since Mr. Zamenhof invented some diacriticized
>letters that were (and are) not used in any other langauge ...
>
It is because the international language has too few letters. It has not
special letters for many sounds. Therefore Zamenhof has included 5 letters
with sign ^ above them: c, g, h, j, s. Fortunately, the "Fundamento" say
that if you can't show the letter with ^, you can write ch, gh, hh, jh, sh.
In fact, there is no problem.
And there is a letter u with specific sign above it in such words as auto,
auroro... The "Fundamento" recommends to use simple u instead of it.
>> ...Esperanto ... is as easy
>> as a language can be (still, it is very rich).
>
>Then you're simply wrong.
>
No, I am simply right. :)
>And Spanish is 5 times easier than English ... where are you getting
>these absurd numbers from, and what could they possibly mean?
>
May be, these numbers are absurd, indeed. I don't know Spanish. If you can
present other numbers, please do it.
What I know is that I learned Esperanto within 5 days. I learned English
within many years, still, I don't know it very well.
Nikolai
Jens S. Larsen
> In article <Pine.SO4.4.05.9908271441330.5866-100000@rask>,
> Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
> >What's wrong in having one global language, while keeping all of the
> >localised idioms?
> Well, let's take a for-instance. I'm in Brazil right now, where about
> 170 million people speak Portuguese. What would be the cost of teaching
> them all another language? What would be the cost of providing enough
> media content so that they'll keep it up once they leave school?
Ideally everybody should all have a chance to learn it, but of course
people shouldn't be forced to make contacts they don't need.
> And since no one who asks this question ever takes English as a
> solution, what is the cost of translating everything in English that
> non-Anglo-Saxons want to read into the interlanguage, so it actually
> has some use?
It already has the use within the classroom of making English easier to
learn. So there.
> Would the opportunity to speak to Turks and Chinese and Danes have any
> practical meaning for all these Brazilians, from the favela dwellers
> on up?
If they get the opportunity, some will find meaning in it, others won't.
Exactly as with the English they learn (or the Portuguese, for that
matter).
> They have a big country and a substantial internal market just using
> Portuguese. And even those that have learned English generally don't
> have enough contact with English speakers to keep up their English
> very well.
To keep up with one's Esperanto skills, Spanish-speakers come in just as
handy.
> Seems to me you're proposing a huge educational cost to the Brazilians,
> for very little benefit.
I'm not proposing national action at all. Anything aiming at installing
the international language must have international legitimacy, I thought
that was clear.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Jens S. Larsen
> Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>> If english will become the international language (many people believe
>> so), it will push away other languages and cultures. Nevertheless, a
>> common language is needed. Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral
>> and very easy. It could serve as a bridge between nations without
>> making uniformity of the world.
> Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language
> that begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another
> wouldn't?
Because in order to learn Esperanto, you have to stop thinking that
language is something that happens to you, and start thinking that
language is something you do.
[...]
> Learning languages isn't easy; but it's a lot easier than changing the
> world.)
Absolutely. But just because something is difficult, that doesn't mean
it shouldn't be tried.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Jens S. Larsen
[...]
> And as for that "peace and brotherhood" propaganda crap, how has a
> common language served Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats? The North and
> South in the American Civil War? The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in
> Russia? The Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda? The Cambodians and
> Cambodians in Cambodia?
The people in the first, fourth and fifth example probably would have
benefitted from earlier intervention from outside -- something that is
much easier to achieve when you have a common language to formulate common
interests in.
--
Jens S. Larsen
kl...@infotrans.or.jp
"Nikolai Grishin" <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
> That is FULL grammar of Esperanto.
> Nikolai
I wish you'd cut it out Nikolai. Your ridiculous lies do not
help to promote Esperanto.
Bertil Wennergren
Lee Sau Dan:
> >>>>> "Bertil" == Bertil Wennergren <bert...@hem1.passagen.se> writes:
> Bertil> We think about it a lot. But since we have plenty of
> Bertil> experience with native Esperanto speakers (I know lots of
> Bertil> them personally), we have noticed that they do not gain
> Bertil> any undue influence/power since they don't speak the
> Bertil> language any better than others. Some of them are
> Bertil> continually amazed when newcomers learn their native
> Bertil> language to the same level as themselves in just a few
> Bertil> months, and then often go on to surpass them.
> There are many many Sinologists (far more than those super-fluent
> Esperanto speakers you mentioned, I guess) who speak Mandarin (or even
> a few more Chinese tongues) much better than I (and many other Chinese
> pepole) do and know Chinese literature and history much better than I
> do.
> So, does that mean Chinese is suitable as international language,
> because **SOME** people can learn it as L2 and surpass the native
> speakers?
I was not argumenting for or against Chinese, but just pointing out that the
native Esperanto speakers are not and will not be a problem for Esperanto.
I was not presenting them as an advantage.
> Moreover, are those "native speakers" of Espernto that you mentioned
> really "native"? Or are they multi-lingual, doing coding-switching
> often when they speak their "native" tongue? Has there been any
> MONOGLOT Esperanto speaker for a fair comparison?
All of them are multi-lingual, at least as grown-ups.
--
=====================================================================
Bertilo Wennergren
<bert...@hem1.passagen.se>
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
=====================================================================
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>
>> Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>
>>> If english will become the international language (many people believe
>>> so), it will push away other languages and cultures. Nevertheless, a
>>> common language is needed. Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral
>>> and very easy. It could serve as a bridge between nations without
>>> making uniformity of the world.
>
>> Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language
>> that begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another
>> wouldn't?
>
>Because in order to learn Esperanto, you have to stop thinking that
>language is something that happens to you, and start thinking that
>language is something you do.
That's a very elegant slogan, Mr Larsen. Too bad it doesn't really mean
anything.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>
>Mark Rosenfelder skribis tre interesan leteron...
>>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>>There have been interlanguages throughout history, and they generally do
>>affect the cultures that use them-- check out the influence of Latin and
>>French in Europe, or Chinese in East Asia, or Spanish on Indian languages.
>>Why wouldn't E-o have this effect? Small languages are already dying off,
>>as speakers convert to English or Portuguese or Spanish; why wouldn't E-o
>>do the same?
>>
>Esperanto is something different than nature nation languages. It is
>_international_ language. Esperanto-culture is sintesys of all nation
>cultures.
Kinda like Canadian culture, you mean?
[snip]
>>Do you have anything new to bring to the table this
>>time, to convert the few billion of us who haven't been converted by the
>>last hundred years of debate?
>>
>Yes, I have. It is Internet. It (teknike) united the mankind. Now we need to
>unite it (lingve). <I can't translate "teknike", "lingve" into English>
This is true: Every day, I'm using the Internet to communicate with the
favela-dwellers Mark mentioned. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet,
there are no marginalised people or cultures anymore.
>>(By the way, Nikolai, I'm a former Esperantist-- I once had the same
>>enthusiasm for it you have.
>>
>Mi tre ghojas. How many of esperantists are in the world! Now it is time for
>you to recall your knowledges and recommence activity on this field.
>Esperanto-movement needs clever men (and women).
(Hey, Mark, is it just me or do you, too, hear the faint strains of the
'Internationale' in Esperanto in the back of your head when you read
this?)
>>I haven't lost my interest in communicating
>>with people from other cultures; but now I prefer to do it by learning
>>their languages, rather than insisting that they come to share my hobby.
>>
>But you can't learn all languages. Of course, if you will learn spanish
>language, you will can speak with _every_ spanish-speaker, but _only_ with
>spanish speakers. If you will learn Esperanto, you will not can speak with
>everybody, but you will can speak with every esperantist from _every_
>country. Now our aim is make that everybody who is interested in
>communicating with people from other culture, learn Esperanto.
Knowing Spanish, I can communicate with Spanish-speakers from every
culture.
>>Learning languages isn't easy; but it's a lot easier than changing the
>>world.)
>>
>I see no contradiction in both adapting ourselves to the world and trying to
>change the world. It is dialectic.
Whoah, nelly! Two great internationalist movements that taste great
together! "Netters of the world, speak Esperanto! You have nothing to
lose but your reliance on English."
>Do not adapt ourselves to the world would
>be stupidly, but also do not try change the world would be not right.
>We can (and must) use English and promote Esperanto in the same time.
Esperanto is an interesting hobby (and a quite acceptable one as long as
you lay off the delusions of grandeur). Have fun with it.
etherman
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37C7CA...@worldnet.att.net...
> Mike Wright wrote:
> > but their music is pretty cool,
>
> *Plácido Domingo* gave a *free* concert of zarzuela in connection with
> the opening of the 1994 World Cup competition in Chicago. I had to leave
> at intermission, it was so dull.
Listen to some "classical" Spanish guitar and you won't be disappointed.
I strongly recommend the music of Villa-Lobos.
--
Etherman
Nikolai Grishin
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote in message ...
>
>Esperanto is an interesting hobby (and a quite acceptable one as long as
>you lay off the delusions of grandeur). Have fun with it.
>
Yes, it is a very interesting hobby, indeed. I have a lot of fun with it.
ESPERANTO ESTAS PERFEKTA SOLVO DE LA PROBLEMO PRI INTERNACIA LINGVO.
etherman
> Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> > It has perfect ortopraphy - "one letter - one sound".
>
> And just this week you-all have been fighting about how to spell the
> language on the internet, since Mr. Zamenhof invented some diacriticized
> letters that were (and are) not used in any other langauge ...
The flaw here is with ASCII. It's based on the Latin alphabet
which is inadequate for most non-Latin languages. This is not
to say that Esperanto is the best possible (or existing) interlanguage.
--
Etherman
mith...@indiana.edu
etherman wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:37C7CA...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Mike Wright wrote:
> > > but their music is pretty cool,
> > > too--
> >
> > *Plácido Domingo* gave a *free* concert of zarzuela in connection with
> > the opening of the 1994 World Cup competition in Chicago. I had to leave
> > at intermission, it was so dull.
>
> Listen to some "classical" Spanish guitar and you won't be disappointed.
> I strongly recommend the music of Villa-Lobos.
Of course, Villa-Lobos was Brazilian, but he does fit in that tradition. I
prefer Ponce, Rodrigo, and Castelnuovo-Tedesco myself. And recommending
classical music pieces to PTD is like carrying owls to Athens (or is it
Athena?), as they say in German.
Mikael Thompson
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
> > Reader wrote:
> > > I only wanted to state that learning foreign langauges isn't a
> > > necessary survival skill.
> > That obviously depends on the time and place.
> Quoted out of context. There were appropriate disclaimers in my posting
> having the same meaning.
I did not think so, or I would not have commented.
> It is not a skill evrybody needs.
This is true.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
> In article <Pine.SO4.4.05.9908281556580.11312-100000@rask>,
> Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
> >On 28 Aug 1999, Mark Rosenfelder wrote:
[...]
> >> Uh, how could it do that, Nikolai? Why would speaking one language
> >> that begins with E harm the world's cultures, and speaking another
> >> wouldn't?
> >Because in order to learn Esperanto, you have to stop thinking that
> >language is something that happens to you, and start thinking that
> >language is something you do.
> [snip]
> That's a very elegant slogan, Mr Larsen. Too bad it doesn't really mean
> anything.
I'm not sure that I'd go quite that far, but to the extent that it does
mean something, it applies to learning any language by choice, not just
Esperanto.
Brian M. Scott
Marcos Franco
Llima) skribis:
>>What do you think about Esperanto?
>
>since you ask me directly... here's a smartass reply: "just another
>foreign language".
>
>I know a bit of it, at least enough to understand most written text. I
>think it's quite nicely constructed, considering how early it was done.
>And I find it neat that it has managed to get a couple million of
>speakers, enough to keep it alive for a long time.
Yes, and very likely the only thing that has kept it alive has been
"la espero", the hope, of its speakers.
>OTOH, I don't particularily like some of the ideas that often go with it:
>
>- that an international language (such as E-o itself) "should" be agreed
> upon by some kind of central committee and taught to everyone in the
> world (it sounds to me like a major act of cultural violence, and I
> hate the idea of central committees ruling on things that have so far
> been personal, or regional).
I tend to agree with this. However, I also perceive English overtaking
the planet as another kind of cultural violence, yet more subtle and
not planned. It's a question of what violence do you prefer: that of
the strong one submitting the weak one, or that of the authority
imposing an equitable law.
Anyway, I keep believing that it would be much better if there was a
favourable opinion to Esperanto from the masses before introducting it
to them by policy. The current situation is mostly of no particular
opinion about Esperanto (nor favourable nor unfavourable), based
mainly on an ignorance of the subject.
>- that E-o should preserve its "purity" by not borrowing words without
> thoroughly adapting them. I like languages that evolve by usage, not
> by a set list of rules.
Yes, it sometimes feels like Esperantists mixed up the words adaption
and adoption, as if they meant the same :) But, I think this has some
advantages. For example, the English word "punk", used in Spanish, has
still not a fixed pronunciation. Someones pronounce it /punk/ (as it
reads) and others pronounce it /pank/ (like in English). In Esperanto,
where you'll got the adopted/adapted "punko", you won't hesitate on
how to pronounce it (/punko/).
>>More and more non-english speakers come to Internet. Naturally, they will
>>use not english, but their native language. Esperanto could help them to
>>understand each other.
>
>so could Norwegian, but English is more likely. notice that you're
>posting from .lv and I'm from Spain and we're communicating in English.
>that's an international language at work, without all the fuss, and
>without any kind of authority to plan it or steer it.
Even we, Roger, who have a common mother language, are communicating
in English, for the rest to be able to read us. I think situations
like this are getting more and more usual as we get more and more
globally communicated.
The question "do we need a common language" has got an evident "yes"
as the answer. When everybody is studying English it is for some
reason...
So, the interesting question is therefore "is there a good alternative
to English for a common language?". And that's where Esperanto pops up
as the real solution for those who know it. For two simple and very
important reasons:
1. It costs much less time and money for people to learn than English.
2. People is able to acquire a much higher level of communication with
Esperanto, while most English students can't have a normal
conversation in it, even after many years of study.
And we can add, of course, that Esperanto, being property of no
country, gives not anyone the unfair advantage that international
English gives to anglophones.
So, resuming, I think it's arguable whether Esperanto is the best
possible solution for the babel problem, but there can be no doubt
that it's quite better than the current one.
Saludos,
Marcos
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
'Athen', as in:
"Keine Sterne in Athen
Stattdessen Schnapps in St. Katrein.
Er hat den Urlaub nicht gewollt
Sie hat gesagt, es muesste sein."
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
But since not all speakers of Esperanto learn it by choice, the statement
is meaningless in its original form.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Peter T. Daniels
>
> etherman wrote:
>
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:37C7CA...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Mike Wright wrote:
> > > > but their music is pretty cool,
> > > > too--
> > >
> > > *Plácido Domingo* gave a *free* concert of zarzuela in connection with
> > > the opening of the 1994 World Cup competition in Chicago. I had to leave
> > > at intermission, it was so dull.
> >
> > Listen to some "classical" Spanish guitar and you won't be disappointed.
> > I strongly recommend the music of Villa-Lobos.
>
> Of course, Villa-Lobos was Brazilian, but he does fit in that tradition. I
> prefer Ponce, Rodrigo, and Castelnuovo-Tedesco myself. And recommending
> classical music pieces to PTD is like carrying owls to Athens (or is it
> Athena?), as they say in German.
Quite so! But recommending classical guitar to me is like putting
mongooses before snakes, or something like that: I'll run the other way
_quam celerrime_.
Mike Wright
>
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
> > And why should anyone care whether it's neutral or not? What kind of culture
> > does neutrality get you? Latin American music is fabulous.
>
> Chacun à son goût.
I keep forgetting that you didn't grow up in Texas. Let's see. You probably like
polkas, eh? Lawrence Welk 'n' all that. Well, you'll never hear ol' Larry
playing a good huapango, but you can satisfy your polka appetite with some
Tex-Mex conjunto music--accordions and everything.
Anyhow, there's so much variety--from Peru to Argentina to Cuba to Mexico, with
varying Spanish, native American, and African roots blended in different ways,
and with bits of German and French influence here and there.
> > Mexican food is
> > second to none.
>
> Except Thai and Vietnamese, for starters.
I dunno. Who the heck thought that it would be a good idea to put *mint* into a
*chicken* dish? If you ever want to see a bunch of Taiwanese grossed out, order
that for them. Hardly compares with the homemade chorizo I'm having for lunch at
this very minute.
> I don't know about Spanish food,
>
> Paella's pretty special ...
I've seen it made on TV, but they put clams in it...
> > but their music is pretty cool,
> > too--
>
> *Plácido Domingo* gave a *free* concert of zarzuela in connection with
> the opening of the 1994 World Cup competition in Chicago. I had to leave
> at intermission, it was so dull.
Think Flamenco. Spanish guitar. (So whadja expect from a guy named "Placid
Sunday"? I thought that he was really Tom Jones or Englebert Humperdink, anyway.)
> > and they do have Mallorca.
>
> English tourists ...
Mostly Scandinavian when I was there. Topless in the sun. (I wondered why my son
and his fellow lieutenants were still going out to run on the beach every
morning while they were on leave.) The first place I ever had really good
espresso. Also the first place I ever saw windmills that made sense in terms of
Don Quixote. Terrible food in the hotel buffet, though. Breakfast and lunch were
included, but we often ate out.
> > The variety of Latin American cultures is really interesting.
>
> That's more like it ... just from Argentina: empanadas and ceviche ...
My boss has wonderful photos from Guatemala. He says the marimba bands were
great and the black bean soup was memorable.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
_____________________________________________________
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
-- Charles de Gaulle
Mike Wright
>
> <CLIP>
>
> > Nikolai> Why Esperanto couldn't be it? It is neutral and very easy.
> >
> >It's Eurocentric (i.e. not neutral) and its grammar is complicated
> >(esp. for those from isolating languages). Yes, I know its grammar is
> >REGULAR, but regularity doesn't necessarily mean EASE.
>
> Perhaps so, but if Esperanto would have been designed as an isolating
> language, it would have been difficult to learn for speakers of
> non-isolating languages (the majority of the world population).
It's easy enough for English speakers, which is only quasi-isolating. Lack of
plural forms and lack of verb inflections never bothered me at all. Most of the
people who've told me how difficult Mandarin is have never even studied it. I
have access to some Mandarin speakers who are not native English speakers (nor,
of course, native speakers of any Chinese language). Perhaps I'll try a little survey.
> Eble, sed se esperanto estus projektita estiel izolanta lingvo, ghi estus
> malfacile lernebla por parolantoj de neizolantaj lingvoj (la plimulto de la
> mondloghantaro).
>
[...]
> >and Esperanto
> >has so many illogical idiomatic expressions inherited from the
> >European culture.)
>
> The use of any idiomatic expression in Esperanto, illogical or otherwise, is
> the equivalent of literally translating idiom from one's native language to
> a foreign language. It is an error of the user, not of the language itself.
So, if you could just get rid of the users, the language would be perfect.
Sounds like a plan.
> Uzo de iu idioma esprimo en esperanto, nelogika au alia, estas la
> ekvivalento de laulitere tradukti idiomon de onia gepatra lingvo al fremda
> lingvo. Ghis estas eraro de la uzanto, ne de la lingvo mem.
[...]
Mike Wright
>
> Mike Wright wrote in message...
> >Nikolai Grishin wrote:
> >> >
> >> No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
> >> esceptions.
> >
>
> 1) About article la (= the).
None in Chinese.
> 2) Nouns end by -o (domo - house).
> Plural ends by -j (domoj - houses).
No special noun ending. No plural nouns. If you need to talk about more than
one, use a number or other word like "five", "some", "several", "many", etc.
> Accusative ends by -n (mi vidas amikon - I see a friend).
No special accusative ending. Mandarin uses word order. Direct objects follow
verbs, as in English.
> Genetive is formed by de (de amiko - of friend).
Genetive is formed by <de> following the noun (<peng2you de> - of friend). It's
a bit like the English 's.
> Dative is formed by al (al amiko - to friend).
No special dative ending. Mandarin uses word order or vocabulary.
(I wonder why genitive and dative use separate prepositions, while accusative
uses an attached suffix. It seems rather irregular. Is it because this is a
common pattern in European languages?)
> 3) Adjectives end by -a.
> Comparative is formed by pli (more) ol (than) and plej (most) (bona - good,
> pli bona - better, plej bona - best).
No special endings for adjectives.
Comparative is formed by <geng4> "more" and <zui4> "most" before the adjective.
> 4) Numbers: unu (1), du (2), tri (3), kvar (4), kvin (5), ses (6), sep (7),
> ok (8), nau (9), dek (10), cent (100), mil (1000).
> Kvincent tridek tri = 533; kvara - fourth and so on.
> There are suffixes -obl-, -on- -op- and preposition po.
Numbers yi1 (1), er4 (2), san1 (3), si4 (4), wu3 (5), liu4 (6), qi1 (7), ba1
(8), jiu3 (9), shi2 (10), bai3 (100), qian1 (1000), wan4 (10,000). Put <di4> in
front of cardinals to form ordinals.
> 5) Pronouns: mi (I), vi (you), li (he), shi (she), ghi (it); si (-self), ni
> (we), ili (they), oni (one); mia - my, min - me and so on.
Pronouns: <wo3> (I, me), <ni3> (you), <ta1> (he, him, she, her, it);
add pluralizer <men>: <wo3men> (we, us), <ni3men> (y'all), <ta1men> (they, them);
add genetive particle <de> for possessives: <wo3de> (my, mine), <wo3mende> (our,
ours), etc.
> 6) Verbs: mi faras - I do, la
> patro faras - the father does, ili faras - they do).
> Á) mi faras - I do.
> b) li faris - he did.
> Ó) ili faros - they will do.
> ch) shi farus - she would do
> d) faru! - do!
> e) fari - to do.
> f) faranta - doing.
> g) farinta - ...
???
> gh) faronta - ...
???
> h) farata - ...
???
> hh) farita - ...
???
> i) farota - ...
???
> Shi estas amata de chiuj - she is loved by everyone.
Verbs: zuo4 - do, does, did, done
Verbs are not inflected for person, number, tense, or aspect. When these
additional meanings are relevant, the speaker may add words, just as we do in
English when we say "I will do..." or "I did do..." or "I have done...", or "I
am doing...", but without having to change the form of the verb.
> 7) Adverbs end by -Å (rapide - quickly).
No special ending for adverbs or any other parts of speech. Word order suffices.
(I see an uppercase A-ring after the hyphen, but the example seems to end in "e".)
> 8) After all preposition one use nominative.
There being only one form of a noun, that's the one used after all prepositions.
> 9) How you write, so you read.
This works with romanized Mandarin. (But it seems to be stretching it to call
this rule a part of the "grammar".)
> 10) Akcent is on the last-but-one syllable (Esper-A-nto).
No word accent, but tone contours.
> 11) About buiding complex words: vaporshipo - steamship (vaporo - steam,
> shipo - ship).
Mandarin is about the same (with the obvious exception that there are no noun
endings to be gotten rid of).
> 12) About ne: mi neniam vidis - I haven't ever seen.
Does this mean that <ne> means "have never experienced"? In Mandarin, we just
negate the verb after adding the experiential particle: <Wo3 mei2 kan4guo>,
literally I not see-past, which contrasts with <Wo3 kan4guo>, "I *have* seen".
How do you say, "I *have* had the experience of seeing" or, even, "I *have*
seen" in Esperanto?
> 13) Kie? - where? kien? - to where?.
<Na3li>? - where? <dao4 na3li>? to where? (<dao4> means "to"--no change in form,
just use your vocabulary.)
Is there no form for "from where"?
> 14) About indefinite preposition je.
???
> 15) About using of international lexic.
???
> 16) Instead of -o one can use ' (in poetry): dom' = domo.
I guess that's needed to keep the rhymes from being incredibly boring. No need
to go into Chinese poetry here.
> That is FULL grammar of Esperanto. Now I would like you to write full
> grammar of the "easy" chinese language.
(I've put in ??? where the explanation seems less than FULL.)
This implies that Esperanto has completely free word order. In other words, it
seems that in Esperanto it makes no difference whether you say "He hit the big
dog hard" or "Hard the dog big hit he". And, I assume it also makes no
difference whether you say, "The Student went to London with his mother", or
"Student the London to mother his with went", or "Went with his mother London to
the student", or "The student to London with mother his went", or any other
combinations of those words. Is that correct? If not, then what are all the
word-order rules?
Elsewhere in this thread, John Fisher wrote:
: The 16 rules are not at complete description of Esperanto grammar at
: all. This is not my opinion; Prof John Wells, a past president of the
: UEA, says in his "Esperanto Dictionary": "The Dek Ses Reguloj, while in
: no way an exhaustive specification of the grammar of Esperanto, are of
: historical importance as a concise statement of Esperanto morphology and
: syntax on the assumption of a general European linguistic background."
That last line says a lot, doesn't it? So, here's a heavy-duty Esperantist
saying that Esperanto *is* Eurocentric. It hardly seems worth discussing
further, does it? (Hey, Mark, got room for that quote in the FAQ?)
Mike Wright
>
> John Fisher wrote in message ...
> >Nikolai Grishin writes
> >
> >>No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
> >>esceptions.
> >
> >all.
> >
> Waringhien has 598 pages, but still it isn't full, I think. Human language
> is endless.
So, why did you claim the 16 rules are a "FULL grammar of Esperanto"? Li and
Thompson's _Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar_ runs to 675 page.
Given variations in page and type sizes, that looks pretty close to your grammar
of Esperanto.
> >This is not my opinion; Prof John Wells, a past president of the
> >UEA, says in his "Esperanto Dictionary": "The Dek Ses Reguloj, while in
> >no way an exhaustive specification of the grammar of Esperanto, are of
> >historical importance as a concise statement of Esperanto morphology and
> >syntax on the assumption of a general European linguistic background."
> >
> That's why I wrote them.
>
> >Not complete at all, in other words, and not a lot of use for people
> >from other backgrounds.
> >
> It might by useful por propaganda. :)
Propaganda based on untruths is successful only as long as no one finds out the
truth. Once the truth is known, not only is all propaganda value lost, but also
there is resentment about having been lied to. It's not a useful tactic.
> >Esperanto, within Zamenhof's cultural context, is a brilliant
> >intellectual construct. Anyone who has ever tried to invent a language,
> >a real language, not a toy, knows how difficult it is; and Esperanto is
> >a real language.
> >
> To create a language is very difficult task. But much more difficult task is
> to get it alive, to find speakers who would love and use this language.
> Zamenhof did it.
But they don't seem to be content to share it with others who love it. There
seems to be some missionary zeal involved. I'd feel funny about spamming little
messages all over Usenet trying to get people to study Mandarin.
> >By the same token, like all languages, it is a
> >massively complex system. The idea that Esperanto is "simple" doesn't
> >really stand up, and if it did, the language would be pretty useless.
> >
> I think Esperanto is "simple" (i.e. easy fot studying) indeed, but it is as
> rich as other languages (and may be much more rich).
Or, maybe not.
> >>Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It
> >>is one of the most difficult languages.
> >
> >Not for the Chinese, who are about a quarter of the human race.
> >
> Of course, if a language is your native, it seems to be easy for you.
And if the syntax and morphology of a language is designed to be similar to
certain European languages, it will seem easy to those who are native speakers
of those languages, but not necessarily to those whose languages are quite different.
> >I don't think there is is an absolute standard of difficulty for
> >languages. A language is hard for me to learn if it is very different
> >from my own langauge, and easy if it is similar. The fact is that for
> >large numbers of people, billions of them, Esperanto is not easy at all,
> >because it's very, very different from their own languages.
> >
> Yes, but I want to say that there are thousands and thousands of
Just how many are there thought to be? Closer to two thousand or closer to ten
thousand? And what is the total population of China just now?
> esperantists in China. Chineses publish nice journal "El popola Chinio" (Out
> off people's China) and many books in Esperanto.
And many publications in other languages are written and published in China.
I wonder what proportion of people in the US speak Mandarin fairly well,
compared with the proportion of the Chinese population that speaks Esperanto
fairly well.
Dave Timpe
Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SO4.4.05.9908281616150.11312-100000@rask...
Would Esperanto (that being the common language everybody is concerned with
on this thread) have done anything to change the situation? For the most
part, the reason there was a lack of timely intervention in the cases cited
was political, which would have been pretty much the same no matter what the
language. In the case of the Balkans there was initially the "warm glow" of
the fall of the iron curtain which had everybody a little dewy-eyed and
looking the other way when the first signs of ethnic tension broke out.
Then everyone (especially the Europeans, but the Americans too) put all
their weight behind trying to hold Yugoslavia together at first, trying to
discourage the individual republics' secession, exerting diplomatic effort
to try to talk the parties out of war. The process was repeated a couple of
times before the UN started saying "now see here, you've all got to live
together or we'll put on sanctions", authorizing NATO involvement, building
up to bombing finally in Bosnia, slowly edging toward more involvement but
none of the developments were either encouraged or held back by lack of a
common language as far as I can tell (and yes, I know I left a lot out but
this paragraph could easily go on forever without some trimming of the
details, which were frequently all too repetitive anyway).
There were various colonial hangovers involved in Rwanda, and I probably
couldn't analyze them adequately, but there was historical bias on the part
of Europeans toward the Tutsi which was certainly part of the problem and
made any outside involvement trickier than it might have been. All the
major players could have done something, but there had been a lot of history
getting in the way which wouldn't have gone away no matter what language was
spoken.
In Cambodia, cold war politics was involved again. The CIA had to know much
of the dirty details of the Pol Pot regime, but the cold warriors decided to
back him for some reason, mainly to spite the Vietnamese, I think, but also
to play off China (which also supported the Khmer Rouge) against Russia.
Language skills were adequate for the outside world to know what was going
on and to intervene if they chose. They didn't choose.
We have a terrible record of not solving these kind of problems, but I don't
know that lack of a common language has much to do with it. We already have
enough communication ability to know where each side is coming from in
international affairs. Doing something with it is another matter.
--
Dave Timpe
davetimpe at cybrzn dot com
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff:
>
>> In article <Pine.SO4.4.05.9908271400140.5573-100000@rask>,
>> Jens S. Larsen <je...@cphling.dk> wrote:
>[...]
>>> People who already speak English at home and in the street are free
>>> to learn or not learn whatever languages they like; they do not
>>> depend so much on what other people choose to teach them during their
>>> childhood, to have easy access to individual, international contacts.
>
>> I don't think that's true. It seems easier for the average
>> non-English-speaking European to gain access to useful
>> foreign-language instruction than it is for the average North
>> American.
>
>As long as English is taught elsewhere, they don't need it. Whether
>they actually want to take advantage of it is another question.
>
>[...]
>
>> This is akin to saying that every Latvian can't choose for himself or
>> herself what musical instrument to play.
>
>No, it's akin to saying that a Latvian must learn to play the piano in
>school at the taxpayers' expense, whereas an English speaker learns it
>at home for free.
But whose to say the Latvians aren't learning to be concert pianists while
most English-speakers never get beyond playing dance-hall tunes? Not all
Englishes are equal.
>> If one relies solely on the state school system for instruction, it
>> radically limits the possibility of what one can learn.
>
>The radicality depends on the state, I'd say.
What's the state with the broadest variety of offerings? And what do they
offer? How does this compare to what one finds in the private sector?
>> A more serious limitation is the income and interests of the
>> parents. If they view a certain kind of knowledge (like Esperanto or
>> cello) as important, they'll find a way to impart it, whether through
>> the schools or not. Unfortunately, the age at which the wishes of
>> the individual become paramount is after the best window for this
>> sort of instruction.
>
>If you learn just one instrument or language, learning a second one
>becomes much easier, even after the window.
This is true. However, it's still not a trivial effort, which means that
all choices of a first instrument are not equal. I don't suppose it's
much comfort to someone who's spent ten years learning piano to finally
get their chance to learn cello and be told that it will only take them
six years to get to the same level rather than seven. (Figures pulled
entirely out of the ether, of course.)
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>
>Mike Wright wrote in message...
>>Nikolai Grishin wrote:
>>> >
>>> esceptions.
>>
[far more than sixteen rules deleted]
>That is FULL grammar of Esperanto. Now I would like you to write full
>grammar of the "easy" chinese language.
You do realise that you haven't answered a single one of Mike's specific
questions, don't you?
I'll add one of my own: Doesn't Esperanto have any relative pronouns?
It's unthinkable to me that a language could function without them (at
least, I've never encountred one that lacked them), but I don't see a word
about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
John Fisher
<konk...@rdven.lv> writes
>No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
>esceptions.
The 16 rules are not at complete description of Esperanto grammar at
all. This is not my opinion; Prof John Wells, a past president of the
UEA, says in his "Esperanto Dictionary": "The Dek Ses Reguloj, while in
no way an exhaustive specification of the grammar of Esperanto, are of
historical importance as a concise statement of Esperanto morphology and
syntax on the assumption of a general European linguistic background."
Not complete at all, in other words, and not a lot of use for people
from other backgrounds.
Esperanto, within Zamenhof's cultural context, is a brilliant
intellectual construct. Anyone who has ever tried to invent a language,
a real language, not a toy, knows how difficult it is; and Esperanto is
a real language. By the same token, like all languages, it is a
massively complex system. The idea that Esperanto is "simple" doesn't
really stand up, and if it did, the language would be pretty useless.
>Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It is
>one of the most difficult languages.
Not for the Chinese, who are about a quarter of the human race.
I don't think there is is an absolute standard of difficulty for
languages. A language is hard for me to learn if it is very different
from my own langauge, and easy if it is similar. The fact is that for
large numbers of people, billions of them, Esperanto is not easy at all,
because it's very, very different from their own languages.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Edward Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>I'll add one of my own: Doesn't Esperanto have any relative pronouns?
>It's unthinkable to me that a language could function without them (at
>least, I've never encountred one that lacked them), but I don't see a word
>about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
Well, Basque doesn't have them (it has a relative suffix -(e)n on
the verb, though).
Esperanto no doubt has relative pronouns. It's probably SVO as
well.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Nikolai Grishin
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote in message ...
>
>You do realise that you haven't answered a single one of Mike's specific
>questions, don't you?
>
everything.
>I'll add one of my own: Doesn't Esperanto have any relative pronouns?
>
Esperanto has everything. But I don't know what is _relative pronouns_.
Please, write concrete words in English, and I'll translate them.
>It's unthinkable to me that a language could function without them (at
>least, I've never encountred one that lacked them), but I don't see a word
>about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
>
I was asked what is the 16 rules, and I answered.
Although Esperanto is very easy, it has everything what other languages
have.
Nikolai
Nikolai Grishin
John Fisher wrote in message ...
>
>>No. Esperanto has shortest grammar with only 16 rules without any
>>esceptions.
>
>The 16 rules are not at complete description of Esperanto grammar at
>all.
>
Waringhien has 598 pages, but still it isn't full, I think. Human language
is endless.
>This is not my opinion; Prof John Wells, a past president of the
>UEA, says in his "Esperanto Dictionary": "The Dek Ses Reguloj, while in
>no way an exhaustive specification of the grammar of Esperanto, are of
>historical importance as a concise statement of Esperanto morphology and
>syntax on the assumption of a general European linguistic background."
>
That's why I wrote them.
>Not complete at all, in other words, and not a lot of use for people
>from other backgrounds.
>
It might by useful por propaganda. :)
>Esperanto, within Zamenhof's cultural context, is a brilliant
>intellectual construct. Anyone who has ever tried to invent a language,
>a real language, not a toy, knows how difficult it is; and Esperanto is
>a real language.
>
To create a language is very difficult task. But much more difficult task is
to get it alive, to find speakers who would love and use this language.
Zamenhof did it.
>By the same token, like all languages, it is a
>massively complex system. The idea that Esperanto is "simple" doesn't
>really stand up, and if it did, the language would be pretty useless.
>
I think Esperanto is "simple" (i.e. easy fot studying) indeed, but it is as
rich as other languages (and may be much more rich).
>>Lee, Chinese language can't be considered seriously for this purpose. It
>>is one of the most difficult languages.
>
>Not for the Chinese, who are about a quarter of the human race.
>
Of course, if a language is your native, it seems to be easy for you.
>I don't think there is is an absolute standard of difficulty for
>languages. A language is hard for me to learn if it is very different
>from my own langauge, and easy if it is similar. The fact is that for
>large numbers of people, billions of them, Esperanto is not easy at all,
>because it's very, very different from their own languages.
>
Yes, but I want to say that there are thousands and thousands of
esperantists in China. Chineses publish nice journal "El popola Chinio" (Out
off people's China) and many books in Esperanto.
Nikolai
Nikolai Grishin
Mike Wright wrote in message...
>(I wonder why genitive and dative use separate prepositions, while
>accusative
>uses an attached suffix. It seems rather irregular. Is it because this is a
>common pattern in European languages?)
In fact, there are no genetive, dative and other cases in Esperanto. Only
nominative and accusative. Other cases is shown by prepositions (de, al,
per, pri, kun, sub and many others).
>> g) farinta - ...
>???
I don't know how to translate the participles into English.
>> 12) About ne: mi neniam vidis - I haven't ever seen.
>Does this mean that <ne> means "have never experienced"?
Ne = russian "ne", "net":
I don't know the Chinese language - mi ne scias chinan lingvon.
The 12th rule says that one uses only one "ne" if the phrase is negative (in
Russian: Ja nikogda ne videl - if it would be translated as "mi neniam ne
vidis", it wouldn't be correct).
>How do you say, "I *have* had the experience of seeing" or, even, "I *have*
seen" in Esperanto?
Mi vidis.
If you need to be more exact, you may say:
mi estas vidinta, or
mi estis vidanta, or
mi estis vidinta.
>> 13) Kie? - where? kien? - to where?.
>Is there no form for "from where"?
From where? - de kie?
De kie vi iras? - Where you are going from?
>> 14) About indefinite preposition je.
>???
The indefinite preposition je is used when you doubt which preposition
should be used.
>> 15) About using of international lexic.
>???
This rule says that the international words (such as doctor, theater,
politics and thousands of other) are considerated as Esperanto words, but
they accept the grammar ends: doktoro, teatro, politiko...)
>(I've put in ??? where the explanation seems less than FULL.)
What do you want in 3KB message? :)
Go to http://www.esperanto.net/info/index_en.html for more information.
>This implies that Esperanto has completely free word order.
No, it isn't quite right.
>In other words, it
>seems that in Esperanto it makes no difference whether you say "He hit the
>big dog hard" or "Hard the dog big hit he".
Nature order would be: Li forte batis grandan hundon.
You may say also: Li batis grandan hundon forte, forte batis li hundon
grandan, but it gives to phrase special nuances. Just as in Russian.
>And, I assume it also makes no
>difference whether you say, "The Student went to London with his mother",
or
>"Student the London to mother his with went", or "Went with his mother
>London to
>the student", or "The student to London with mother his went", or any other
>combinations of those words. Is that correct?
"Studento venis al Londono kun sia patrino" would be the best variant.
Of course, you can't say "Sia patrino kun Londono venis al la studento". :)
>If not, then what are all the word-order rules?
The word-order in Esperanto is free, but not absolutely. I seems to be ident
with the word-order in Russian.
Nikolai
kl...@infotrans.or.jp
Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> wrote:
> Nikolai Grishin wrote:
.....
> So, why did you claim the 16 rules are a "FULL grammar of Esperanto"?
Basically, because he's a twit.
> > It might by useful por propaganda. :)
>
> Propaganda based on untruths is successful only as long as no
> one finds out the truth. Once the truth is known, not only is
> all propaganda value lost, but also there is resentment about
> having been lied to. It's not a useful tactic.
I agree with you completely, and have told Nikolai that his lies
damage the Esperanto movement. But Nikolai is on a sacred mission
approved by the Hierarchy of Light, so he doesn't have to listen
to me.
> But they don't seem to be content to share it with others who
> love it. There seems to be some missionary zeal involved. I'd
> feel funny about spamming little messages all over Usenet trying
> to get people to study Mandarin.
Nikolai is not a typical Esperantist. Most of us are annoyed
and embarrassed by his "mission". However, there's not a lot
we can do about it.
> Mike Wright
> http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
Klivo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
kl...@infotrans.or.jp
> Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
> >That is FULL grammar of Esperanto. Now I would like you to
> >write full grammar of the "easy" chinese language.
>
> Mike's specific questions, don't you?
>
pronouns?
(at
> least, I've never encountred one that lacked them), but I don't see a
word
> about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
> Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
Of course, Esperanto has more that 16 rules, and it has relative
pronouns.
There are plenty of languages which function without relative
pronouns though: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are three.
I suggest that you ignore Nikolai's messages.
Nikolai Grishin
Mike Wright wrote in message...
>> >
>> Of course. "Plena analiza gramatiko de Esperanto" written by Kalocsay and
>> Waringhien has 598 pages, but still it isn't full, I think. Human
>> language is endless.
>
>
published in Russian. There those 16 rules are named "Polnaya grammatika
mezhdunarodnago yazyka".
>> >Not complete at all, in other words, and not a lot of use for people
>> >from other backgrounds.
>> >
>> It might by useful por propaganda. :)
>
>Propaganda based on untruths is successful only as long as no one finds out
>the truth.
>
Come to Esperanto and see the truth. It has nothing to hide.
>> To create a language is very difficult task. But much more difficult task
>> is to get it alive, to find speakers who would love and use this
>> language. Zamenhof did it.
>
>But they don't seem to be content to share it with others who love it.
>
Of course, because Esperanto was created not to be a hobby, but to become
the international language. If you don't like Esperanto, stop discussing
about it and don't read this thread. I see no problem.
>> I think Esperanto is "simple" (i.e. easy fot studying) indeed, but it is
>> as rich as other languages (and may be much more rich).
>
>Or, maybe not.
>
It is, I think. Thousands of examples confirm it. If you want to know more,
go to Esperanto-sites and learn. I wish you success.
Nikolai
Peter T. Daniels
> >I'll add one of my own: Doesn't Esperanto have any relative pronouns?
> >
> Esperanto has everything. But I don't know what is _relative pronouns_.
> Please, write concrete words in English, and I'll translate them.
"The enthusiast who tells untruths about Esperanto damages his cause."
^^^
There are about half a dozen relative pronouns in English. They
introduce relative clauses.
> I don't see a word
> >about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
> >
> I was asked what is the 16 rules, and I answered.
> Although Esperanto is very easy, it has everything what other languages
> have.
No one asked for the 16 rules, since it's very easy to get them from
many sources.
If Esperanto has everything other languages have, then it has thousands
more than 16
"rules." Mr. Zamenhof was simply ignorant of the nature of language. He
assumed thousands of rules from his native language without realizing it
and, obviously, without telling anyone.
Bertil Wennergren
Peter T. Daniels:
> If Esperanto has everything other languages have, then it has thousands
> more than 16
> "rules." Mr. Zamenhof was simply ignorant of the nature of language. He
> assumed thousands of rules from his native language without realizing it
> and, obviously, without telling anyone.
Please ignore the moron who babbles about the 16 rules of Esperanto.
No serious Esperantist believes in the ridiculous myth of "only 16 rules
in the Esperanto grammar".
The actual number of rules (if the rules could be numbered) is probably
closer to 16 million. For details see my extensive on-line Esperanto
grammar: <http://purl.oclc.org/net/pmeg> (all in Esperanto).
--
=====================================================================
Bertilo Wennergren
<bert...@hem1.passagen.se>
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
=====================================================================
Nikolai Grishin
Marcos Franco wrote in message...
>Roger Espel Llima) skribis:
>
>>I find it neat that it has managed to get a couple million of
>>speakers, enough to keep it alive for a long time.
>
>Yes, and very likely the only thing that has kept it alive has been
>"la espero", the hope, of its speakers.
>
>Anyway, I keep believing that it would be much better if there was a
>favourable opinion to Esperanto from the masses before introducting it
>to them by policy.
>
The introducting of Esperanto will occur probably from below (by masses),
but not from above (by governments).
>The current situation is mostly of no particular
>opinion about Esperanto (nor favourable nor unfavourable), based
>mainly on an ignorance of the subject.
>
It is because esperantists don't promote their language. They speak in
Esperanto between themselves, but speak not _about_ Esperanto to the world.
If esperantists would be more active, their movement would be more
considered by governments.
>>- that E-o should preserve its "purity" by not borrowing words without
>> thoroughly adapting them. I like languages that evolve by usage, not
>> by a set list of rules.
>
It is so in Esperanto. It belongs to all its users and evolves bu usage.
>>>More and more non-english speakers come to Internet. Naturally, they will
>>>use not english, but their native language. Esperanto could help them to
>>>understand each other.
>>
>>so could Norwegian, but English is more likely. notice that you're
>>posting from .lv and I'm from Spain and we're communicating in English.
>>that's an international language at work,
>
Yes, it is. Still, if you've spend a few weeks for Esperanto, we could
correspondence in it much better. Korespondi en Esperanto estas multe pli
facile kaj agrable.
>The question "do we need a common language" has got an evident "yes"
>as the answer. When everybody is studying English it is for some
>reason...
>
Yes, the need in a common language make the peoples to learn English.
>So, the interesting question is therefore "is there a good alternative
>to English for a common language?". And that's where Esperanto pops up
>as the real solution for those who know it. For two simple and very
>important reasons:
>1. It costs much less time and money for people to learn than English.
>
>2. People is able to acquire a much higher level of communication with
>Esperanto, while most English students can't have a normal
>conversation in it, even after many years of study.
>And we can add, of course, that Esperanto, being property of no
>country, gives not anyone the unfair advantage that international
>English gives to anglophones.
>
>So, resuming, I think it's arguable whether Esperanto is the best
>possible solution for the babel problem, but there can be no doubt
>that it's quite better than the current one.
>
Perfekta kaj nerefutebla opinio!
>
>Saludos,
>Marcos
Nikolao
Nikolai Grishin
Bertil Wennergren wrote in message...
>
>Please ignore the moron who babbles about the 16 rules of Esperanto.
>
Even most eminent esperantists don't have any concept about friendship,
solidarity and ethics. They are ready to kill "samideano" if he says
something what contradicts to their conceptions.
>No serious Esperantist believes in the ridiculous myth of "only 16 rules
>in the Esperanto grammar".
>
There are a few of axioms and a lot of theorems in geometry. I calculated
axioms, Bertil theorems.
>The actual number of rules (if the rules could be numbered) is probably
>closer to 16 million.
>
I hope I know Esperanto, but I haven't learned so many rules.
Where you have founded this number? In your dream?
Nikolai.
Nikolai Grishin
Peter T. Daniels wrote in message...
>
>"The enthusiast who tells untruths about Esperanto damages his cause."
>
cause?
>There are about half a dozen relative pronouns in English. They
>introduce relative clauses.
>
Why do you think they don't exist in Esperanto?
>> I don't see a word
>> >about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
>> >
The 16 rules are the basys of the language but not collect of all pronouns,
prepositions, suffixes and so on.
>No one asked for the 16 rules, since it's very easy to get them from
>many sources.
>
Mike Wright asked.
>Mr. Zamenhof was simply ignorant of the nature of language.
>
Sorry, you are not competent in Esperanto, therefore your opinion haven't
any value.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels
Nikolai
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Nikolai Grishin <konk...@rdven.lv> wrote:
>
>Peter T. Daniels wrote in message...
>>
>>"The enthusiast who tells untruths about Esperanto damages his cause."
>>
>It seems that you are opponent of Esperanto; why you take care about our
>cause?
>
>>There are about half a dozen relative pronouns in English. They
>>introduce relative clauses.
>>
>Why do you think they don't exist in Esperanto?
Because they aren't mentioned in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you
presented, moron!
>>> I don't see a word
>>> >about them in the "FULL grammar of Esperanto" you've just presented.
>>> >
>The 16 rules are the basys of the language but not collect of all pronouns,
>prepositions, suffixes and so on.
>
>>No one asked for the 16 rules, since it's very easy to get them from
>>many sources.
>>
>Mike Wright asked.
Don't you understand rhetorical questions? (Perhaps Esperanto doesn't
have those either, so you've decided they're not worth paying attention
to.)
>>Mr. Zamenhof was simply ignorant of the nature of language.
>>
>Sorry, you are not competent in Esperanto, therefore your opinion haven't
>any value.
Peter might not be an Esperantist, but he's more than competent in lin-
guistics. If Esperanto is in fact a language, his comments about it have
value. If his judgements are mistaken because you're misrepresenting the
facts of the language (and the testimony of an expert in Esperanto
suggests you are), then the fault lies with you, not him.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten