@JSoundHysteria Thanks for stopping by. Couldn't agree more with "let's maintain the variety the world still has left to offer". Absolutely. Revel in it. I do.
The idea of Esperanto, which seem to work well, is that it doesn't *replace* anything. It allows everyone to keep their own language and culture, but it provides a useful medium when people with two (or three, or fifty) different languages come together.
@anonymousbaby1970 I understand the idea, but do you see it happening? People usually choose the easiest way out. If there is a universal language which everyone knows and speaks, over generations, our own languages will start to die out, as they will end up seeming less practical and/or necessary than the language which everyone else in the world speaks and understands.
@JSoundHysteria Good point, and the obvious answer of course is "nobody knows". What you suggest is entirely possible. It's also possible that the same will happen with English (or Spanish, or Mandarin, or ...)
@JSoundHysteria What makes it less likely with Esperanto, I think, is that it's vastly easier to attain a very proficient level of Esperanto later in life compared to other languages; thus, even if Esperanto were THE international language, there would be relatively little advantage in bringing children up as first-language Esperanto speakers.
Of the hundreds of Esperanto speakers that I've met, it's impossible to distinguish the first-language speakers from the others.
@anonymousbaby1970 I find little logical ground in your explanation. The reason it's impossible with English, French, Chinese and of the like is because those languages are strongly connected to the history and cultures of the countries they originated from. Thus they carry a much heavier heritage with them, which cannot be easily integrated into countries with different backgrounds.
@JSoundHysteria Well, that's one reason; another reason is that they're phenomenally difficult to learn unless you were brought up as a child by a native speaker.
You also say "people choose to speak in a way which is most comfortable to them, regardless of what their roots are (they simply don't care)", which seems to contradict your point that one national language could never displace another. If people see an advantage to using language X, they will, cultural baggage or no.
@anonymousbaby1970 Esperanto, on the other hand, compared to pretty much ANY language out there, has almost (or completely) no background, it's easy, and is made entirely for the purpose of international communication. A language with no heritage can easily be integrated into any country or culture, and, eventually, replace the mother-tongue of a said country.
@anonymousbaby1970 I come from a multi-lingual environment, and can assure you that people choose to speak in a way which is most comfortable to them, regardless of what their roots are. (they simply don't care)
Saluton! Esperanto is so easy to learn! In one day I managed to master the same amount of content in Esperanto that had taken a few months to learn in Spanish. However, I'll admit that Esperanto would not have been so easy to learn without spanish. I think Esperanto is a great way to get your feet wet in language learning. It makes for a quick sense of accomplishment that I think will motivate people to learn mor foreign languages!
I don't see it anywhere, every website is in English and if you upload videos to YT in any other language trolls immediatly insult you with "English please, you spic!"
I'm from Nepal. I learned Esperanto quite easitly. I grasped the basic in 14 classes and progressed it by self-learning. Just try it, and you will feel the whole world speak to you.
I am learning Russian and Spanish. When I started learning Esparanto, it was almost too easy by comparison. The language is designed to be learned with absolute ease.
Why did he expect everyone in the world to learn a language based of only Indo-European languages? I think that's stupid and naive. I don't understand why people call other languages hard or easy, is it not only so from your native tongues point of view?
@jaskamakkara As I've mentioned in several comments below, if you think Esperanto is purely Indo-European, it suggests you haven't studied it very deeply. Try this article as a starting point:
You're right in that some languages are more closely related than others, so for me — British — French or German are easier than Vietnamese or Finnish, but that doesn't mean any of those languages are *inherently* easier for everyone.
@jaskamakkara However, Esperanto was conceived specifically with the aim of being as easy to learn as possible. And it is, measurably so, for speakers of any other language. Sure, speakers of Indo-European languages have an advantage for the first month or two, because the word roots are easier to memorise for them; but that advantage quickly plateaus, and it's perfectly normal to meet Asians with a year or two of Esperanto who speak just as confidently as their European counterparts.
Esperanto learner before I studied linguistics ← Me too! However, "learning the inherent part of speech" of words never bothered me; in fact, I didn't even notice the "problem" until it was pointed out, by which time I was already having long conversations in Esperanto. It's just not that big an issue, particularly when weighed against the dozens of other factors that make Esperanto an order of magnitude quicker and simpler to learn than any other language I've tackled.
My first language is English. Mi segunda, Espanol. I am learning esperanto now since I am 62 and would like to acheive some fluency in a third in my remaining time.
@SlipAllCityToy Either type in ^ directly after the letter or the standard way to do it is to put x after the letter since that letter is not in the esperonto alphabet. Gxis revido.
@SlipAllCityToy@SlipAllCityToy If you use a Mac, just switch to the "US Extended" keyboard, then you can type alt-6 before any letter to add a ^ to it. On Windows, try one of the "helper" programs; one called "Ek!" is the best known, but apparently "Tajpi" works better on Vista and Windows 7. Try searching for "tajpi esperanto".
On Linux... google it and wade through the myriad options!
@CommanderMethos@CommanderMethos As I've said in other comments here, Asian speakers of Esperanto are generally *much* happier speaking Esperanto than trying any alternative, whether it's English, or Mandarin, or using interpreters. It's by far the most direct and most effective way to communicate, whatever one's language background.
@ARussianBear If I may say so, that's a very Euro-centric view. :) When you actually *ask* Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean speakers of Esperanto whether they feel any inferiority or unfair difficulty next to their European counterparts, they generally say "absolutely not!" Certainly compared to the alternatives, i.e. they speak English, or we speak Chinese/Korean/etc., they say Esperanto is a fantastically accessible midway meeting point for us all.
So Esperanto isn't really designed to be a better language, rather to be more intelligible to other language speakers than any other language? If that makes sense.
While that's great and all, a truely universal language would have to be the BEST language, as in the words and grammer are actually logical (they're not in any popular language) and are designed through some sort of scientific method. In that, Esperanto isn't any better than the others.
@achickensandwich The structure of Esperanto certainly makes it waaaaay easier and quicker to learn than other languages. I've taught English, French and Esperanto to children and adults, and the Esperanto classes get miles ahead of the others in every respect.
(BTW, the part of the clip above where foreign students "magically" understand Esperanto is misleading. I didn't write the script, and certainly wouldn't have done that bit if I had).
@achickensandwich Not sure what you mean by "a better language" or "the BEST language". By what criteria are you measuring how "good" a language is?
You're certainly not alone in wanting to re-invent the wheel by creating yet another world-language-to-be. Go have a look at Ido, Interlingue, Interlingua, Glosa, Idiom Neutral... the list is very long indeed (you can see some of it under "List of constructed languages" on Wikipedia).
@anonymousbaby1970 I pretty much explained that by "better" I meant more logical... Of course I'm no linguist, but there's alot of extra fat in natural languages that could be trimmed out to make it more efficient intellectually, hence better. I suppose I must concede that being "poetic" is arguably desirable whilst irrational. I'm also not so naive to think nobody has thought the same thing before - I'm fully aware of Lojban and some of the contemporaries, like the ones you mentioned.
@achickensandwich That's good then, but it's not really clear what you mean by "more logical". In the 19th Century there was an obsession with classifying everything in "logical" taxonomies, but it quickly turned out that the world of human experience just doesn't stand up to logic.
Don't get me wrong, I've a degree in physics and I'd call myself a rationalist and skeptic, so I think I understand where you're coming from. It's just not clear to me how it relates to Esperanto, that's all.
@anonymousbaby1970 I pretty much explained that by "better" I meant more logical... Of course I'm no linguist, but there's alot of extra fat in natural languages that could be trimmed out to make it more efficient intellectually, hence better. I suppose I must concede that being "poetic" is arguably desirable whilst irrational. I'm also not so naive to think nobody has thought the same thing before - I'm fully aware of Lojban and some of the contemporaries, like the ones you mentioned.
@achickensandwich Well in that case, Esperanto would be your definition of a better language. It is very logical, Esperanto is a completely regular language. One example is the words themselves, every adjective ends in "a", every noun ends in "o", every verb ends in "i" - for infinitive tense, "is" - for past tense, "as" for present tense, and "os" for future tense: referred to as grammar marking. Now when the words are used in sentences, they are further grammar marked, but this is the basics.
@TheMontageBW I'm not even sure what "completely regular" means for a fully fledged, living language, but there's no arguing that Esperanto has waaaaay fewer exceptions and special cases to memorise than any European language.
Not sure what you mean by "way to many verb forms" either. Use -is/-as/-os for past/present/future of any verb. Simple. If you want to do tricks like "estus faronta" etc. you can, but that's still simpler than the English equivalent ("would have been about to").
@anonymousbaby1970 You're correct. It's far easier than any national language. I'm referring to the irregularities in semantics rather than the structures of the words themselves.
I mean 'way too many' in the sense that most are unnecessary. All you would need to communicate is the past and future tense. Imperative, conditional, and the infinitive are superfluous.
@TheMontageBW OK, we're getting somewhere. You're not wrong that once you get deep into the semantics, trying to define whether a word is fundamentally a noun or a verb etc., it gets bewildering. However, the same goes for any real language, and luckily the vast majority of speakers cheerfully don't care!
As for tenses, surely I need some way to talk about hypothetical situations, or to tell people to do things? What would you suggest (hypothetically ;o)) instead of '-us' and '-u'?
@anonymousbaby1970 Right, most people don't care (and tbh, it really doesn't matter on a large scale). The point being that it is an irregularity in meaning. So to say that the language is perfectly regular would be false (as no such language can exist).
You can use an ability modal (I 'can' do this) for hypothetical scenarios. To tell people to do things you can just use the normal verb, as is found in many languages ("eat your food", "toca la puerta", etc.)
@TheMontageBW I agree: to say "Esperanto is perfectly regular" is a bit silly.
As for your other point, I guess you *could* use "can" instead of a conditional... but (a) it's no easier to remember the word "povas" than to remember the suffix "-us", and the meaning would be less clear; and (b) any kind of let's-tweak-Esperanto-to-make-it-"better" discussion is purely hypothetical anyway. Esperanto exists and it works brilliantly. You might as well discuss reforming English to make it "better".
@TheMontageBW I agree: to say "Esperanto is perfectly regular" is a bit silly.
As for your other point, I guess you *could* use "can" instead of a conditional... but (a) it's no easier to remember the word "povas" than to remember the suffix "-us", and the meaning would be less clear; and (b) any kind of let's-tweak-Esperanto-to-make-it-"better" discussion is purely hypothetical anyway. Esperanto exists and it works brilliantly. You might as well discuss reforming English to make it "better".
@TheMontageBW As mentioned in other comments below, this option is of course open to anyone, and you can find a looooong list of them under "List_of_constructed_languages" on Wikipedia.
Not all of the above list are examples of Esperanto-based langauges, but a good number are. The risible thing is, none of them agree on what features need "improving", or removing, or enhancing.
Just accept that Esperanto works, that it has flaws like any big project has, and enjoy it!
@anonymousbaby1970 They don't agree on what to fix because they don't recognize the problems with their native languages.
The only thing I want is to stop the false claims that Esperanto's neutral and regular. You can go about telling people about it and teaching it, but don't call it things it isn't.
@TheMontageBW Fair enough; I've already agreed that "completely regular" is a silly thing to say.
However, I think it's entirely reasonable to describe its grammar as "free of the vast majority of the irregularities you find in most European languages". Because it is. And the fact that the verbal/adjectival/substantive nature of roots may be ill-defined bothers grammarians far more than it bothers Esperanto speakers and learners.
@anonymousbaby1970 I was an Esperanto learner before I studied linguistics. Learning the words wasn't the problem, it was learning their inherent part of speech. One example I remember is "seg'il'o" and "martel'o". The former is a tool for the inherent verb 'to saw'. The latter, the inherent noun "hammer" (and not a tool for the verb 'to hammer'). It's not difficult, it's just an easily avoidable burden on memory.
@TheMontageBW In a similar vein, I could politely request that you acquaint yourself much more deeply with Esperanto before spreading... well, not exactly *false* claims, just misguidedly specific criticisms which, together with you overlooking (or not being aware of) the huge range of things that work in its favour as a medium of international exchange, mean that you present a kind of "Fox-News-Fair-And-Balanced" view of the subject, i.e. neither fair nor balanced at all.
@anonymousbaby1970 Right, most people don't care (and tbh, it really doesn't matter on a large scale). The point being that it is an irregularity in meaning. So to say that the language is perfectly regular would be false (as no such language can exist).
You can use an ability modal (I 'can' do this) for hypothetical scenarios. To tell people to do things you can just use the normal verb, as is found in many languages ("eat your food", "toca la puerta", etc.)
@TheMontageBW Way too many verb forms? You mean four? (Past, Present, Future, Command) That is only one more than English. Also, I'd like an example of irregular Esperanto.
@SifuTeddie There are six basic forms: esti, estas, estis, estos, estu, estus
In addition, the participles are as follows: estanta, estinta, estonta, estanto, estinto, estonto, estante, estinte, estonte, estata, estita, estota, estate, estite, estote, estato, estito, estoto. I'm sure I've missed some; google 'Esperanto verb forms' and the first result will show them all to you.
@TheMontageBW Or, to put it another way, there are the 6 basic forms you mention; then 3 participle forms that mirror the above (-int-/-ant-/-ont-) and the same for passives (-it-/-at-/-ot-); and yes, as with any other word in Esperanto, you're pretty free to assign the syntactic role that you like with -e/-a/-o. BTW, you forgot to list them all with -is/-as/-os/-us endings (e.g. "est-int-us" is quite common).
There, I've described *all* forms of *every* Esperanto verb in a YouTube comment. :o)
@TheMontageBW Your argument is like trying to claim that the Two Times Table is really hard, because there's soooo much of it. I mean, primary school teachers fool you into thinking that you only have to go as far as "2 x 12 = 24", but THEY LIE! LOOK IN THE REAL WORLD! YOU HAVE TO KNOW "2 x 13", AND "2 x 32", and "2 x 131" — GOOGLE IT, YOU'LL SEE!!1!
In English and French and other Indo-European languages, you have to memories screeds of verb tables to get competent; in Esperanto you don't.
@anonymousbaby1970 I didn't say they were hard, there are just too many; it burdens the memory. In Chinese, for example, you don't have to memorize any other verbs at all except the one form.
@TheMontageBW The word for the verb itself might not change in Chinese, but you need to learn other accompanying words if you want to give all the info about tense/aspect/mood that, in Esperanto, come with the suffixes.
In any language, for simple or vague concepts, simple forms will do (e.g. "I go cinema"). For more nuanced, precise meanings, more words and/or suffixes are needed ("By then I will be on my way to the cinema" / "Tiam, mi estos iranta kinejen"). Regularity of EO still easier!
@anonymousbaby1970 Chinese uses temporal adverbs or modals to denote tense, components that can function independently. In Esperanto, on the other hand, "-anta/o/e" mean nothing on their own. I can draw this comparison out further in a private message if you like; the comments don't allow enough characters for one message. Short form- Esperanto is inefficient and fundamentally biased towards a European way of thinking regarding basic linguistic concepts.
@TheMontageBW Esperanto has a few awkward features, but in my experience it is definitely not an inefficient language. As for its European character, I'd say it's more like Indo-European languages than like, for instance, Semitic, Sino-Tibetan or Bantu languages. Unlike modern Indo-European languages, however, it boasts a very 'efficient' agglutinative suffix system.
@TheMontageBW "draw this out further in a private message" ← please do. My short answer though: we've already said that claiming "perfect neutrality" is silly. It couldn't possibly be, unless it were completely but equally alien to everyone. However, it is still 100 times better for international communication than anything else on the table, be it a national language (English, French, Chinese, etc.), or simultaneous interpretation, or machine translation, or some other language project.
@SifuTeddie As for irregularity, look into the distribution of meanings among basic roots. They were chosen arbitrarily, which disallows a linear form of derivation. Using an example from a previous conversation, 'martelo' is inherently a noun- the hammering tool, while the root of 'segilo' is inherently a verb, the suffix '-il' designating it as a 'sawing tool'. Tell me what's 'regular' about that.
@TheMontageBW Again, you're right to point out that Esperanto isn't *perfect*, and anyone who says it is, is wrong. But you're missing the point. You've managed to find two words that you expect to work differently, but I managed to memorise those two specific words about ten years ago, and I've used them without fault ever since. What's your point?
There are vast swathes of Esperanto words that *are* perfectly regular, and this is eases communication immeasurably. Try it, you might like it. ;)
Whatever you think of Anglo culture, I'm glad at least one language turned to be a lingua franca. It isn't Esperanto? well, bad luck. Zamenhof should have conquered the World to impose his language. LOL!
@agormanvideos English is certainly the most widely used lingua franca than any other at the moment, although of course there are plenty of other inter-languages in different parts of the world.
However, for at least half of the 20th century, it was French that held the top position, at least in international politics and diplomacy, and in business too to a lesser extent. People back then probably thought that this would never change in their lifetime either.
@agormanvideos English is certainly the most widely used lingua franca than any other at the moment, although of course there are plenty of other inter-languages in different parts of the world.
However, for at least half of the 20th century, it was French that held the top position, at least in international politics and diplomacy, and in business too to a lesser extent. People back then probably thought that this would never change in their lifetime either.
I think esperanto should be the official language of the European Union. Then we can speak our native tongue, esperanto and the present-day lingua franca (English). Then there is no need to bother learning German, French, Spanish and everything anymore...
@muiebozgorilor We *could* use Latin, yeah, but good luck with learning that!
Some people promote the teaching of Latin in schools to help with learning other related languages — French, Spanish, etc. To me though, that's a bit like learning to fly a plane as preparation for your driving test. It's not that learning Latin (or learning to fly a plane) are uninteresting or useless — they certainly aren't — it's just an arse about face way of teaching languages!
@ARussianBear They tried it. It's called Lojban. So far, the only people that take the time to learn it are nerds. Like me. I've been trying to learn it, but haven't gotten far because it still doesn't have many good lessons.
@ARussianBear Haha that's a lot of people's first reaction however wouldn't a NWO want to keep us separated speaking different languages, unable to conspire and get educated in one language?
I always found it more important to speak the "lingua franca" of your time - in our's it's English, in the future it may be Chinese or Spanish.
The one form of esperanto that has worked and been established in reccent history, may well have been Swahili (which, of course, was invented by the slave traders of Zanzibar ...)
@fenriz218 Uh, you sure about Swahili? It's a Bantu language, like dozens of others from that area of Africa, and (according to Wikipedia at least) it's been in use for at least 1000 years.
As for learning the existing lingua franca, I'm certainly not saying that it's a bad idea to do that; you'll certainly find many more people to use it with. My experience, though, suggests English for quantity, Esperanto for quality (of interaction, of friendships formed, etc.)
@anonymousbaby1970 well, I was living in the area for a long, long time and from what I've been told, the Arabs created Swahili / suaheli by fusing arabic with bantu words, in order to make communication on the east coast easier. If you'd go inland, the Bantu dialects (Kikuyu, Chaga) are very different from swahili, and much more difficult to learn. I don't trust wikipedia so much since anybody can write anything there.
@anonymousbaby1970 Yeah I agree, they forget to mention in this video that esperanto was made because it is a simple language and it's very easy to learn. For example Polish is an exceptionally difficult langauge, as is russian, and if you're a western european Asian languages may be very difficult however Esperanto is a very simple language just like english it doesn't inflect, conjugate or change very much at all.
Many people have said the same thing, that Esperanto isn't neutral enough because it's based on European languages. But, although many 'new' and more neutral languages have been invented over the years, none have caught on like Esperanto. Also, interestingly, Esperanto is quite popular in China, Korea and Japan, despite its Europeanness.
Ĉu vi povas halti la fiparolado? Ĉiu lingvo havas celojn. Ĝi ne estas agrabla kiam vi diras: "Ho, ĉi tiu lingvo estas pli bona ol tiu!" Ni devas respekti la similecojn tiel, kiel la malsimilecojn. Estas tio, kio unuigas nin!
@rubisuperstar16 "Ĉiu lingvo havas celojn", ĉu? Lingvo mem ne povas havi celon, nur la uzantoj aŭ instigantoj pri tiu lingvo. Foje oni diras, ke "Esperanto ne celas anstataŭigi aliajn lingvojn." Evidente *Esperanto* ne celas tion, ĉar ĝi celas nenion. Eble oni povus prave diri, ke UEA ne tion celas, aŭ eĉ ke la esperantistaro ĝenerale ne celas tion — kaj des pli bone! — sed la lingvo mem celas nenion.
Cetere, kiel oni pretendas scii, ke aliaj lingvoj ne formortus post eventuala fina venko?
@anonymousbaby1970 I disagree that one cannot sound eloquent in the english language, look at the great english poets of our society, and am averse to the thought that english is "a very reduced subset of a full language". I personally think English is a language in excess of words at times, and have heard a similar opinion from french, turkish, portuguese, romanian and czech friends. Do you mean that esperanto, with less words can have the same descriptive impact?
@SuperMoo2TheRescue He or she was talking about Basic English, not Common English. Their is a difference. What you say is true of Common English, but not of Basic English. Basic English is not a full language, unlike Common English or Esparanto. The point was, the original poster was saying, why doesn't everyone just learn Basic English as a communicative language instead of Esperanto, both taking about the same time to learn. Esperanto is thus the logical choice.
@SuperMoo2TheRescue Sorry, you've misunderstood what I said. As "converter7" says, I'm referring to *Basic* English as "a subset of a language".
Proper English as it is spoken by native speakers is of course a full and expressive language; but what is very often heard at international meetings of businessmen, scientists, or simply tourists, is not proper English — it's a very much impoverished, stilted "simple" English in which nobody sounds elegant or eloquent. And that's a shame.
@anonymousbaby1970 Well again I have to disagree, i'm presently in Prague on Erasmus and many of the students studying here with English as a second language have very good english and do sound eloquent, even those not studying English as part of their course. Esperanto is clearly a language that very few people know, it makes no sense teaching an entirely different language(even if it has similarities) when other languages are known by several majorities of people.
I'm probably missing the point here and will be shouted at for it but here it goes...Why create a language that is a combination of others when you could just learn a language that already exists and is spoke by millions i.e. English or Chinese?? I know people have said its easier to learn and is a good gateway to other languages but surely thats just because its a simplified version of several languages(maybe?), so would it not just be easier to just speak basic English?
@SuperMoo2TheRescue Not going to shout at you for a perfectly reasonable question. :o)
The problem with basic English is that it's a very reduced subset of a full language, and it places great restrictions on what you can actually say. It's very difficult to sound eloquent in it.
The *structure* of Esperanto is very minimal, as un-complex as possible, but it delivers a vast power of expression. It's a full language that you can use for science, cooking, drunken arguments, flirting... the lot!
I used it as a gateway to becoming trilingual. It worked. I learned Esperanto when was very young and then learned Hebrew as I'm Jewish. Esperanto is such an easy language to learn. It's fun too. Yes you won't be able to have conversations with people a lot but it's very easy and fun. I know learning ANY language is a gateway but this was just soooo easy. I was fluent in less than months.
I've been studying Esperanto for months now and I can tell anybody curious right now that you are never going to use Esperanto in your life unless you miraculously meet your soul mate who happens to be an Esperantist that doesn't speak English, and you'd still have better chances with a different language. However, it's fun and easy to learn if you're into learning different languages, and it definitely gives you a good foundation of how all languages work behind the scenes as a whole.
@mistermephisto1 Well, if you travel to Esperantists meetings or find free foreign lodging using the Pasporta Servo, you'll get to use it. It's also nice to be able to read some of the original literature. For your everyday life though, (at least from my perspective in the US) and if you don't travel much, then you probably won't use it much, if ever. Personally, it's the culture that interests me, even if the speaker base is small compared to other languages.
International communication will occur in English or Esperanto. While I follow the good work of so many ngo's at the UN who oppose force and violence they ignore the one reason they use English for communication: hundreds of years of colonialism, slavery, stealing indigenous children, cruel capitalism with millions imprisoned. OR they could choose Esperanto which has valued non-violence and education as it's tool to spread. EsperantoFriends at Blogspot.
@ShelDeF "something with tonnes of studies conducted" <— I'd be interested to know which studies you're referring to. While it's obvious that children who have 24/7 exposure to any language at all will tend to pick it up without effort, all the actual studies that I've read about 2nd language *teaching* (i.e. a couple of hours a week in school) seem to conclude that most primary language teaching has almost no long-term benefit at all.
Esperanto is way too similar to the indo-european languages, without taking notice to the semitic, sino-tibetian languages... The thought is good though, but it should be studied more thorougly before just running into making the words...
@cryozo While it's true that Esperanto is superficially similar to latinate and germanic languages, the similarity really is only skin-deep. Beneath the surface lies a structure in which people from a huge variety of language backgrounds find themselves at home. At least, that's what I'm told by Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Israelis, Russians, Icelanders and others when I ask.
@cryozo Also, as mentioned below, trying googling Claude Piron European or Asiatic — read that essay then come back and we'll carry on the discussion.
The web address, if YouTube will let me post it, is here:
@ShelDeF Incidentally, the School of Education of the University of Manchester are doing a five year evaluation of the Springboard to Languages programme, so we'll soon be able to discuss actual results rather than just anecdotes. You can download their interim reports to date from the Springboard to Languages website. (It appears I'm not allowed to post links here, but you can google it easily enough).
@ShelDeF You just state out of the blue that "Using Esperanto as a means to learn other languages is silly", but why do you think that? The children respond enthusiastically, they get to videoconference with children in other countries (Germany, Hungary and Slovakia so far), they get to use more complex grammar than they would be able to in (e.g.) French or Spanish, and they say they look forward to further study of other languages. What's not to like?
@ShelDeF "I learned [...] French and applied it to learning Japanese and Italian, German and Korean" <— Learning *any* language helps with learning another language afterwards, yes. And you say that people "have to want to learn it (and be motivated) to succeed" and again you're quite right.
But your other sentence just doesn't make sense: "Using Esperanto as a means to learn other languages is silly and doesn't allow children the really opportunity to speak other languages." Why? How? What?
@ShelDeF "You could use any other language and accomplish the same things as using Esperanto" <— Ah, that's the thing though... Esperanto is *so* much easier to learn — an order of magnitude quicker and easier to learn than even another European language, never mind Mandarin or Korean — that children can and do acquire a *depth* of understanding of the language that the majority simply never reach (or not until they're in secondary school) with other languages. *That* is why we use it.
@ShelDeF "I don't use my languages just for work. I use it for fun, to socialize, to learn." <— Fantastic, good for you. (Many people think "useful" only means "useful for work", and I'm glad you see past that).
But you know what? I use Esperanto every time I travel, staying with locals, talking long into the night, attending congresses, meetings and parties... It's been of huge interest and utility to me, and I've had many experiences that I couldn't possibly have had without it.
@ShelDeF "I started learning French was I was 4 [...] just like my English by the time I turned 9" <— may well be true, but it's certainly not the norm, and if you claim you got that from one lesson a week in your primary school, then I simply don't believe you. That is all that most children get though.
@ShelDeF "you should stop by a school sometime" <— I do - I earn my living teaching languages in primary schools. :-)
Children certainly are capable of learning languages. My own kids are bilingual, and have been since they uttered their first words. With such young children though, there's a limit to how much you can "teach" — they just *acquire* the language through being immersed in it.
And therein lies the problem — most primary schools do max. 60 minutes a week of a foreign language.
@ShelDeF Here's an analogy — can you name a professional recorder player? Or two? Or none at all? I'm not saying there are none at all, but for the vast majority of adults, even for professional musicians, playing the recorder is not in itself a useful skill.
However, by learning the recorder *first* in primary school, children learn about melodies, major and minor keys, reading music, rhythms, playing in a group, etc., all of which are valuable *skills* for later music study.
@ShelDeF Thanks for stopping by. I would love to see children leaving school being able to converse confidently in Japanese, Mandarin, or even just French or Spanish. Sadly, for the vast majority, that doesn't happen.
Read up on the Springboard to Languages programme. No-one is suggesting that speaking Esperanto is likely to be of use professionally. But these are 7-year-olds — they're learning *how to learn*, and that works much more effectively with a simple language than a complex one.
@pigkkk2 As mentioned below, if you think Esperanto is purely European, you probably don't know much about it. Google for "Claude Piron European or Asiatic", read that essay, then come back and have a chat.
Whenever I've asked Chinese, Korean and Japanese Esperanto speakers about it, they *all* say the same thing — in only a year or two, they speak *tons* better Esperanto than after 10 years of English at school.
@Hexenhammer0@Hexenhammer0 Certainly the vocabulary looks very European, and as such it's easier for a "European-speaker" than for others to guess at the meaning of unknown words.
However, there's more to a language than it's vocabulary, and (e.g.) the system of word formation in Esperanto has strong parallels with Chinese.
For more info, Google for "Claude Piron European or Asiatic"
But esparanto is unintelligible to me (both english & spanish part of my brain) .
This video was nothing but a commercial. And a typical dishonest one too. I can understand wanting one neutral language for the entire world. Infact support such a noble idea. but no need to be dishonest about it. I wonder if honesty is a word in esparanto, because they should really learn to apply it.
I don't understand a word of esperanto. And I know both english, and spanish fluently. Interlingua I can understand about 90 percent of it. And I only listen to both esparanto and interlingua since yesterday. I can't say how interlingua would be like for an english monolinguist, since I also know spanish. But I know that people who know french, intalian, catalan, portuguese, spanish etc romance languages would have the same experience as me, if not better.
@cilo56 I believe every word you say here, but it kind of misses the point, for two reasons.
(1) For an international language to be useful, it requires not just passive understanding, but active use too. Can you *speak* Interlingua? If you've only studied it for a day, I'm guessing not.
(2) Interlingua was designed for easy passive understanding by Europeans. It entirely excludes Asians and Africans.
Esperanto isn't perfect, but it's FAR closer to globally egalitarian than Interlingua is.
If you had invested two hours to understand the grammar and the alphabet of Esperanto you likely were able to understand most of texts in Esperanto.
I don't beleive that you understand 90 percent of Interlingua without investing a bit time to understand the grammar - although it's like Spanish, than speakers of other languages had much more to learn.
One of the reasons Esperanto is ineffective is its written component. Consider this quote from one of today's highest rated comment: "Fakte mi ĝojas ke mi lernis pri Esperanto dum gimnazio, kiam mi estis lernanta latinon. Vi ne povas amikiĝi interrete per latino! Aŭ, ĉu vi povas...?" No language with that many diacritical marks will be easy to learn to read/write in, and this fact will always hamper it. Otherwise we could make the same case for Portuguese.
@michaelmays1 I've never quite understood the obsession with Esperanto's diacritics. Yes, the language has accented letters in its alphabet, much like every other language in existence that uses the Roman script. Even English makes occasional use of them, albeit much less than most languages.
Esperanto's letters are included in many Unicode fonts, including Arial, Times New Roman and Helvetica. I can't really see what the problem is.
@anonymousbaby1970 The main argument is that the accented letters (and their respective sounds) are unnecessary. But the better argument is figuring out which phonemes ARE necessary in terms of what people are used to pronouncing.
@TheMontageBW It's an academic argument of some interest, but it would have been more use to have it prior to 1887. It's an observable reality that people from all linguistic backgrounds can and do learn Esperanto, and far more quickly and easily than any "competing" language. It *might* be possible to come up with a theoretically "more neutral" or "more perfect" solution, and you're welcome to try. Just come back and tell me when it's proved itself over a century or so, and I'll be all ears.
@anonymousbaby1970 It is possible, and it has been done. If you are truly interested in learning more about it, please let me know and I'll be happy to tell you more about it.
I'm not asking you to forget Esperanto. I encourage people to learn it. But after studying linguistics, it is my firm belief that there are better methods of international communication. Others have tried, but none really understand how other languages work, so the internationalism is only skin deep (loan-words).
Why are you all drooling over these bastardised Latin spawns; Esperanto, Interlingua etc. They do not sound EUPHONIOUS at all!! On the other hand English, French, Russian, Bulgarian, Italian are indeed euphonious .
@anonymousbaby1970 I can infer from your eagerness who is it, and by all means it is you by remarking my choice of putting Esperanto next to Interlingua, as if it would make any meaningful difference for a straw man to capitalise on. But I am really not sure now, as to whether I should have used ''doting upon'' in lieu of ''drooling over'' ; um, which one do you prefer? Dare to keep me busy with your drivels once again.
@Lepsaeus "doting" — yeah, OK, there's probably a bit of that going on in these comments.
I'm afraid I just don't understand the whole first sentence of your comment ("I can infer... [...] ...straw man to capitalise on.") What do you infer? About who? What straw man are you referring to? Sorry, I'm lost.
''...straw man...'' in the metaphorical sense of a man who cannot be relied upon to honour his financial commitments, esp because of his limited resources hence a person of little substance.
''...capitalise on'' draw advantages from. (How sweet both expressions work together toward making me happy.)
@Lepsaeus "better" is, again, a very subjective term — better for what? Nicer sounding? Easier to read? Better suited to a role as an international second language?
Assuming you mean the latter ("better suited to a role as an international second language"), then I think Esperanto is better suited, both inherently because of its structure and comparative ease of learning even for non-Europeans, and simply because it has a far bigger movement behind it already.
@Lepsaeus I'm capable of googling definitions of expressions I'm unfamiliar with, but that's not the problem. Assume I understand what a "straw man" is, and that I know what "capitalise on" means. My problem is that I have no idea what you are *referring to* in your comment. Maybe you could rephrase it to make your meaning clearer?
@anonymousbaby1970 I find the obscurity of my addressee less inscrutable than yours in ''...anyone here is drooling either,'' Therefore, I shall not clarify.
@pitiponk1 Actually moron, English is one of the most complicated languages to learn for a foreigner. Most languages have 10 rules and 2 exceptions. In English you have 2 Rules and 10 Exceptions.
@tFighterPilot Two answers really — equality, and realism. English is a pig of a language to learn, and the only way to attain even a reasonable level of confidence is to spend a year or two living in the UK/US/Australia/etc. This discriminates strongly against people who don't have the means to do that, i.e. most people.
Learning Esperanto is an order of magnitude faster, and can be done anywhere. A far higher %age of learners reach a good communicative level in Esperanto than in English.
@anonymousbaby1970 I only visited English speaking countries twice in my life for a very short time each, yet my English is more than reasonable. You're saying that Esperanto is easier to learn. But for who? The video shown Europeans who can understand it because it's similar to their languages. But what about those, like me, whose native language is not European? Esperanto is almost like Chinese to me.
@tFighterPilot Good for you if you have a reasonable command of English. Imagine yourself though in a situation of conflict — making a sales pitch, discussing an idea, or just arguing over who's next in line — very often the person who "wins" is the one who's spent more time and money getting their English fluent, not the person who deserves to win. Esperanto levels the playing field a great deal by being vastly more accessible to speakers of all languages. (continued...)
@tFighterPilot You're right to criticise the scene above where I speak Esperanto and students "magically" understand. I didn't write the script, and I don't think that part really shows anything useful. Esperanto is a language that needs studying to understand it.
However, its structure is specifically designed to be as simple as possible to learn and use, while still being hugely flexible and expressive. Briefly, the amount of *memorisation* needed is *much* smaller than most languages.
@tFighterPilot I am European and speak 4 European languages. French, Czech, English and German. Yet Esperanto is retarded moonspeek imo. I don't get it, why invert a new language? Aren't there enough of them??? +1 in your fight sir.
@pitiponk1 I speak spanish, french, english, some german(improving) and esperanto. Zamenhof invented this language to make you go faster when lerning other languages. I wish school had taught me first esperanto!(I would have a better level in everything) It's marvellous! I'm very happy when I learn it in the bus while going to the uni. it's better than listening to music. I think people like you are selfish cause your parents spent a lot of money and you made bigs
Esperanto estas malaplikado ... por nun!
(malbona ridi)
floridianwolf1029 2 days ago
One world language. One world culture. One world religion. One world bank. One world government. Fuck yeah.... wait, are you serious?!
Let's maintain the variety the world still has left to offer, and finally fuck globalization, multiculturalism and of the like, mmm ok? Bye.
JSoundHysteria 2 weeks ago
@JSoundHysteria so we can kill each other?
MGX890 2 weeks ago
@JSoundHysteria Thanks for stopping by. Couldn't agree more with "let's maintain the variety the world still has left to offer". Absolutely. Revel in it. I do.
The idea of Esperanto, which seem to work well, is that it doesn't *replace* anything. It allows everyone to keep their own language and culture, but it provides a useful medium when people with two (or three, or fifty) different languages come together.
anonymousbaby1970 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@anonymousbaby1970 I understand the idea, but do you see it happening? People usually choose the easiest way out. If there is a universal language which everyone knows and speaks, over generations, our own languages will start to die out, as they will end up seeming less practical and/or necessary than the language which everyone else in the world speaks and understands.
JSoundHysteria 2 weeks ago
@JSoundHysteria Good point, and the obvious answer of course is "nobody knows". What you suggest is entirely possible. It's also possible that the same will happen with English (or Spanish, or Mandarin, or ...)
anonymousbaby1970 1 week ago
@JSoundHysteria What makes it less likely with Esperanto, I think, is that it's vastly easier to attain a very proficient level of Esperanto later in life compared to other languages; thus, even if Esperanto were THE international language, there would be relatively little advantage in bringing children up as first-language Esperanto speakers.
Of the hundreds of Esperanto speakers that I've met, it's impossible to distinguish the first-language speakers from the others.
anonymousbaby1970 1 week ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I find little logical ground in your explanation. The reason it's impossible with English, French, Chinese and of the like is because those languages are strongly connected to the history and cultures of the countries they originated from. Thus they carry a much heavier heritage with them, which cannot be easily integrated into countries with different backgrounds.
JSoundHysteria 1 week ago
@JSoundHysteria Well, that's one reason; another reason is that they're phenomenally difficult to learn unless you were brought up as a child by a native speaker.
You also say "people choose to speak in a way which is most comfortable to them, regardless of what their roots are (they simply don't care)", which seems to contradict your point that one national language could never displace another. If people see an advantage to using language X, they will, cultural baggage or no.
anonymousbaby1970 5 days ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Esperanto, on the other hand, compared to pretty much ANY language out there, has almost (or completely) no background, it's easy, and is made entirely for the purpose of international communication. A language with no heritage can easily be integrated into any country or culture, and, eventually, replace the mother-tongue of a said country.
JSoundHysteria 1 week ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I come from a multi-lingual environment, and can assure you that people choose to speak in a way which is most comfortable to them, regardless of what their roots are. (they simply don't care)
JSoundHysteria 1 week ago
Saluton! Esperanto is so easy to learn! In one day I managed to master the same amount of content in Esperanto that had taken a few months to learn in Spanish. However, I'll admit that Esperanto would not have been so easy to learn without spanish. I think Esperanto is a great way to get your feet wet in language learning. It makes for a quick sense of accomplishment that I think will motivate people to learn mor foreign languages!
raydenovo 3 weeks ago
Fuck me, i have learnd eng, spanich, and my bornleng is russian. Why have i spended so much time learning this, fuck.
TheTrueValdemar 1 month ago
We named a street after Zamenhof here in Israel <:
@teqfreak
Actually, I think that even if everyone will speak Esperanto, we shouldn't forgot about all the other great languages. It's very interesting.
naamatt2 1 month ago
OMG - ESPERANTO FTW!!!!!!!!!!!
shaqdaddymirza 1 month ago 4
NWO omg
HaphazardCrappola 2 months ago
I don't see it anywhere, every website is in English and if you upload videos to YT in any other language trolls immediatly insult you with "English please, you spic!"
cmsahe 2 months ago
I'm from Nepal. I learned Esperanto quite easitly. I grasped the basic in 14 classes and progressed it by self-learning. Just try it, and you will feel the whole world speak to you.
razeno 3 months ago
I am learning Russian and Spanish. When I started learning Esparanto, it was almost too easy by comparison. The language is designed to be learned with absolute ease.
XaMitV 4 months ago 15
Why did he expect everyone in the world to learn a language based of only Indo-European languages? I think that's stupid and naive. I don't understand why people call other languages hard or easy, is it not only so from your native tongues point of view?
jaskamakkara 4 months ago
@jaskamakkara As I've mentioned in several comments below, if you think Esperanto is purely Indo-European, it suggests you haven't studied it very deeply. Try this article as a starting point:
claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm
You're right in that some languages are more closely related than others, so for me — British — French or German are easier than Vietnamese or Finnish, but that doesn't mean any of those languages are *inherently* easier for everyone.
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
@jaskamakkara However, Esperanto was conceived specifically with the aim of being as easy to learn as possible. And it is, measurably so, for speakers of any other language. Sure, speakers of Indo-European languages have an advantage for the first month or two, because the word roots are easier to memorise for them; but that advantage quickly plateaus, and it's perfectly normal to meet Asians with a year or two of Esperanto who speak just as confidently as their European counterparts.
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I guess you're right.
jaskamakkara 4 months ago
Esperanto learner before I studied linguistics ← Me too! However, "learning the inherent part of speech" of words never bothered me; in fact, I didn't even notice the "problem" until it was pointed out, by which time I was already having long conversations in Esperanto. It's just not that big an issue, particularly when weighed against the dozens of other factors that make Esperanto an order of magnitude quicker and simpler to learn than any other language I've tackled.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
i could understand what he said without subtitiles too, ĉar mi povas esperanto :)
TheEnviroFriend 5 months ago
My first language is English. Mi segunda, Espanol. I am learning esperanto now since I am 62 and would like to acheive some fluency in a third in my remaining time.
danie1murphy 5 months ago
Someone tell me how you can type in the ^ in top of a letter, the only way I know is to go to the charmap and copy it there... :(
^^
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy Either type in ^ directly after the letter or the standard way to do it is to put x after the letter since that letter is not in the esperonto alphabet. Gxis revido.
danie1murphy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy @SlipAllCityToy If you use a Mac, just switch to the "US Extended" keyboard, then you can type alt-6 before any letter to add a ^ to it. On Windows, try one of the "helper" programs; one called "Ek!" is the best known, but apparently "Tajpi" works better on Vista and Windows 7. Try searching for "tajpi esperanto".
On Linux... google it and wade through the myriad options!
Hope that helps.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
hmmmmm this would be perfect as a common european language. im not sure about the rest of the world though.
CommanderMethos 5 months ago
@CommanderMethos @CommanderMethos As I've said in other comments here, Asian speakers of Esperanto are generally *much* happier speaking Esperanto than trying any alternative, whether it's English, or Mandarin, or using interpreters. It's by far the most direct and most effective way to communicate, whatever one's language background.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@ARussianBear If I may say so, that's a very Euro-centric view. :) When you actually *ask* Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean speakers of Esperanto whether they feel any inferiority or unfair difficulty next to their European counterparts, they generally say "absolutely not!" Certainly compared to the alternatives, i.e. they speak English, or we speak Chinese/Korean/etc., they say Esperanto is a fantastically accessible midway meeting point for us all.
anonymousbaby1970 6 months ago
So Esperanto isn't really designed to be a better language, rather to be more intelligible to other language speakers than any other language? If that makes sense.
While that's great and all, a truely universal language would have to be the BEST language, as in the words and grammer are actually logical (they're not in any popular language) and are designed through some sort of scientific method. In that, Esperanto isn't any better than the others.
achickensandwich 6 months ago
@achickensandwich The structure of Esperanto certainly makes it waaaaay easier and quicker to learn than other languages. I've taught English, French and Esperanto to children and adults, and the Esperanto classes get miles ahead of the others in every respect.
(BTW, the part of the clip above where foreign students "magically" understand Esperanto is misleading. I didn't write the script, and certainly wouldn't have done that bit if I had).
anonymousbaby1970 6 months ago
@achickensandwich Not sure what you mean by "a better language" or "the BEST language". By what criteria are you measuring how "good" a language is?
You're certainly not alone in wanting to re-invent the wheel by creating yet another world-language-to-be. Go have a look at Ido, Interlingue, Interlingua, Glosa, Idiom Neutral... the list is very long indeed (you can see some of it under "List of constructed languages" on Wikipedia).
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I pretty much explained that by "better" I meant more logical... Of course I'm no linguist, but there's alot of extra fat in natural languages that could be trimmed out to make it more efficient intellectually, hence better. I suppose I must concede that being "poetic" is arguably desirable whilst irrational. I'm also not so naive to think nobody has thought the same thing before - I'm fully aware of Lojban and some of the contemporaries, like the ones you mentioned.
achickensandwich 5 months ago
@achickensandwich That's good then, but it's not really clear what you mean by "more logical". In the 19th Century there was an obsession with classifying everything in "logical" taxonomies, but it quickly turned out that the world of human experience just doesn't stand up to logic.
Don't get me wrong, I've a degree in physics and I'd call myself a rationalist and skeptic, so I think I understand where you're coming from. It's just not clear to me how it relates to Esperanto, that's all.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I pretty much explained that by "better" I meant more logical... Of course I'm no linguist, but there's alot of extra fat in natural languages that could be trimmed out to make it more efficient intellectually, hence better. I suppose I must concede that being "poetic" is arguably desirable whilst irrational. I'm also not so naive to think nobody has thought the same thing before - I'm fully aware of Lojban and some of the contemporaries, like the ones you mentioned.
achickensandwich 5 months ago
Comment removed
achickensandwich 5 months ago
Comment removed
achickensandwich 5 months ago
@achickensandwich Well in that case, Esperanto would be your definition of a better language. It is very logical, Esperanto is a completely regular language. One example is the words themselves, every adjective ends in "a", every noun ends in "o", every verb ends in "i" - for infinitive tense, "is" - for past tense, "as" for present tense, and "os" for future tense: referred to as grammar marking. Now when the words are used in sentences, they are further grammar marked, but this is the basics.
SifuTeddie 5 months ago
@SifuTeddie Esperanto is not completely regular, plus there are way too many verb forms.
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW I'm not even sure what "completely regular" means for a fully fledged, living language, but there's no arguing that Esperanto has waaaaay fewer exceptions and special cases to memorise than any European language.
Not sure what you mean by "way to many verb forms" either. Use -is/-as/-os for past/present/future of any verb. Simple. If you want to do tricks like "estus faronta" etc. you can, but that's still simpler than the English equivalent ("would have been about to").
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 You're correct. It's far easier than any national language. I'm referring to the irregularities in semantics rather than the structures of the words themselves.
I mean 'way too many' in the sense that most are unnecessary. All you would need to communicate is the past and future tense. Imperative, conditional, and the infinitive are superfluous.
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW OK, we're getting somewhere. You're not wrong that once you get deep into the semantics, trying to define whether a word is fundamentally a noun or a verb etc., it gets bewildering. However, the same goes for any real language, and luckily the vast majority of speakers cheerfully don't care!
As for tenses, surely I need some way to talk about hypothetical situations, or to tell people to do things? What would you suggest (hypothetically ;o)) instead of '-us' and '-u'?
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Right, most people don't care (and tbh, it really doesn't matter on a large scale). The point being that it is an irregularity in meaning. So to say that the language is perfectly regular would be false (as no such language can exist).
You can use an ability modal (I 'can' do this) for hypothetical scenarios. To tell people to do things you can just use the normal verb, as is found in many languages ("eat your food", "toca la puerta", etc.)
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW I agree: to say "Esperanto is perfectly regular" is a bit silly.
As for your other point, I guess you *could* use "can" instead of a conditional... but (a) it's no easier to remember the word "povas" than to remember the suffix "-us", and the meaning would be less clear; and (b) any kind of let's-tweak-Esperanto-to-make-it-"better" discussion is purely hypothetical anyway. Esperanto exists and it works brilliantly. You might as well discuss reforming English to make it "better".
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW I agree: to say "Esperanto is perfectly regular" is a bit silly.
As for your other point, I guess you *could* use "can" instead of a conditional... but (a) it's no easier to remember the word "povas" than to remember the suffix "-us", and the meaning would be less clear; and (b) any kind of let's-tweak-Esperanto-to-make-it-"better" discussion is purely hypothetical anyway. Esperanto exists and it works brilliantly. You might as well discuss reforming English to make it "better".
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Another language can be made to correct inconsistencies in Esperanto :P
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW As mentioned in other comments below, this option is of course open to anyone, and you can find a looooong list of them under "List_of_constructed_languages" on Wikipedia.
Not all of the above list are examples of Esperanto-based langauges, but a good number are. The risible thing is, none of them agree on what features need "improving", or removing, or enhancing.
Just accept that Esperanto works, that it has flaws like any big project has, and enjoy it!
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 They don't agree on what to fix because they don't recognize the problems with their native languages.
The only thing I want is to stop the false claims that Esperanto's neutral and regular. You can go about telling people about it and teaching it, but don't call it things it isn't.
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW Fair enough; I've already agreed that "completely regular" is a silly thing to say.
However, I think it's entirely reasonable to describe its grammar as "free of the vast majority of the irregularities you find in most European languages". Because it is. And the fact that the verbal/adjectival/substantive nature of roots may be ill-defined bothers grammarians far more than it bothers Esperanto speakers and learners.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I was an Esperanto learner before I studied linguistics. Learning the words wasn't the problem, it was learning their inherent part of speech. One example I remember is "seg'il'o" and "martel'o". The former is a tool for the inherent verb 'to saw'. The latter, the inherent noun "hammer" (and not a tool for the verb 'to hammer'). It's not difficult, it's just an easily avoidable burden on memory.
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW In a similar vein, I could politely request that you acquaint yourself much more deeply with Esperanto before spreading... well, not exactly *false* claims, just misguidedly specific criticisms which, together with you overlooking (or not being aware of) the huge range of things that work in its favour as a medium of international exchange, mean that you present a kind of "Fox-News-Fair-And-Balanced" view of the subject, i.e. neither fair nor balanced at all.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anonymousbaby1970 Right, most people don't care (and tbh, it really doesn't matter on a large scale). The point being that it is an irregularity in meaning. So to say that the language is perfectly regular would be false (as no such language can exist).
You can use an ability modal (I 'can' do this) for hypothetical scenarios. To tell people to do things you can just use the normal verb, as is found in many languages ("eat your food", "toca la puerta", etc.)
TheMontageBW 5 months ago
@TheMontageBW Way too many verb forms? You mean four? (Past, Present, Future, Command) That is only one more than English. Also, I'd like an example of irregular Esperanto.
SifuTeddie 4 months ago
@SifuTeddie There are six basic forms: esti, estas, estis, estos, estu, estus
In addition, the participles are as follows: estanta, estinta, estonta, estanto, estinto, estonto, estante, estinte, estonte, estata, estita, estota, estate, estite, estote, estato, estito, estoto. I'm sure I've missed some; google 'Esperanto verb forms' and the first result will show them all to you.
TheMontageBW 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW Or, to put it another way, there are the 6 basic forms you mention; then 3 participle forms that mirror the above (-int-/-ant-/-ont-) and the same for passives (-it-/-at-/-ot-); and yes, as with any other word in Esperanto, you're pretty free to assign the syntactic role that you like with -e/-a/-o. BTW, you forgot to list them all with -is/-as/-os/-us endings (e.g. "est-int-us" is quite common).
There, I've described *all* forms of *every* Esperanto verb in a YouTube comment. :o)
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW Your argument is like trying to claim that the Two Times Table is really hard, because there's soooo much of it. I mean, primary school teachers fool you into thinking that you only have to go as far as "2 x 12 = 24", but THEY LIE! LOOK IN THE REAL WORLD! YOU HAVE TO KNOW "2 x 13", AND "2 x 32", and "2 x 131" — GOOGLE IT, YOU'LL SEE!!1!
In English and French and other Indo-European languages, you have to memories screeds of verb tables to get competent; in Esperanto you don't.
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I didn't say they were hard, there are just too many; it burdens the memory. In Chinese, for example, you don't have to memorize any other verbs at all except the one form.
TheMontageBW 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW The word for the verb itself might not change in Chinese, but you need to learn other accompanying words if you want to give all the info about tense/aspect/mood that, in Esperanto, come with the suffixes.
In any language, for simple or vague concepts, simple forms will do (e.g. "I go cinema"). For more nuanced, precise meanings, more words and/or suffixes are needed ("By then I will be on my way to the cinema" / "Tiam, mi estos iranta kinejen"). Regularity of EO still easier!
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Chinese uses temporal adverbs or modals to denote tense, components that can function independently. In Esperanto, on the other hand, "-anta/o/e" mean nothing on their own. I can draw this comparison out further in a private message if you like; the comments don't allow enough characters for one message. Short form- Esperanto is inefficient and fundamentally biased towards a European way of thinking regarding basic linguistic concepts.
TheMontageBW 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW Esperanto has a few awkward features, but in my experience it is definitely not an inefficient language. As for its European character, I'd say it's more like Indo-European languages than like, for instance, Semitic, Sino-Tibetan or Bantu languages. Unlike modern Indo-European languages, however, it boasts a very 'efficient' agglutinative suffix system.
BesACB 4 months ago
@BesACB I agree, it's still much more efficient than any natural language.
TheMontageBW 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW "draw this out further in a private message" ← please do. My short answer though: we've already said that claiming "perfect neutrality" is silly. It couldn't possibly be, unless it were completely but equally alien to everyone. However, it is still 100 times better for international communication than anything else on the table, be it a national language (English, French, Chinese, etc.), or simultaneous interpretation, or machine translation, or some other language project.
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago 2
@SifuTeddie As for irregularity, look into the distribution of meanings among basic roots. They were chosen arbitrarily, which disallows a linear form of derivation. Using an example from a previous conversation, 'martelo' is inherently a noun- the hammering tool, while the root of 'segilo' is inherently a verb, the suffix '-il' designating it as a 'sawing tool'. Tell me what's 'regular' about that.
TheMontageBW 4 months ago
@TheMontageBW Again, you're right to point out that Esperanto isn't *perfect*, and anyone who says it is, is wrong. But you're missing the point. You've managed to find two words that you expect to work differently, but I managed to memorise those two specific words about ten years ago, and I've used them without fault ever since. What's your point?
There are vast swathes of Esperanto words that *are* perfectly regular, and this is eases communication immeasurably. Try it, you might like it. ;)
anonymousbaby1970 4 months ago
I swear to God I just heard about this language today. Where have I been?! What have they been teaching me in school?! This is a brilliant idea!
dirtynuke 6 months ago
@dirtynuke Yeah, I think so too. :) I'd suggest you head on over to lernu.net and sign up for a free course. Otherwise, you could try ikurso.net
anonymousbaby1970 6 months ago
They need Esperanto to be the official language of every country.
MrShootinputin 6 months ago
Whatever you think of Anglo culture, I'm glad at least one language turned to be a lingua franca. It isn't Esperanto? well, bad luck. Zamenhof should have conquered the World to impose his language. LOL!
agormanvideos 6 months ago
@agormanvideos English is certainly the most widely used lingua franca than any other at the moment, although of course there are plenty of other inter-languages in different parts of the world.
However, for at least half of the 20th century, it was French that held the top position, at least in international politics and diplomacy, and in business too to a lesser extent. People back then probably thought that this would never change in their lifetime either.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@agormanvideos English is certainly the most widely used lingua franca than any other at the moment, although of course there are plenty of other inter-languages in different parts of the world.
However, for at least half of the 20th century, it was French that held the top position, at least in international politics and diplomacy, and in business too to a lesser extent. People back then probably thought that this would never change in their lifetime either.
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
I think esperanto should be the official language of the European Union. Then we can speak our native tongue, esperanto and the present-day lingua franca (English). Then there is no need to bother learning German, French, Spanish and everything anymore...
teqfreak 6 months ago 19
@teqfreak
Addition to what I wrote before: It would an honest way to have a European Language without establishing cultural dominance of one country.
teqfreak 6 months ago
@teqfreak When a language dies the people die with it, the culture dies with it.
There's so much as to why they don't do it.
founderofleadings 2 months ago
@teqfreak Or we all just learn Esperanto and don't even bother with English as a third...
hrolvnir 2 months ago 3
@teqfreak
sounds too "spanishy" and "frenchy" :|
let's just use latin lol.
muiebozgorilor 3 weeks ago
@muiebozgorilor We *could* use Latin, yeah, but good luck with learning that!
Some people promote the teaching of Latin in schools to help with learning other related languages — French, Spanish, etc. To me though, that's a bit like learning to fly a plane as preparation for your driving test. It's not that learning Latin (or learning to fly a plane) are uninteresting or useless — they certainly aren't — it's just an arse about face way of teaching languages!
anonymousbaby1970 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ARussianBear They tried it. It's called Lojban. So far, the only people that take the time to learn it are nerds. Like me. I've been trying to learn it, but haven't gotten far because it still doesn't have many good lessons.
MacFasse 6 months ago
@ARussianBear Haha that's a lot of people's first reaction however wouldn't a NWO want to keep us separated speaking different languages, unable to conspire and get educated in one language?
XxAmericanLedxX 7 months ago
I always found it more important to speak the "lingua franca" of your time - in our's it's English, in the future it may be Chinese or Spanish.
The one form of esperanto that has worked and been established in reccent history, may well have been Swahili (which, of course, was invented by the slave traders of Zanzibar ...)
fenriz218 7 months ago
@fenriz218 Uh, you sure about Swahili? It's a Bantu language, like dozens of others from that area of Africa, and (according to Wikipedia at least) it's been in use for at least 1000 years.
As for learning the existing lingua franca, I'm certainly not saying that it's a bad idea to do that; you'll certainly find many more people to use it with. My experience, though, suggests English for quantity, Esperanto for quality (of interaction, of friendships formed, etc.)
anonymousbaby1970 7 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 well, I was living in the area for a long, long time and from what I've been told, the Arabs created Swahili / suaheli by fusing arabic with bantu words, in order to make communication on the east coast easier. If you'd go inland, the Bantu dialects (Kikuyu, Chaga) are very different from swahili, and much more difficult to learn. I don't trust wikipedia so much since anybody can write anything there.
fenriz218 7 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Yeah I agree, they forget to mention in this video that esperanto was made because it is a simple language and it's very easy to learn. For example Polish is an exceptionally difficult langauge, as is russian, and if you're a western european Asian languages may be very difficult however Esperanto is a very simple language just like english it doesn't inflect, conjugate or change very much at all.
juslikejesus 7 months ago
@fenriz218 I dont think Chinese will be a world language, there are many speakers but almost not outside China
iSteven00 6 months ago
Many people have said the same thing, that Esperanto isn't neutral enough because it's based on European languages. But, although many 'new' and more neutral languages have been invented over the years, none have caught on like Esperanto. Also, interestingly, Esperanto is quite popular in China, Korea and Japan, despite its Europeanness.
drdada2 7 months ago
Ĉu vi povas halti la fiparolado? Ĉiu lingvo havas celojn. Ĝi ne estas agrabla kiam vi diras: "Ho, ĉi tiu lingvo estas pli bona ol tiu!" Ni devas respekti la similecojn tiel, kiel la malsimilecojn. Estas tio, kio unuigas nin!
rubisuperstar16 8 months ago 2
@rubisuperstar16 "Ĉiu lingvo havas celojn", ĉu? Lingvo mem ne povas havi celon, nur la uzantoj aŭ instigantoj pri tiu lingvo. Foje oni diras, ke "Esperanto ne celas anstataŭigi aliajn lingvojn." Evidente *Esperanto* ne celas tion, ĉar ĝi celas nenion. Eble oni povus prave diri, ke UEA ne tion celas, aŭ eĉ ke la esperantistaro ĝenerale ne celas tion — kaj des pli bone! — sed la lingvo mem celas nenion.
Cetere, kiel oni pretendas scii, ke aliaj lingvoj ne formortus post eventuala fina venko?
anonymousbaby1970 5 months ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I disagree that one cannot sound eloquent in the english language, look at the great english poets of our society, and am averse to the thought that english is "a very reduced subset of a full language". I personally think English is a language in excess of words at times, and have heard a similar opinion from french, turkish, portuguese, romanian and czech friends. Do you mean that esperanto, with less words can have the same descriptive impact?
SuperMoo2TheRescue 9 months ago
@SuperMoo2TheRescue He or she was talking about Basic English, not Common English. Their is a difference. What you say is true of Common English, but not of Basic English. Basic English is not a full language, unlike Common English or Esparanto. The point was, the original poster was saying, why doesn't everyone just learn Basic English as a communicative language instead of Esperanto, both taking about the same time to learn. Esperanto is thus the logical choice.
converter7 9 months ago
@SuperMoo2TheRescue Sorry, you've misunderstood what I said. As "converter7" says, I'm referring to *Basic* English as "a subset of a language".
Proper English as it is spoken by native speakers is of course a full and expressive language; but what is very often heard at international meetings of businessmen, scientists, or simply tourists, is not proper English — it's a very much impoverished, stilted "simple" English in which nobody sounds elegant or eloquent. And that's a shame.
anonymousbaby1970 8 months ago 6
@anonymousbaby1970 Well again I have to disagree, i'm presently in Prague on Erasmus and many of the students studying here with English as a second language have very good english and do sound eloquent, even those not studying English as part of their course. Esperanto is clearly a language that very few people know, it makes no sense teaching an entirely different language(even if it has similarities) when other languages are known by several majorities of people.
SuperMoo2TheRescue 8 months ago
I'm probably missing the point here and will be shouted at for it but here it goes...Why create a language that is a combination of others when you could just learn a language that already exists and is spoke by millions i.e. English or Chinese?? I know people have said its easier to learn and is a good gateway to other languages but surely thats just because its a simplified version of several languages(maybe?), so would it not just be easier to just speak basic English?
SuperMoo2TheRescue 9 months ago
@SuperMoo2TheRescue Not going to shout at you for a perfectly reasonable question. :o)
The problem with basic English is that it's a very reduced subset of a full language, and it places great restrictions on what you can actually say. It's very difficult to sound eloquent in it.
The *structure* of Esperanto is very minimal, as un-complex as possible, but it delivers a vast power of expression. It's a full language that you can use for science, cooking, drunken arguments, flirting... the lot!
anonymousbaby1970 9 months ago 7
Hahaha mi estas ridi !!
FearedBliss 10 months ago
Tre interesa filmeto,domagxe,ke mi nenio komprenas.Mi vidas ankaux,ke mi estas cxi tie unika esperantisto.
Inspektisto 10 months ago
I used it as a gateway to becoming trilingual. It worked. I learned Esperanto when was very young and then learned Hebrew as I'm Jewish. Esperanto is such an easy language to learn. It's fun too. Yes you won't be able to have conversations with people a lot but it's very easy and fun. I know learning ANY language is a gateway but this was just soooo easy. I was fluent in less than months.
iloveIsrael990 10 months ago
linguae Esperanticae nihil fama est.
Mathewmatic 10 months ago
I've been studying Esperanto for months now and I can tell anybody curious right now that you are never going to use Esperanto in your life unless you miraculously meet your soul mate who happens to be an Esperantist that doesn't speak English, and you'd still have better chances with a different language. However, it's fun and easy to learn if you're into learning different languages, and it definitely gives you a good foundation of how all languages work behind the scenes as a whole.
mistermephisto1 10 months ago 3
@mistermephisto1 Well, if you travel to Esperantists meetings or find free foreign lodging using the Pasporta Servo, you'll get to use it. It's also nice to be able to read some of the original literature. For your everyday life though, (at least from my perspective in the US) and if you don't travel much, then you probably won't use it much, if ever. Personally, it's the culture that interests me, even if the speaker base is small compared to other languages.
MCVenomOS 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
mistermephisto1 10 months ago
International communication will occur in English or Esperanto. While I follow the good work of so many ngo's at the UN who oppose force and violence they ignore the one reason they use English for communication: hundreds of years of colonialism, slavery, stealing indigenous children, cruel capitalism with millions imprisoned. OR they could choose Esperanto which has valued non-violence and education as it's tool to spread. EsperantoFriends at Blogspot.
neilnachum1 11 months ago 3
I'm reading coments of people arguing here... oh!
Esperanto was made to understand each other. Don't argue =(
omarnug 11 months ago 4
@ShelDeF "something with tonnes of studies conducted" <— I'd be interested to know which studies you're referring to. While it's obvious that children who have 24/7 exposure to any language at all will tend to pick it up without effort, all the actual studies that I've read about 2nd language *teaching* (i.e. a couple of hours a week in school) seem to conclude that most primary language teaching has almost no long-term benefit at all.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThomasDeverell 1 year ago
Esperanto is way too similar to the indo-european languages, without taking notice to the semitic, sino-tibetian languages... The thought is good though, but it should be studied more thorougly before just running into making the words...
cryozo 1 year ago
@cryozo While it's true that Esperanto is superficially similar to latinate and germanic languages, the similarity really is only skin-deep. Beneath the surface lies a structure in which people from a huge variety of language backgrounds find themselves at home. At least, that's what I'm told by Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Israelis, Russians, Icelanders and others when I ask.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@cryozo Only the vocabulary is Western, the grammar etcetera is universal.
doom032 1 year ago
@cryozo Also, as mentioned below, trying googling Claude Piron European or Asiatic — read that essay then come back and we'll carry on the discussion.
The web address, if YouTube will let me post it, is here:
claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 Sure why not ;)
cryozo 11 months ago
@ShelDeF Incidentally, the School of Education of the University of Manchester are doing a five year evaluation of the Springboard to Languages programme, so we'll soon be able to discuss actual results rather than just anecdotes. You can download their interim reports to date from the Springboard to Languages website. (It appears I'm not allowed to post links here, but you can google it easily enough).
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF You just state out of the blue that "Using Esperanto as a means to learn other languages is silly", but why do you think that? The children respond enthusiastically, they get to videoconference with children in other countries (Germany, Hungary and Slovakia so far), they get to use more complex grammar than they would be able to in (e.g.) French or Spanish, and they say they look forward to further study of other languages. What's not to like?
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF "I learned [...] French and applied it to learning Japanese and Italian, German and Korean" <— Learning *any* language helps with learning another language afterwards, yes. And you say that people "have to want to learn it (and be motivated) to succeed" and again you're quite right.
But your other sentence just doesn't make sense: "Using Esperanto as a means to learn other languages is silly and doesn't allow children the really opportunity to speak other languages." Why? How? What?
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF "You could use any other language and accomplish the same things as using Esperanto" <— Ah, that's the thing though... Esperanto is *so* much easier to learn — an order of magnitude quicker and easier to learn than even another European language, never mind Mandarin or Korean — that children can and do acquire a *depth* of understanding of the language that the majority simply never reach (or not until they're in secondary school) with other languages. *That* is why we use it.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF "I don't use my languages just for work. I use it for fun, to socialize, to learn." <— Fantastic, good for you. (Many people think "useful" only means "useful for work", and I'm glad you see past that).
But you know what? I use Esperanto every time I travel, staying with locals, talking long into the night, attending congresses, meetings and parties... It's been of huge interest and utility to me, and I've had many experiences that I couldn't possibly have had without it.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF "I started learning French was I was 4 [...] just like my English by the time I turned 9" <— may well be true, but it's certainly not the norm, and if you claim you got that from one lesson a week in your primary school, then I simply don't believe you. That is all that most children get though.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF "you should stop by a school sometime" <— I do - I earn my living teaching languages in primary schools. :-)
Children certainly are capable of learning languages. My own kids are bilingual, and have been since they uttered their first words. With such young children though, there's a limit to how much you can "teach" — they just *acquire* the language through being immersed in it.
And therein lies the problem — most primary schools do max. 60 minutes a week of a foreign language.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF Here's an analogy — can you name a professional recorder player? Or two? Or none at all? I'm not saying there are none at all, but for the vast majority of adults, even for professional musicians, playing the recorder is not in itself a useful skill.
However, by learning the recorder *first* in primary school, children learn about melodies, major and minor keys, reading music, rhythms, playing in a group, etc., all of which are valuable *skills* for later music study.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@ShelDeF Thanks for stopping by. I would love to see children leaving school being able to converse confidently in Japanese, Mandarin, or even just French or Spanish. Sadly, for the vast majority, that doesn't happen.
Read up on the Springboard to Languages programme. No-one is suggesting that speaking Esperanto is likely to be of use professionally. But these are 7-year-olds — they're learning *how to learn*, and that works much more effectively with a simple language than a complex one.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
just learn English, nobody speaks this crap
fearlessftw 1 year ago
I speak English, french and german and I was like the group at the picnic table...I understood every word
northman01 1 year ago
esparanto is just an european language. People from other than Europe cannot understand any words coming out of their mouth.
It has a limitation that it is based on only european languages. People from asia wouldn't give a shit about esparanto and learn them.
They would rather learn english.
pigkkk2 1 year ago
@pigkkk2 As mentioned below, if you think Esperanto is purely European, you probably don't know much about it. Google for "Claude Piron European or Asiatic", read that essay, then come back and have a chat.
Whenever I've asked Chinese, Korean and Japanese Esperanto speakers about it, they *all* say the same thing — in only a year or two, they speak *tons* better Esperanto than after 10 years of English at school.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
So, the flower children grew up and decided to invent their own language.
rainstainn 1 year ago
@Hexenhammer0 @Hexenhammer0 Certainly the vocabulary looks very European, and as such it's easier for a "European-speaker" than for others to guess at the meaning of unknown words.
However, there's more to a language than it's vocabulary, and (e.g.) the system of word formation in Esperanto has strong parallels with Chinese.
For more info, Google for "Claude Piron European or Asiatic"
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
But esparanto is unintelligible to me (both english & spanish part of my brain) .
This video was nothing but a commercial. And a typical dishonest one too. I can understand wanting one neutral language for the entire world. Infact support such a noble idea. but no need to be dishonest about it. I wonder if honesty is a word in esparanto, because they should really learn to apply it.
cilo56 1 year ago
I don't understand a word of esperanto. And I know both english, and spanish fluently. Interlingua I can understand about 90 percent of it. And I only listen to both esparanto and interlingua since yesterday. I can't say how interlingua would be like for an english monolinguist, since I also know spanish. But I know that people who know french, intalian, catalan, portuguese, spanish etc romance languages would have the same experience as me, if not better.
cilo56 1 year ago
@cilo56 I believe every word you say here, but it kind of misses the point, for two reasons.
(1) For an international language to be useful, it requires not just passive understanding, but active use too. Can you *speak* Interlingua? If you've only studied it for a day, I'm guessing not.
(2) Interlingua was designed for easy passive understanding by Europeans. It entirely excludes Asians and Africans.
Esperanto isn't perfect, but it's FAR closer to globally egalitarian than Interlingua is.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@cilo56
If you had invested two hours to understand the grammar and the alphabet of Esperanto you likely were able to understand most of texts in Esperanto.
I don't beleive that you understand 90 percent of Interlingua without investing a bit time to understand the grammar - although it's like Spanish, than speakers of other languages had much more to learn.
mindw99 8 months ago
One of the reasons Esperanto is ineffective is its written component. Consider this quote from one of today's highest rated comment: "Fakte mi ĝojas ke mi lernis pri Esperanto dum gimnazio, kiam mi estis lernanta latinon. Vi ne povas amikiĝi interrete per latino! Aŭ, ĉu vi povas...?" No language with that many diacritical marks will be easy to learn to read/write in, and this fact will always hamper it. Otherwise we could make the same case for Portuguese.
michaelmays1 1 year ago
@michaelmays1 I've never quite understood the obsession with Esperanto's diacritics. Yes, the language has accented letters in its alphabet, much like every other language in existence that uses the Roman script. Even English makes occasional use of them, albeit much less than most languages.
Esperanto's letters are included in many Unicode fonts, including Arial, Times New Roman and Helvetica. I can't really see what the problem is.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 The main argument is that the accented letters (and their respective sounds) are unnecessary. But the better argument is figuring out which phonemes ARE necessary in terms of what people are used to pronouncing.
TheMontageBW 1 year ago
@TheMontageBW It's an academic argument of some interest, but it would have been more use to have it prior to 1887. It's an observable reality that people from all linguistic backgrounds can and do learn Esperanto, and far more quickly and easily than any "competing" language. It *might* be possible to come up with a theoretically "more neutral" or "more perfect" solution, and you're welcome to try. Just come back and tell me when it's proved itself over a century or so, and I'll be all ears.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 It is possible, and it has been done. If you are truly interested in learning more about it, please let me know and I'll be happy to tell you more about it.
I'm not asking you to forget Esperanto. I encourage people to learn it. But after studying linguistics, it is my firm belief that there are better methods of international communication. Others have tried, but none really understand how other languages work, so the internationalism is only skin deep (loan-words).
TheMontageBW 1 year ago
Why are you all drooling over these bastardised Latin spawns; Esperanto, Interlingua etc. They do not sound EUPHONIOUS at all!! On the other hand English, French, Russian, Bulgarian, Italian are indeed euphonious .
Lepsaeus 1 year ago
@Lepsaeus Euphony is a rather subjective measure. (Not sure anyone here is drooling either, and Interlingua hasn't been mentioned at all, has it?)
Thanks for your, um, contribution.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I can infer from your eagerness who is it, and by all means it is you by remarking my choice of putting Esperanto next to Interlingua, as if it would make any meaningful difference for a straw man to capitalise on. But I am really not sure now, as to whether I should have used ''doting upon'' in lieu of ''drooling over'' ; um, which one do you prefer? Dare to keep me busy with your drivels once again.
Lepsaeus 1 year ago
@Lepsaeus "doting" — yeah, OK, there's probably a bit of that going on in these comments.
I'm afraid I just don't understand the whole first sentence of your comment ("I can infer... [...] ...straw man to capitalise on.") What do you infer? About who? What straw man are you referring to? Sorry, I'm lost.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970
''...straw man...'' in the metaphorical sense of a man who cannot be relied upon to honour his financial commitments, esp because of his limited resources hence a person of little substance.
''...capitalise on'' draw advantages from. (How sweet both expressions work together toward making me happy.)
I find it unnecessary to clarify more.
Lepsaeus 1 year ago
@Lepsaeus
anonymousbaby1970 By the way, what do you think of Interlingua? Which one is better: Interlingua or Esperanto?
Lepsaeus 1 year ago
@Lepsaeus "better" is, again, a very subjective term — better for what? Nicer sounding? Easier to read? Better suited to a role as an international second language?
Assuming you mean the latter ("better suited to a role as an international second language"), then I think Esperanto is better suited, both inherently because of its structure and comparative ease of learning even for non-Europeans, and simply because it has a far bigger movement behind it already.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@Lepsaeus I'm capable of googling definitions of expressions I'm unfamiliar with, but that's not the problem. Assume I understand what a "straw man" is, and that I know what "capitalise on" means. My problem is that I have no idea what you are *referring to* in your comment. Maybe you could rephrase it to make your meaning clearer?
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I find the obscurity of my addressee less inscrutable than yours in ''...anyone here is drooling either,'' Therefore, I shall not clarify.
Lepsaeus 1 year ago
mi ne povas vivi sen vi, Esperanto!
MsCesper 1 year ago
haha pause at 02:00
evantsarouchas 1 year ago
:D thxz trololol
pitiponk1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Esperanto is retarded, Learn fucking english it's not so hard.
pitiponk1 1 year ago
@pitiponk1 Thanks for your constructive and informed comment. You make the internet a joy to inhabit.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago 11
@pitiponk1 Actually moron, English is one of the most complicated languages to learn for a foreigner. Most languages have 10 rules and 2 exceptions. In English you have 2 Rules and 10 Exceptions.
Adahn5 1 year ago
@Adahn5 O RLY?
pitiponk1 1 year ago
@pitiponk1 How does it feel to have no culture, Czech?
doom032 1 year ago
@doom032 How does it feel to talk to people you don't know about their culture boobman? NO U!
pitiponk1 11 months ago
There are more people who speak English. Why not stick with that as international language?
tFighterPilot 1 year ago
@tFighterPilot Two answers really — equality, and realism. English is a pig of a language to learn, and the only way to attain even a reasonable level of confidence is to spend a year or two living in the UK/US/Australia/etc. This discriminates strongly against people who don't have the means to do that, i.e. most people.
Learning Esperanto is an order of magnitude faster, and can be done anywhere. A far higher %age of learners reach a good communicative level in Esperanto than in English.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@anonymousbaby1970 I only visited English speaking countries twice in my life for a very short time each, yet my English is more than reasonable. You're saying that Esperanto is easier to learn. But for who? The video shown Europeans who can understand it because it's similar to their languages. But what about those, like me, whose native language is not European? Esperanto is almost like Chinese to me.
tFighterPilot 1 year ago
@tFighterPilot Good for you if you have a reasonable command of English. Imagine yourself though in a situation of conflict — making a sales pitch, discussing an idea, or just arguing over who's next in line — very often the person who "wins" is the one who's spent more time and money getting their English fluent, not the person who deserves to win. Esperanto levels the playing field a great deal by being vastly more accessible to speakers of all languages. (continued...)
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago 3
@tFighterPilot You're right to criticise the scene above where I speak Esperanto and students "magically" understand. I didn't write the script, and I don't think that part really shows anything useful. Esperanto is a language that needs studying to understand it.
However, its structure is specifically designed to be as simple as possible to learn and use, while still being hugely flexible and expressive. Briefly, the amount of *memorisation* needed is *much* smaller than most languages.
anonymousbaby1970 1 year ago
@tFighterPilot I am European and speak 4 European languages. French, Czech, English and German. Yet Esperanto is retarded moonspeek imo. I don't get it, why invert a new language? Aren't there enough of them??? +1 in your fight sir.
pitiponk1 1 year ago
@pitiponk1 I speak spanish, french, english, some german(improving) and esperanto. Zamenhof invented this language to make you go faster when lerning other languages. I wish school had taught me first esperanto!(I would have a better level in everything) It's marvellous! I'm very happy when I learn it in the bus while going to the uni. it's better than listening to music. I think people like you are selfish cause your parents spent a lot of money and you made bigs