# Constructed vs. 'natural' languages. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2000, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899 "2000-12-16T14:15:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/1 "2000-12-16T14:15:15Z")
OK, **ishmintingas** and **Collounsbury** , being the polyglots they are, have me quite confused with their negative reaction to Esperanto. For people who enjoy learning languages, it seems to me their objections just don’t make sense. All the quotations used herein are from [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=50683) thread. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ishmintingas_ > **I hang out at the sci.lang newgsgroup a lot, and frankly the real professional linguists there have no use for Esperanto. They are too much engaged with real languages to bother with a fake one.** I’ll leave the implication that Esperantists are not ‘real professional linguists’ alone in favor of the differentiation between ‘real’ and ‘fake’ languages. The only division between languages such as English, Arabic, Russian, and French, and languages such as Esperanto, Volapük, and Solresol, is that the latter were the results of _consciously directed_ efforts of individuals or very small groups with a specific goal in mind - in the case of Esperanto and Volapük, to facilitate international communication. The languages in the former group still came into existence through the efforts of tribes and clans and other social groups, but the end result was only to facilitate communication _within_ the group and was less of a consciously directed effort than the outcome of the need to communicate at all. No language is ‘natural’. If languages were natural, other species would have them as well. Indicating anger, fear, pain, and submission by means of a limited range of vocal sounds is not a language. Language involves the transmission of abstract ideas and concepts. Hence any real professional linguist should examine a language on how well it performs this function, regardless of its origins or the method of its creation. So what, specifically, about Esperanto is criticized? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Collounsbury_ > **not universal, its european in basis… Esperanto is purely derived from a sub-set of Western European Indo-European languages. As such, any claim to “univerality” fails on its face… Simplied indo-european based grammar is not a universal. It may have something to recommend itself for indo-european language speakers but presents no inherent advantages to that portion of the world which does not have inherent familiarity with the roots** Last things first. You’ve studied Arabic, and as I understand it English is your native language. What was there in English that gave you ‘inherent familiarity’ with the roots in Arabic? Now to the claims of universality. Again, I agree with you that Esperanto cannot claim universality (nor am I aware that it has ever done so) on the basis of its source material. **It is NOT a ‘universal language’ in that it draws from all the world’s languages.** By ‘universal’, it claims that it can be learned and used by everyone, regardless of their native tongue. I believe your experience in learning Arabic and Pulaar speaks excellenty to the point that Esperanto can be learned by people whose native tongues belong to different linguistic families. **ishmintingas** asserts that it’s easy to learn; granted his native language may be English but that doesn’t prove by any means that non-English speakers either could not learn Esperanto or would have a harder time doing so. One last quote: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ishmintingas_ > **Which is not to say that constructed languages can’t be fun! Tolkien did a far better job with them aesthetically. He constructed his Middle-earth languages not for any social reform but just for the sheer joy of language.** So if you make up a language for literary purposes or just for the hell of it, that’s OK, but if you do it with a serious purpose in mind, you’re being short-sighted? ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/2 "2000-12-16T14:39:47Z")
Interesting OP. I should point out that my native language is English, and I have studied Latin, Spanish, and Hebrew, although my fluency in the last two is debatable. I found learning Hebrew (my first experience at learning a foreign language) to be rather difficult. It is a different alphabet, some of the sounds are different, and there are relatively few English cognates. Latin, on the other hand, was relatively easy for me to learn. Something like four-fifths of English words come directly or indirectly from Latin, and although the grammar is more structured in Latin, there are far more similarities than differences. I learned Spanish by immersion, having lived in Southern California and Texas, where quite a significant portion speaks that language as their primary tongue, and so billboards and television shows are broadcast or simulcast in both languages. Not that long ago, I ran across a piece in _National Lampoon_ about Esperanto. Although I might not have understood some of the grammar, I understood the majority of the vocabulary, and so I would imagine the grammar would not be difficult. I would also think that having a language like Esperanto would greatly facilitate communication in a place like Europe, where so many languages are concentrated in such a small area. When I was in Europe with the Navy, I encountered five different languages. One universal language would have made things a lot easier. Robin ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/3 "2000-12-16T16:11:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > OK, **ishmintingas** and **Collounsbury** , being the polyglots they are, have me quite confused with their negative reaction to Esperanto. For people who enjoy learning languages, it seems to me their objections just don’t make sense. It’s a question of subjective taste. > [@](#): > > No language is ‘natural’. If languages were natural, other species would have them as well. They do. Perhaps with limited encoding, but they do. No one invented language per se. It is likely that modern elaborated human languages gradually and naturally arose out of pre-existing forms of language, or communication to use a less loaded word. We find signs of minimal abstract language capacity among our near relatives, the difference between us and them is a matter of degree. As such, non-constructed langauges are natural developments. However, of course, standardized grammars and the like are conscious elaborations, although based on the naturally evolving grammar. So, point one is false. > [@](#): > > Indicating anger, fear, pain, and submission by means of a limited range of vocal sounds is not a language. Language involves the transmission of abstract ideas and concepts. Well, taking on this definition, I believe there are nonetheless a body of serious researchers who would still differ with you. In any case, I don’t believe that this restricted definition is necessary. Even in that context, natural langauges were not one day consciously invented but evolved from prior communication. > [@](#): > > Hence any real professional linguist should examine a language on how well it performs this function, regardless of its origins or the method of its creation. A profesional linguist will tell you that all naturally evolved and probably most invented human languages are equally capable of conveying abstract thought, although obviously some will need to create and/or borrow vocabularies. Re Me > [@](#): > > Last things first. You’ve studied Arabic, and as I understand it English is your native language. What was there in English that gave you ‘inherent familiarity’ with the roots in Arabic? Nothing, that’s the point. > [@](#): > > Now to the claims of universality. … By ‘universal’, it claims that it can be learned and used by everyone, regardless of their native tongue. Any language fills that capacity. However relatedness, in grammar as well as vocabulary (not necessarily related) greatly eases learning. Esperanto’s “ease” in terms of grammar is entirely based on familiarity with indo-european rule sets. Remove that commonality and there’s no inherent ease. > [@](#): > > I believe your experience in learning Arabic and Pulaar speaks excellenty to the point that Esperanto can be learned by people whose native tongues belong to different linguistic families. I didn’t say its hard, I just said the arguments regarding its ease fail for non-indoeuropean language speakers. Its supposed neutrality also fails for non-Westerners insofar as it also imposes the use of a strange alphabet and a European based language system. That doesn’t make it bad, just not compelling as a choice as compared to the advantages of English or French, established vehicular langauges with vast literatures, resources etc. > [@](#): > > **ishmintingas** asserts that it’s easy to learn; granted his native language may be English but that doesn’t prove by any means that non-English speakers either could not learn Esperanto or would have a harder time doing so. You misunderstand, its a question of relatedness. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by ishmintingas_ > > **Which is not to say that constructed languages can’t be fun! Tolkien did a far better job with them aesthetically. He constructed his Middle-earth languages not for any social reform but just for the sheer joy of language.** > > So if you make up a language for literary purposes or just for the hell of it, that’s OK, but if you do it with a serious purpose in mind, you’re being short-sighted? No, realistic. Esperanto does not provide realistic advantages for non-IE language speakers (except insofar as they have already learned an indo-european language) in terms of either communication or learning ease. For example, the point raised in the other thread re lack of idiom or reduced number of idioms simply reflects its lack of use. Widespread use will naturally produce idiom. Regularity in phonetics may present some marginal advantages at least insofar as it reduces rules to learn, but this is easily outwieghed by the fact that established international vehicular languages such as French, English, Arabic, as well as local ones. It’s simply not a realistic goal. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/4 "2000-12-16T18:20:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > **It’s a question of subjective taste.** No, subjective taste would be choosing not to study Esperanto because you simply have no interest in it. Your and **ishmintingas** ’ responses have moved beyond that to an assessment of why Esperanto is a futile project and the assertion that it is a ‘fake’ language and therefore unworthy of study, period. Another matter entirely. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No language is ‘natural’. If languages were natural, other species would have them as well. > > \*\*We find signs of minimal abstract language capacity among our near relatives, the difference between us and them is a matter of degree. As such, non-constructed langauges are natural developments. > > However, of course, standardized grammars and the like are conscious elaborations, although based on the naturally evolving grammar.\*\* I think you’re confusing a point here. I would not argue that our near relatives don’t have definite _reasoning_ capacity so that they are able to make a logical connection between symbols and concrete objects and situations and from that communicate most, if not all, of the range of their desires and emotions. But it lacks grammar, an essential component of language. Communication is a natural phenomenon, whether passive (in the form of physiological signs like the yellow and black of a wasp) or active (the barks and growls of a dog or the coordination among chimpanzees on the hunt). Language is a human construct because it is a specific combination of the formation of sounds via speech organs _plus_ the abstract mental functions of grammar we have constructed over the millennia of human existence. As such, languages are a conscious invention. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Language involves the transmission of abstract ideas and concepts. > > **Well, taking on this definition, I believe there are nonetheless a body of serious researchers who would still differ with you.** Would you direct me to some of these researchers and their work? > [@](#): > > **In any case, I don’t believe that this restricted definition is necessary.** It is if I’m trying to argue why the label of ‘fake’ language is an inappropriate one overall. > [@](#): > > **Even in that context, natural langauges were not one day consciously invented but evolved from prior communication.** Again, I assert that language is a combination of physical communication methods and mental grammatical constructs. You cannot remove either component and still have language. They did not evolve, they were constructed, albeit more or less unconsciously out of the needs engendered by social interaction and cooperation. > [@](#): > > **A profesional linguist will tell you that all naturally evolved and probably most invented human languages are equally capable of conveying abstract thought, although obviously some will need to create and/or borrow vocabularies.** Hence they should not reject Esperanto out of hand because it’s a ‘fake’ language, as **ishmintingas** implied. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > What was there in English that gave you ‘inherent familiarity’ with the roots in Arabic? > > **Nothing, that’s the point.** My point as well. There were no similarities between Arabic and English, _yet you learned it_, complex grammar and all. Esperanto has only sixteen rules of grammar with no exceptions; seems to me it would be far easier for anyone to memorize those instead of the complex of grammatical constructs given in most languages today. There’s a lot more still below where I’m typing right now, but I believe I can condense the thrust of your thought in a few excerpts: > [@](#): > > **Esperanto’s “ease” in terms of grammar is entirely based on familiarity with indo-european rule sets. Remove that commonality and there’s no inherent ease… Its supposed neutrality also fails for non-Westerners insofar as it also imposes the use of a strange alphabet and a European based language system. That doesn’t make it bad, _just not compelling as a choice as compared to the advantages of English or French_, established vehicular langauges with vast literatures, resources etc.** But English, French, Arabic, and Russian all impose the necessity of learning new sounds and an entirely new alphabet upon non-Westerners as well. Then there is, as we both acknowledge, the complex mass of grammatical constructs that need to be actively memorized as well. I’m going to go out on a limb here and cite from personal experience - I learned to read and pronounce written Russian long before I came close to finally mastering the complexities of the language’s grammar, and I’m presuming the experience is and was much the same for you and **ishmintingas**. So my hypothesis is that it’s not the reading and pronunciation that presents the greatest obstacle to learning a language but the grammar itself. Wouldn’t a language with a simplified grammar codex, then, be a viable alternative? Learning the rules of a language’s grammar seems very similar, to me at least, to learning the rules of a game. A card game like slapjack or Go Fish can be picked up fairly quickly. A game like whist, on the other hand, can take someone weeks or months to master because of the number and complexity of the rules. It’s much the same with Esperanto. A few rules, simple and straightforward, easily explainable to everyone, compared with languages like Russian or Arabic, or even LCT ones like Pulaar or Basque (which I’ve studied). Anyway. I’m enjoying the point/counter-point of this debate because it’s getting me to think about my own position on languages and the study thereof. But I do want to make clear that I’m not looking to convince you to study Esperanto (except perhaps as an analytical exercise for this debate). What I’m taking issue with, as I said earlier in this post, is your and **ishmintingas** ’ outright dismissal of Esperanto as ‘fake’ and unworthy of study. I do not think it’s an attitude becoming any polyglot, self-taught or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/5 "2000-12-16T19:38:50Z")
My two cents. Given free choice, I would learn English. I think that “the competition” was won long time ago by the English. Esperanto is easier to learn. The advantages stop here. English is harder, but you get more thar the ability to communicate (if). You get all the past culture and a headstart in today’s world. More people may speak Mandarin, but only among themselves. Not even in neighboring province. I will have a better chance with English. Not with French, German, Esperanto or Hinhu. In a Swiss restaurant recently I was given a menue in French. I asked for an English copy. The maitr-d’ brought an English one in ~15’ and said: “I remember the '70s. We had menues printed in French and Japaniese. In the '80s it was French and Arabic. Now it’s French and Russian.” So, nations come and go. But they still keep an English copy. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/6 "2000-12-16T20:13:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > > No, subjective taste would be choosing not to study Esperanto because you simply have no interest in it. Your and **ishmintingas** ’ responses have moved beyond that to an assessment of why Esperanto is a futile project and the assertion that it is a ‘fake’ language and therefore unworthy of study, period. Another matter entirely. Fake… No it is created, neither I nor Ish used the word fake. We said, if I can speak for Ish that it was more useful to study living languages. Given the depth which living languages have, their history, we find that more interesting than a callow created language which is essentially a shallow restatement of indoeuropean structures. But that last part is subjective. Nature of language: > [@](#): > > Language is a human construct because it is a specific combination of the formation of sounds via speech organs _plus_ the abstract mental functions of grammar we have constructed over the millennia of human existence. As such, languages are a conscious invention. It most certainly is not a fully conscious invention in the way that Esperanto is. Rather like inventing a culture whole cloth versus an evovled culture. As for the genesis of language, insofar as we have no hard data, I’m not going to get into a pissing match about this. I suggest if you want a real debate on this you go to sci.lang where some high caliber people hang out. I frankly am a mere dabbler. > [@](#): > > Would you direct me to some of these researchers and their work? I’m not up to date so honestly you’d be better served going to sci.lang and inquiring. Serious, published linguists are to be found there. Pose a good question and you’ll get serious responses. > [@](#): > > It is if I’m trying to argue why the label of ‘fake’ language is an inappropriate one overall. Well, fake is a **straw man** so you can stop attacking it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **Even in that context, natural langauges were not one day consciously invented but evolved from prior communication.** > > Again, I assert that language is a combination of physical communication methods and mental grammatical constructs. You cannot remove either component and still have language. They did not evolve, they were constructed, albeit more or less unconsciously out of the needs engendered by social interaction and cooperation. We once more delve into the origins of language. I posit, rather than assert, that logically speaking language slowly, imperceptibably evolved out of proto-languages found in animals, and that grammar draws on deeper biological structures. As such, it evolved unconsciously, as you admit, in which case it is not “constructed” using the common sense of the word. We can get into a semantic pissing match but I think if we stick to the common sense its clear there is a difference. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **A profesional linguist will tell you that all naturally evolved and probably most invented human languages are equally capable of conveying abstract thought, although obviously some will need to create and/or borrow vocabularies.** > > Hence they should not reject Esperanto out of hand because it’s a ‘fake’ language, as **ishmintingas** implied. Perhaps you should reread Ish’s statement. I repeat, this “fake” thing is your term. Rather, we, if I can speak for the both of us, or at least I, find living languages more interesting. Insofar as Esperanto is simply a derived set of Latinate and Greek with some other indoeuropean components thrown in, it just doesn’t light me fire. > [@](#): > > My point as well. There were no similarities between Arabic and English, _yet you learned it_, complex grammar and all. Esperanto has only sixteen rules of grammar with no exceptions; seems to me it would be far easier for anyone to memorize those instead of the complex of grammatical constructs given in most languages today. I’ll repeat once more (1) the simplicity will only hold for those familiar with indoeuropean, what seems simple to you will not seem simple to a native pulaar speaker. Different frame of reference. (2) If Esperanto became a living language, it would develop exceptions through usage. Classical Arabic grammar is real logical, few exceptions etc. It’s also doubtless a bit artificial. Dialects’ grammars are your usual mishmash. Just the way things develop. (3) What is not encoded in grammar will have to be encoded in other methods, forcing the development of complexities in other areas. That’s why linguists reject the idea any language is inherently more complex than others. Some, of course, are rather distant from others and thus present familiarity problem in re learning. > [@](#): > > But English, French, Arabic, and Russian all impose the necessity of learning new sounds and an entirely new alphabet upon non-Westerners as well. Yes, they do. But they have millions of users and obvious material benefits for the user. Plus a deep history etc. I simply have noted that Esperanto’s supposed advantages are **illusionary** and arise from a misunderstanding of language as well as European parochialism. That does not make Esperanto a bad language, or whatnot, just not advantageous in the way Esperantistes think it is. > [@](#): > > I’m presuming the experience is and was much the same for you and **ishmintingas**. So my hypothesis is that it’s not the reading and pronunciation that presents the greatest obstacle to learning a language but the grammar itself. Wouldn’t a language with a simplified grammar codex, then, be a viable alternative? (1) No, as I said, ad nauseum now, the simplification is relative to the **indo-european** frame of reference. Someone not coming from that frame of reference will not of necessity find it “simpler”. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept that Esperanto’s simplicity is relative to **your frame of reference**. (2) Vocabulary acquisition, not grammar, generally, to my understanding, poses the most serious problems for 2nd langauge learners. > [@](#): > > A few rules, simple and straightforward, easily explainable to everyone, Parochialism. Frame of reference. > [@](#): > > What I’m taking issue with, as I said earlier in this post, is your and **ishmintingas** ’ outright dismissal of Esperanto as ‘fake’ and unworthy of study. I do not think it’s an attitude becoming any polyglot, self-taught or otherwise. Why, it appears both Ish and I interest ourselves in the complexities of culture and language rather than the futile search for a simplified rules set. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/7 "2000-12-16T20:17:18Z")
The argument here seems to be this: wide-spread languages make more sense to learn ; no, they don’t. I can see the reasoning behind people _who already speak English_ in not wanting to learn another language that has a similar alphabet and such since English itself is already a very popular language. But I think I must side with the Esperantist(?): a lack of irregularities in grammar and phonetics is clearly an advantage over any “natural” language so long as there are multiple languages and one will need to be learned. One point, Olan, you quote Collun. out of context. When he said “Well, taking on this definition, I believe there are nonetheless a body of serious researchers who would still differ with you” it was in re to your “Indicating anger, fear, pain, and submission by means of a limited range of vocal sounds is not a language.” That is _exactly_ what a language is, is his point. Not the line you quoted. Every language is a series of sounds indicating emotions. That we happen to be able to convey abstract ideas not necessarily related to emotions is icing on the cake, not the core of the language. Now, a consistent language based on a group of languages _already_ in wide use is much more advantageous than any one of those languages alone are. It becomes merely a matter of application to me, not of viability. As well, somewhere above someone implied that English is a romantic language (ie-derived from latin). This is incorrect. English, AFAIK, is germanic. Many largish dictionaries have trees or tables showing language derivation and english is on the far side of latin. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/8 "2000-12-16T20:23:58Z")
Indeed, even _if_ Esperanto use was to become very widespread, the nature of existence in different spheres will necessarily create dialects and Esperanto “becomes” a natural language, with all the flaws disliked in the ones we aer discussing. Myself, I’ve like Spanish much more than English. I find sentence construction to be more intuitive and it seems to flow phonetically, most likely because it isn’t germanic. However, I hate French. There’s subjectivity for ya. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/9 "2000-12-16T20:26:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > I can see the reasoning behind people _who already speak English_ in not wanting to learn another language that has a similar alphabet and such since English itself is already a very popular language. But I think I must side with the Esperantist(?): a lack of irregularities in grammar and phonetics is clearly an advantage over any “natural” language so long as there are multiple languages and one will need to be learned. I understand the urge. However the goal is chimerical. As I noted, the advantage for Esperanto is relevant to those who already know an indo-european langauge. Otherwise it’s all a whacky new game. And, as noted, anything not encoded in grammar has to show up somewhere else. Idioms and the like. If Esperanto were a going proposition, it’d soon have all kinds of idioms and exceptions. That’s how the game works. > [@](#): > > One point, Olan, you quote Collun. out of context. When he said “Well, taking on this definition, I believe there are nonetheless a body of serious researchers who would still differ with you” it was in re to your “Indicating anger, fear, pain, and submission by means of a limited range of vocal sounds is not a language.” That is _exactly_ what a language is, is his point. Not the line you quoted. Every language is a series of sounds indicating emotions. That we happen to be able to convey abstract ideas not necessarily related to emotions is icing on the cake, not the core of the language. Thanks, that does seem to have been my point. > [@](#): > > As well, somewhere above someone implied that English is a romantic language (ie-derived from latin). This is incorrect. English, AFAIK, is germanic. Many largish dictionaries have trees or tables showing language derivation and english is on the far side of latin. Correct. English made large borrowings from Latin and French, but its underlying grammar is germanic. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/10 "2000-12-16T21:01:52Z")
MY GOD. Not only have I agreed with Spiritus in other posts, now I’m agreeing with Collunsbury. Next thing ya know I’ll be a subjective moderate too! [sub]runs away before he makes any more generalizations and gets called on them[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/11 "2000-12-16T21:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > \*\*MY GOD. Not only have I agreed with Spiritus in other posts, now I’m agreeing with Collunsbury. > > Next thing ya know I’ll be a subjective moderate too! > > [sub]runs away before he makes any more generalizations and gets called on them[/sub] \*\* Well I too broke out into a rash. It could be a passing phenomena you know. (But there is a u in there. Collier Lounsbury. I really have to apologize for that, hundreds of years of inbreeding produce ridiculous names like this. The full version is even worse.) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/12 "2000-12-16T22:38:39Z")
Hej, saluton karaj! Kaj felichan Zamenhofan feston. 1. Indo-European grammar: To the extent that Esperanto has an Indo-European grammar (and due to its very high proportion of agglutination versus inflection, I disagree that it does), it hasn’t proven a barrier to its acceptance by non-IE native speakers. Indeed, some of the most active Esperantist speech communities are found outside IE territory. Hungary, Korea, China, and Japan, all non-IE territories, have some of the most active and populous Esperanto movements in the world, and the Esperanto movement in the Guinea coast of Africa is also strong. The non-IE Esperantist movement thanks you for your concern, but it is getting along just fine, thank you. 2. Whether Esperanto has “worked”: Esperanto is working exactly as it was intended: to provide a neutral and simple language for international communication. People use Esperanto every day to facilitate correspondence, philosophical and political discussion, travel, and even married life. Some people criticize Esperanto for not being spoken by everyone in the world. This is quite strange and is a little like criticizing the New Democrats for not occupying every seat in Parliament. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/13 "2000-12-16T22:52:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > > 1. Indo-European grammar: To the extent that Esperanto has an Indo-European grammar (and due to its very high proportion of agglutination versus inflection, I disagree that it does), Rolls eyes. [quote] Indeed, some of the most active Esperantist speech communities are found outside IE territory. Hungary, Korea, China, and Japan, all non-IE territories, have some of the most active and populous Esperanto movements in the world, [quote] As compared to the number of non-Esperanto learners of English, etc.? Come on now, get a grip. In any case, the issue is not whether its a barrier, its not, but the supposed greater ease, neutralisty etc. Nowhere has the claim been made that Esperanto is harder than extant IE languages. Only that its supposed neutrality and ease is based on a fallacious understanding of language. > [@](#): > > and the Esperanto movement in the Guinea coast of Africa is also strong. Really? Strong? Care to be more precise. Do recall you’re speaking with someone who’s learning Pulaar. > [@](#): > > 1. … a neutral and simple language for international communication. Tell that to a Muslim. Such bloody parochialism here. Don’t you get the bloody point yet? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/14 "2000-12-17T02:11:53Z")
I will read the posts following my last contribution more thoroughly at a later point tonight, but I did want to respond to **Collounsbury** ’s accusation that I set up a straw man. He claims neither he nor **ishmintingas** used the word ‘fake’ in describing Esperanto. I wish to direct his attention to the following quote from **insider** ’s original thread: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ishmintingas_ > **I hang out at the sci.lang newgsgroup a lot, and frankly the real professional linguists there have no use for Esperanto. They are too much engaged with real languages to bother with a fake one.** It is a term that was used in assessing Esperanto and it is a term I will continue to argue against in this thread because **it was used**. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/15 "2000-12-17T04:20:20Z")
I have a few things to reply to in **Collounsbury** ’s latest contributions, but I’m going to try to focus on one point per post in order to keep my thoughts organized. **Collounsbury** insists that the grammar rules for Esperanto are extremely parochial and are valid only for speakers of Indo-European languages. So what I’ve done is looked up the Sixteen Rules of Esperanto, which I found on this [page](http://members.aol.com/chiesper/esc/reguloj.html) on Geocities. > [@](#): > > **The Sixteen Rules of Esperanto** > > 1. There is no indefinite article, and there is only one definite article, **la** , which does not change according to gender or number. > > 2. Nouns (substantives) are formed by adding **-o** to the root. To form the plural, **-j** is added. There are only two cases, nominative and accusative; the accusative is formed adding **-n** to the nominative. Equivalents to other cases are formed by the inclusion of prepositions (e.g. “my brother’s” de mia frato) > > 3. Adjectives are formed by adding **-a** to the root. They agree in case and number with the noun they qualify, forming plural and accusative by the use of **-j** and **-n** respectively. The superlative is formed by the word _plej_, the comparative by [_pli_. “Than” is rendered by _ol_. > > 4. The basic cardinal numerals, are _unu, du, tri, kvar, kvin, ses, sep, ok, naux, dek, cent, mil_ - they do not vary for case. Tens and hundreds are formed by simple junctions of the numerals, e.g. 473 = kvarcent sepdek tri. ordinals are formed by the addition of a, e.g. 5th = kvina. Multiples are formed by the use of the suffixes **-obl-, -on-, and -op-,** respectively. Distributives are expressed with the help of the preposition _po_. Adverbials add e e.g. firstly = _unue_. > > 5. The personal pronouns are _mi, vi, li, sxi, gxi, si, ni, ili, oni_. Possessive pronouns are formed by adding a to these. Declensions are as for nouns. > > 6. Verbs do not vary for person or number. _(Note: they do of course vary for tenses, of which there are only six in Esperanto: present, past, future, conditional, imperative, and infinitive. -O.)_ > > 7. Adverbs are formed by adding **-e** to the root; comparison as for adjectives. > > 8. All prepositions govern the nominative. > > 9. Every word is pronounced as it is spelt. > > 10. The accent is on the syllable before the last in every word. > > 11. Compound words are formed by the simple junction of roots (the chief word coming at the end). Grammatical endings count for this purpose as separate words [i.e. morphemes]. > > 12. There is no multiple negation: if a clause contains another negative word it needs no _ne_. > > 13. To show motion towards, words take the accusative ending. > > 14. Each preposition has a definite fixed meaning; but if the sense does not indicate which should be used, recourse may be had to the preposition _je_, which has no meaning of its own. Alternatively the accusative without a preposition may be used. > > 15. The so-called foreign words, which the majority of languages have taken from one source, undergo no change in the International Language beyond conforming to its orthography. Derivatives, however, are preferably formed from one basic root according to the rules of Esperanto grammar. > > 16. The **-a** of the definite article and the final **-o** of nouns may be dropped and replaced by an apostrophe. (For further explanation, check out the excellent commentary on this [page](http://www.webcom.com/~donh/Esperanto/rules.html) by Don Harlow.) To restate two of the objections in one of your recent posts: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Collounsbury_ > **(1) the simplicity will only hold for those familiar with indoeuropean, what seems simple to you will not seem simple to a native pulaar speaker. Different frame of reference.** > > _#2 not relevant here; it relates to idioms and dialects, which I’ll address in another post._ > > **(3) What is not encoded in grammar will have to be encoded in other methods, forcing the development of complexities in other areas. That’s why linguists reject the idea any language is inherently more complex than others. Some, of course, are rather distant from others and thus present familiarity problem in re learning.** So - given these rules (and these are all the rules Esperanto sets forth), what in them, as far as grammar and not morphology is concerned, is exclusive to Indo-European languages and would present comprehension difficulty for a non-IE speaker? And secondly, what has not been encoded in the grammar of Esperanto that would force the creation of further complexities? As one aside, I’d like to look at your responses to **matt\_mcl** ’s contribution to this thread. (Dankon, ke vi aperis, **matt**! Mi demandis min, kiam mi povus ricevi helpon! :)) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > and the Esperanto movement in the Guinea coast of Africa is also strong. > > **Really? Strong? Care to be more precise. Do recall you’re speaking with someone who’s learning Pulaar.** And this therefore makes you an expert on the state of all languages spoken in Africa? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. … a neutral and simple language for international communication. > > **Tell that to a Muslim. Such bloody parochialism here. Don’t you get the bloody point yet?** “Tell that to a Muslim”. Um… _what_? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/16 "2000-12-17T04:38:57Z")
Now to the point about a lack of dialects and idioms as an objection to Esperanto being a living language. One prominent feature of dialects and idiomatic usage is that they are _extremely regional and/or local_. Hell, it’s immediately obvious to anyone from the United States who’s traveled, say, from Boston to Atlanta. The rise of dialects and idioms comes from the use of the dominant language in a specific cultural setting based partially on geography, partially on the social structures, and also partially on other local languages with which the speakers come in contact. In other words, dialects and idioms are culturally based. The whole concept of Esperanto is that it is _not_ culturally based. It is designed to be an international, thus universal, language, and intends to facilitate contact between people _outside_ of their immediate cultural surroundings. This is not to say that idioms, or even dialects, could not be present in Esperanto, but that the fundamental precept of the language actively works against their development in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Doobieous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Doobieous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doobieous)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/17 "2000-12-17T08:14:29Z")
This type of thread is why the Conlang list at brown split into two lists, Conlang proper and Auxlang. As far as I can tell the Auxlang list is usually filled with these kinds of arguments for and against Esperanto. Auxlangs dont interest me like artlangs do (Languages constructed for the edification of their creators). Which is why i have little interest in the politics of auxlangs. I do appreciate them for their grammatical interest, but i dont care to use them for international interest (and from the folks on Auxlang it seems like many would be very happy to see every other Auxlang fail). Personally i’m more interested in learning a natlang (i use this term because it’s short and sweet). However, that doesnt mean Esperanto is not worthy of study. My conlangs are all for my edification. They both have cultures behind them and are intended to be used by no one really. My most recent one is a Romance Language, the first is in the style of a Philippine language. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/18 "2000-12-17T08:53:36Z")
Okay, I don’t want to argue this. I’ve been around this little posy before. So, just a clarification: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > > **Collounsbury** insists that the grammar rules for Esperanto are extremely parochial and are valid only for speakers of Indo-European languages. No, you have badly misunderstood me. Willfully even. I said that Esperanto is rooted in indo-european grammar. Valid is a value judgement, I’m not into value judgements about grammar. I said that only parochialism leads one to expect that Esperanto is simpler universally insofar as for non-IE rooted languages, the grammatical concepts, all things being equal, will be equally distant. Ergo, not really substantively easier for non-IE speakers (not already familiar with an IE language) to learn. You could have saved the quote. > [@](#): > > To restate two of the objections in one of your recent posts: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Collounsbury_ > > **(1) the simplicity will only hold for those familiar with indoeuropean, what seems simple to you will not seem simple to a native pulaar speaker. Different frame of reference.** > > > > _#2 not relevant here; it relates to idioms and dialects, which I’ll address in another post._ > > I have no idea what you’re talking about. > > > [@](#): > > > > **(3) What is not encoded in grammar will have to be encoded in other methods, forcing the development of complexities in other areas. That’s why linguists reject the idea any language is inherently more complex than others. Some, of course, are rather distant from others and thus present familiarity problem in re learning.** > > So - given these rules (and these are all the rules Esperanto sets forth), what in them, as far as grammar and not morphology is concerned, is exclusive to Indo-European languages and would present comprehension difficulty for a non-IE speaker? I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to give you lessons in comparative linguistics --nor do I have the talent to be frank. I suggest learning some non-IE languages to see the challenges and differences. > [@](#): > > And secondly, what has not been encoded in the grammar of Esperanto that would force the creation of further complexities? Moods, tense which other langauges encode in their grammar? It’s really a matter of shifting things around. Neither good nor bad, just different. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > and the Esperanto movement in the Guinea coast of Africa is also strong. > > > > **Really? Strong? Care to be more precise. Do recall you’re speaking with someone who’s learning Pulaar.** > > And this therefore makes you an expert on the state of all languages spoken in Africa? No, but I am familiar with the region. And given the reference to Guinea Coast is vague and archaic, I do not have high confidence it’s based on anything more than Esperantist scuttle butt. That and the fact that generally speaking, because of economic crises, European (colonial) language teaching is receding. So, I think he’s repeating a bullshit claim. But this really is something of a side issue. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > 1. … a neutral and simple language for international communication. > > > > **Tell that to a Muslim. Such bloody parochialism here. Don’t you get the bloody point yet?** > > “Tell that to a Muslim”. Um… _what_? You might not be aware that most Muslims (at least in the regions I’ve worked in) regard the Roman alphabet itself as non-neutral, i.e. foreign to their culture and relgion, its presence an artefact of colonial rule. They live with it, but its not neutral to them. Further, the idea of a language other than Arabic as an international medium is non-neutral, since from a religious point of view, Arabic should be the medium of exchange. Of course this is not something related to Esperanto but rather the presence of European languages generally. I personally don’t think much of this, but this is just to show that you are making a priori assumptions of neutrality which are not going to stand up. So, there you have it. I’m going to do my best to retire from this argument. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/19 "2000-12-18T05:38:58Z")
So, in short, the answer to the OP is that some folks just can’t deal with the idealism applied to a language, albeit a constructed or “artificial” language. Games are constructed (a good example is Chess) and they can have both professional and amateur practitioners. Math is pretty well constructed, although rooted in reality. What’s wrong with someone trying to do something with a language of his own creation? I don’t think anyone really considered Esperanto to be a magic cure-all; rather, a step in the right direction. The argument about how non-PC it is based on IE origin is specious, at best. As I’ve said before, I’ve encountered Esperantists in every port-of-call I visited whilst in the Navy. This included Hong Kong, China, Japan, and Thailand. None of those is IE, yet they all have some locals who speak Esperanto. So far Esperanto has outlived some of its detractors and still has a goodly following. I daresay it will outlive its current detractors also. Gxis revido. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899/20 "2000-12-18T08:28:43Z")
Sigh, I’m going to clarify myself one more time > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > The argument about how non-PC it is based on IE origin is specious, at best. That was not the argument, rather the argument was (1) Esperanto’s simplicity is relative to those who already know an Indo-European language. For others this will not necessarily be the case. (2) The cultural neutrality proclaimed is not going to be so perceived by large numbers of others. I noted I did not necessarily agree with this, but its a fact. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constructed-vs-natural-languages/45899.md?page=2)