What ever happened to this universal language? Is it being taught anywhere? Why was it not successful? Is there any chance of an international language?
You’ll find the answers you’re seeking here: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mesperanto.html
There’s still an Esperanto theatre in Warsaw (or at least there was about 7 years ago)
Bonvenon, insider! There are a few Esperantists on the board - me, matt_mcl, and Sunspace are three of them.
There have been a couple of threads on Esperanto, primarily in MPSIMS, of which this and this are pretty good indicators that the Lingvo Universala is still very much alive and well and has resources aplenty.
I seem to recall a lively debate about the functionality and usefulness of Esperanto, but damned if I can remember the title of the thread. Perhaps one of the other samideanoj can find it and post a link here.
Shayna, good to see you again. Or have you been around all this time and I’ve been too dense to notice?
Esperanto has a much bigger following in Europe, although from what I gather you’re still not likely to bump into a Green Star unless you’re some place like the EU Headquarters. In the USA, Esperanto is pretty much dead and buried.
You really ought to do some research before you make broad, sweeping generalizations like that, Diceman.
According to the Esperanto League for North America website at http://www.esperanto-usa.org this year saw the 49th annual ELNA convention, the 31st annual Summer Seminar at SFSU, and the Autumn Esperanto Meeting in Vermont.
Now while it’s true the ELNA certainly could use a lot more help than it’s getting, it’s quite clear that they’re doing very well and that Esperanto in the U.S. is far from dead and buried.
Is Esperanto “it” as far as universal languages are concerned? What about Volapuk or Flexionless Latin?
My impression is that Esperanto had caught on more in East Asia in recent years. What would be the reason for that region in particular to go for Esperanto?
Why not successful:
- artificial
- not universal, its european in basis. given most languages are non-european this hardly is a case for universality.
- living languages already serve the need.
Heavy breathing.
Sua
Some concepts I gleaned from the works of Mario Pei:
Ideally, an international language should have
- A phonetic alphabet, to make the language easy to read and speak.
- No difficult sounds. (A sound-scheme easy to adapt to.)(Compare Russian, German, and English.)
- No intricate noun declensions or verb conjugations. (Comepare Russian and Latin.)
- No strong reliance on idiomatic expression. (Compare English and Chinese.)
- Widespread use.
Granted Esperanto does not have widespread use; but English, so vaunted because of its widespread use, does not have a standard form.
I once read an anecdote about a New Yorker who met a visiting Englishman, who said “I speak six languages–English, French, Spanish, Hebrew, Chinese, and American.”
The New Yorker bridled. “English and American are the same language!” he insisted.
“Not necessarily,” answered the Londoner. “Take, for example, the heavy rain this morning. If you should have met me here during the rain, I might have said, if speaking English, ‘Dreadful rain, eh wot? I daresay we’ll have more of it.’ But to comment in American I would say, 'For the luvva Mike! Some cloudburst, ain’t it? Guess this is the second flood, right?!”
The Moral: Because of divisions in idiom, vocabulary, and even pronunciation, English is not so “widespread” as is claimed.
dougie_monty,
How is idiom kept out of language? It seems to me if the language gets used idoms will develope and they will be regional.
Esperanto may not draw on the features of every human language, but that doesn’t mean it can’t offer itself as a choice for a universal second language.
Every language that has offered itself as a means of communication is artificial, meaning that the rules of grammar and vocabulary have been consciously constructed by an individual or small group. Of course, if you look at it, every human language is artifical because it’s man-made.
Then why have there been so many constructed languages invented to serve the purpose of international communication?
dougie_monty, I personally believe Esperanto scores high on the first 4 criteria. Esperanto will have its idioms develop among groups within the movement, of course, but the past century has seen more development of idioms in English than it has in Esperanto. Criterion 5 is the one that requires a conscious effort on the part of speakers, since no language is going to pick up widespread use merely from the fact of its existence. Hence organizations like the UEA (Universala Esperanto-Asocio) and the ELNA.
ishmintingas - I certainly don’t think there’s any social or political trait that gave East Asians a greater fondness for Esperanto (though I don’t think that’s what you’re implying). Perhaps it’s just a desire to communicate with the wider world, seeing as how very few people in other countries speak Thai, or Korean, or Vietnamese as a second language.
scratch1300 - There are probably still adherents of Volapük and Latina sine flexione out there, but Esperanto was formed as an answer to the former and LSF, AFAIK, never really caught on in a widespread community, like Esperanto has.
Ah, to learn a new alphabet. New hurdle actually. Not particularly obvious advantage for non-roman alphabet users.
Difficult for who? The problem with these objections is they forget the frame of reference. Arabic speakers have no problems with the 'ain for example, but I kill myself trying to get it right.
So you have to encode the same meaning in other forms. That will crop up in intricate expressions. Easier? I doubt it.
See above, and also all languages in natural useage tend to produce idiomatic expressions. Nature of abstract thought.
Sure it does, its just flexible and midly amorphous. Inevitable result of a non-centralized language. I’m not an English partisan, I’ve put a lot of work into learning other languages, but the objections to English as a global vehicular language fail on their face. English is it so long as the anglo countries remain economically dominant. I’m not really happy about that, but… Of course regional vehiculars continue and might replace English if geopolitics/economics change.
Baseless assertion, any widespread language in natural use will produce divergences. Try dealing with Arabic. Oh god try dealing with Arabic. Or Chinese for that matter. English variations are relatively trivial.
Esperanto is purely derived from a sub-set of Western European Indo-European languages. As such, any claim to “univerality” fails on its face. Why opt for the artifical construct when several living languages of the same source provide actual widespread usage? It can of course offer itself, but it does so on the false basis its more neutral. It’s not. It depends on roman characters (non-universal and for non-westerners, non-neutral), it depends on a restricted sub-set of one language family’s characteristics, making it prejudiced in terms of character towards indo-european speakers who will be more familiar with its general structure… Well, I won’t go on.
The distinction is between language which has evolved from natural usage and language consciously created. No one has consciously created German for example, although conscious modifications have certainly been made. A living language carries with it a whole panapoly of idioms and culture, for better or worse.
People like creating things. I like to create things too. Further, quite a number of people labor under false apprehensions about language.
Any language, as I said, in natural usage, develops idioms. It’s a feature of human communication. If Esperanto is not developing new idioms, that simply means its not living (or at best in ill health). The objection to idioms reflects what I note above about false apprehensions about language.
As for the other points, it strikes me that European provincialism is the sole explanation for the idea that Esperanto is somehow easier than other languages. Were it to come to life, it would soon develop the complexities, idioms and challanges of any natural, living language. Fine abstraction, but not really relevant.
Based on some of your personal assertions, Collounsbury, it certainly seems like you’re not averse to learning new languages; in fact you seem rather good at it. Why don’t you actually try studying Esperanto and then coming back at us with your impressions of it instead of dismissing it outright from an abstract position?
The assertion that “English” and “American” are seperate languages is nonsense. It’s just a dialectic difference. Does Dougie_monty consider Geordie a different language because they talk differently than London Standard? If you want to talk about unintelligible dialects, look at Chinese. Mandarin and Cantonese are literally completely different languages. I don’t even think they’re from the same linguistic family. They can use the same written language because the Chinese system is pictographic, not alphabetic. Chinese characters (as well as Japanese, Korean, etc) don’t have any relationship to spoken syllables.
The characters of the Korean alphabet (Hangul) do represent actual sounds. In fact, Hangul is famous for being one of the best, most rational alphabets in the world.
Whoops. My bad. I know that Chinese is non-sound-based, and I’m pretty sure that Japanese is too (since it’s derived from Chinese). I thought that Korean was also Chinese-derived, but I guess not.
Because I’m interested in living languages and speaking with the people, as it were. If I succeed with my next project, halpulaaren, I can speak with folks who never have heard of Esperanto. Much more interesting the an artificial toy created by 19th century Europeans with a false idea of language universality.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diceman *
**
Actually, in addition to the alphabet they share with the chinese, the Japanese employ three other alphabets, all phonetic.
The Hiragana and Katakana alphabets are both “Asian-looking” in my own opinion, and use the exact same set of sounds represented by characters. Ah Eh Ooh Ee Oh, Ka Key Koo Kay, Ko, etc.
The third is the officially-sanctioned Roman alphabet to represent the phonetic. Ironically, it’s not their rules we (Americans) follow when we write Japanese phonetically here.