You’re wrong- some signs have as their roots “pantomime”. Counting- up to five anyway- is what we all do, pretty much. The sign of “bullshit” is pantomime for example. “Dead” makes sense, and several others. Many signs- esp the newer signs- have no such pantomime roots, true. Some signs are even puns (and when they are, they are puns of English words, which is why I claim ASL has English as its root.)
ASL has a grammar, true. It is, however less complex than English.
Here- you are correct. One of the things I found hilarious is when a new “signer” was gesticulating widely and the ASL teacher signed “stop yelling”.
Yes, there are many other sign languages. But- AFAIK- ASL is far and away the most common and is “spoken” by many who do not speak English. There is also “Signing Exact English” btw, which uses some of the same signs, but has an entirely different grammar than ESL- mainly as S.E.E. attempts to use English grammar as it’s grammar- or so I’ve been told. I was told this by ASL translators, who sometimes also were fluent in Signing Exact English- and in general didn’t like it except as a tool for teaching completely deaf kids to learn English Grammar.
Espernato is dead- Francisco Franco is more alive. It was a stupid idea anyway as the inventor started with french/spanish as his “root”. If there was to be a “universal language” a sort of pidgin English would be the best. And, I am going to guess that’s what we end up with, like it or not. With a nod to Serenity- with added Chinese swearwords wouldn’t be suprising.
The fact that some signs have pantomime as their root doesn’t mean they’re not arbitrary, as can easily be seen by the fact that they could be replaced by another, inherently meaningless sign, and as long as that sign was known and used by most ASL speakers, communication would not be impeded.
They’re still arbitrary, though – the “etymology” of the sign for “one” comes from holding up one finger, but you could replace it with tapping the side of the head three times with the ring finger and then rubbing the nose with the thumb and it wouldn’t make any difference, except for taking longer to say. The sign for “one” exists in its current form only because that’s what ASL speakers understand and use; the same is true for any other ASL word.
English has been an influence on ASL, but its ultimate origins come from French sign language, which would imply that French was an even greater influence on it.
Wrong – it’s different from English grammar, but on balance, no less complex. The areas in which its grammar is simpler than in English, it makes up for with other areas that are more complex.
Well, yes- then by your reasoning then English words are 'arbitrary sets of letters"- but they are not- they have roots in older forms of English and older languages. ESL has *as it’s roots * many signs which are pantomime. That’s beause it ISN’T a set of arbitrary signs- it’s a language- and languages have entomology.
Indeed- you COULD replace a single finger for “one” with "tapping the side of the head three times with the ring finger and then rubbing the nose with the thumb " and you could replace the english word for “one” by “asbryt$%*k”- but we haven’t and we aren’t going to because “one” has roots in older languages. Your statement that the signs of ESL are “arbitrary” is tantamount saying that it’s not a “real” language with entomology and history- but it IS, which is why it’s a language. Thus- no you can’t replace the signs with arbitrary other signs any more than you can replace “one” with “asbryt$%*k”. :rolleyes:
ESL may have some French roots, but every “punning” sign I was taught has it’s “pun” only in English. Of course, some signs may well be puns in French, and thus I wasn’t taught that. Of course- the pantomime signs work in French and English- and most other languages too, I’d guess. (The sign for Bullshit is hilarious, BTW- and is clearly pantomime.) Of course- English has some French roots too.
And, my teachers in ASL (I admit I remember very little of it since I have since had little use for it) were Federal Gov’t certified instructors- and they all said that ASL is better as it has a simpler grammar than English- or “Signing Exact English” (which they didn’t care for at all, I’ll admit). Note that I did not say **a ** “simple grammar”- I said “simpler than English”- which it is.
If they said that, they were, well, wrong. Language teachers don’t necessarily have the linguistics background to evaluate claims like that, so it’s not that surprising. It’s not even a meaningful statement - you can’t very well take any two grammars and compare them and decide that one is “simpler” than the other. It’s nonsensical to do so, unless one is a pidgin language that is simple for a specific reason.
No, English doesn’t have any “French roots”. Some English words have their roots in the French language, which is an entirely different thing. Sorry if that sounds too much like a nitpick, but I too often hear things like “English is derived from Latin”, that I just feel compelled to correct.
Well, just the opposite- if they said it- they were right- and you’re wrong- unless you’re going to link us to something that shows that you’re a certified expert on this subject. :dubious:
You know- one of the things that annoys me here on the board is when sometone takes a wierd philosophical bent thats totally different than what common sense & the real world. Like in one thread where one poster insisted over & over that “evolution isn’t a FACT”- when he was cornered he then said “that’s because NOTHING is a fact”. :rolleyes: If your credo is that no two grammars can’t really be compared in the sense that one is simpler than another- then your whole argument is meaningless. :rolleyes: And there is no use wasting hampster-power or my time on you.
There’s a decided difference between asserting “English has its roots in French” and “English is a Germanic language with a number of loan-words from the French language.” The former assertion is simply wrong and the latter is a linguistics and historical fact. Another thing that is simply wrong is to assert that American Sign Language has its roots in English–its linguistic lineage is certainly not as a derivative of English. There’s nothing philosophical about the fact of the matter.
That is exactly what we’re saying, and that is the linguistic view of it (barring special cases such as pidgins). If you disagree, please provide some peer-reviewed research stating the opposite, as in this instance, you are going against the accepted wisdom.
Mine, for one. I speak it fluently. Matt_mcl’s for another. There are other Esperanto-speakers on the boards.
H G Wells in his 1934 future romance The Shape of Things to Come has as a future world language a regularised English, rebuilt from the ground up. I think that’s a pretty good idea–we really should fix the spelling of English, at the least–but I suspect it won’t happen.
Of course, he also has a worldwide unitary technocratic-socialist government arise to implement it, after the robber-barons of capitalism collapse in war, plague, and economic dysfunction, so take that as it is…
Esperanto is not dead… although the dictators of the 20th century did try to murder it, as its founder’s idea of unmonitored cosmopolitan peer-to-peer communications across national boundaries was really inconvenient for those who wanted their populations to take a party line rather than check things out for themselves.
Esperanto survived, and has somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million speakers. It merely doesn’t get a lot of press these days, especially in English-speaking North America. There is a lot of international activity in Esperanto going on under the radar, including international conferences, internet TV, news, and podcasting.
Esperanto started with Romance-based vocabulary. The structure of the language is very different from Romance or Germanic languages.
I would not be surprised by that. Larry Niven implied a Chinese-flavoured tonal English several hundred years from now in his Known Space universe, for instance.
What are you talking about? A philosophical question like “what is good?” has no factual answer-- few would disagree with tha. But a historical question about the roots of a given language does have a factual answer. And while there may be disagreements about some obscure languages, there is nothing “philosophical” about stating the pedigree of most Indo-European languages (which have been studied for centuries) or a language such as ASL, which was developed during historical times.
My hand is up also. I’m nowhere near fluent; however, I can understand a lot of what I hear and read in Esperanto and, with patience on the part of my listener (and I have never encountered impatience in this), I can make myself understood when speaking Esperanto. One of my favorite websites is this Esperanto TV station in Brazil.
There have been attempts to “fix the spelling” of English. I like the Deseret Alphabet.
While I accept the technical wording of the quibble for the difference between “roots” and “root words”, it makes no never mind for this debate, eh?
*My objection to a point of philosophy had nothing to do with “roots” in any case. * This thread is concerned over whether or not ESL has a simple Grammar, and having Excalibre say that one can’t say whether or not one grammer is more complex or simpler than another as “It’s not even a meaningful statement - you can’t very well take any two grammars and compare them and decide that one is “simpler” than the other. It’s nonsensical to do so…” is a strange “philosophical” argument that in the context of this debate is a bit like retreating behind “well, we don’t know that is a fact, as we can’t truely know ANYTHING is a fact”. Certainly one can compare two language’s grammar and argue which is the more complex. This reply also addresses John Mace’s post, above.
This is not really a minor technical point; many people seem to be under the misconception that English is somehow rooted in French at least in part. But actually, in grammar English is pretty strictly Germanic. There’s French-derived vocabulary, to be sure, but most basic words and all grammatical words in English are of German origin.
This isn’t a strictly philosophical argument. The point is that languages are basically equal to one another in expressive power (with the exception of languages that may not yet have borrowed technical vocabulary due to the isolation of their speakers.) While a language could well be described as simpler in certain respects than another, it has to make up for that simplicity in other areas. So while the lack of cases in English makes it simpler in that aspect than, say, Finnish, the use of prepositions and word order in English is more restricted; if there are less rules in one domain of language usage, there are going to be more rules in other domains to make up for it because otherwise the language’s speakers would be unable to speak with the same precision. Such rules would then arise under that situation.
No, one really can’t. It’s not a strange philosophical argument, it’s one of the first things taught in Linguistics 101. If you think it wrong, bring peer-reviewed cites.
Really- we can’t here in GD on the SDMB? Really? :dubious: We can & I just did. I don’t care if “Linquistics 101” now has a PC slant of not saying one language is “better” or “more complex” than another- that’s like the PC philosophers saying that “no culture is better than another” even when faced with cultures which condone slavery, genocide, rape, or racism. :rolleyes: I don’t buy that crap, and even if you do it doesn’t force me to buy into it. I was taught in MY “Linquistics 101” course- before PCism- that (for example) Latin has a very complex grammar, with English quite a bit simpler.
“. But *its grammar is much more complex than Esperanto’s * because it tries to embrace the grammars of all the Romance languages and retains many of their irregularities, so it is harder to write.”
'It’s true, however, that the grammar of Esperanto is an absolute nightmare for most Asians. Many Asian languages have a *much simpler grammatical structure * than Esperanto."
http://www.esperanto.ie/english/zaft/zaft(7).htm
“Yet, compared with the grammar of other foreign languages which are commonly studied in America and Europe, the grammar of English is relatively simple. In fact it was *this relative simplicity of English grammar * which inspired the sixteen-year old Zamenhof to create an even simpler grammar for the language he was planning.”
And, that last cite appears to be a more-or-less “official” Esperanto site.
So- please- send an email to all those experts and tell 'em that in your “PC” world you can’t compare one grammar to another and they have to stop, OK?
is pantomime for example. “Dead” makes sense, and several others. Many signs- esp the newer signs- have no such pantomime roots, true. Some signs are even puns (and when they are, they are puns of English words, which is why I claim ASL has English as its root.)
It was a stupid idea anyway as the inventor started with french/spanish as his “root”. If there was to be a “universal language” a sort of pidgin English would be the best. And, I am going to guess that’s what we end up with, like it or not. With a nod to Serenity- with added Chinese swearwords wouldn’t be suprising.