It’s still the official language of the Catholic Church. It’s reduced in prestige since Vatican II, but all official documentation is still produced in Latin, and then translated.
Am I late? I want to raise my hand and say that I speak and read Esperanto.
I can’t really speak to the question of whether Esperanto has a culture, because I think we need a clear definition of what a culture is. Esperanto has a shared history, a set of shared ideals, symbols, literature, music, and so forth. But it was never meant to replace anyone’s national culture, but to be a tool to help people from different language groups communicate. I’m not sure of how the question is relevant to the topic of this thread, which is about universal language.
This summer, I’m planning to go to Italy for the annual international Esperanto congress. I can’t tell you what it’ll be like, because it’s my first one, but from what I’ve heard, there’ll be several thousand people there, and I’ll spend a week communicating entirely in Esperanto with people who come from lots of different language groups. I’ll buy books, go to concerts, and hang around drinking wine with people who I would otherwise not be able to talk with. Maybe, like some people do, I’ll fall wildly in love with someone who doesn’t speak English, and we’ll get married and make a little denaskulo, who picks up Esperanto as a first language because it’s the language we speak at home with each other. But probably not.
I had a chance to talk briefly with a denaskulo once, and he didn’t seem impaired or bitter about the experience. He wasn’t all that into Esperanto, either. It was just the thing that had made his parents get together, and he spoke it as well as English, but didn’t spend a lot of time as part of the movement as an adult.
It always amazes me how many people are really hostile when they find out that I speak Esperanto. It’s a completely different reaction than I get when I reveal my fondness for comic books, or my membership in the SCA. I’m not sure why.
You don’t hear much about us, because, for the media, we don’t do anything particularly photogenic. But there are a few of us just about everywhere, a network of people who are just trying to make the world a slightly better place through communication.
I don’t really object to having it called a hobby. But it isn’t a hobby like stamp collecting to amuse oneself. It’s a hobby like Amnesty International letter-writing or peace activism, amusing oneself while carrying on a tradition and in the hope that one’s hobby will make a small difference.
Honestly, I see it as a hobby somewhere between going to Star Trek conventions and writing letters to Amnesty. It’s like Amnesty in terms of the goals of the adherents–to make a better world, for example. It’s like Star Trek in terms of its effects–being a lot of fun for the practitioners, for example.
I know that a lot of Esperanto folks believe that it leads to a better world. I don’t see that it does so, any more than soccer leads to a better world.
It’s cool that you’re going to this conference, and I wish you well on the romantic possibilities! It does seem to me, though, that if there were conferences on Norwegian, or on any other language, your chances of meeting someone and raising a kid speaking that particular language would be much better, and the kid would be better served by having a first language with a rich community and culture.
I suspect you may sometimes find hostility toward Esperanto precisely because of the sometimes self-aggrandizing claims of its adherents: when Esperantophiles talk about the language’s chances of leadng to a better world, folks may hear implicit in that a note that if they’re not speaking Esperanto, they’re not helping to create the better world. When a person hears that, especially when they consider the claim to be absurd, it can lead to hostility.
Me, I think it’s kind of a weird hobby. But then, next to my computer is a 450-page book telling me how to roll dice in order to pretend to be a secret agent, so I try not to criticize weird hobbies :).
Daniel
Hmmm.
Turns out Esperanto’s only MOSTLY dead.
Of course, the vast majority of those documents are originally written in the native language of the author and then translated to Latin for the “official” version. (This has actually caused periodic problems when something written in some language gets translated to Latin and the translation back to the original language did not happen to say the same thing as the original author intended, but it has not caused too many international incidents and no schism (to date).)
Saluton, FisherQueen! 
Me too! (Well, except for the wine part–I drink very little alcohol.)
I’m going to the conference in Florence and all, if everything works out. And I confess to daydreaming about meeting some beautiful women there as well… I’ve met several couples who met that way, so I know it can work. Just a matter of finding the right person.
Yes, there are different types of involvement with Esperanto beyond the initial hobbyist/exploration phase that ESL (Esperanto as a Second language) learners do.
There are the ‘movado’ (movement) types, who are interested in Zamenhof’s original goals (auxiliary world language fostering intercommunication and removing one barrier to peace, etc); there are the ‘Raumists’ (named after the Finnish town where they published their manifesto), who take the Esperanto-speaking world as a self-sufficient community and are interested in deepening and extending its culture on its own terms; and, as you said, there are the ‘denaskuloj’, the from-birth speakers, who just grow up with it as something their parents do. I don’t really know any denaskuloj, but of the couple I’ve heard of, two weren’t necessarily that interested in the movement either. I guess to them, it was one of those parent things.
Me, I think I fall more on the Raumist side, although I certainly don’t object to the goals of the movado.
There’s been some speculation as to why.
:: nods ::
That’s actually a pretty interesting read. Specifically, Chapter 23, on resistance to Esperanto.
Sunspace, you and FisherQueen and the other Esperanto speakers in this thread don’t come across as cultish, but this author definitely does. The zeal with which he writes about Esperanto as the solution to a major world problem is really pretty creepy to me, in the same way that ECK folks or Scientology folks creep me out. He builds his case with a combination of irrelevant anecdotes and unproved assertions, addressing straw-man arguments instead of the strongest arguments that might be put against his case. Especially the last paragraph could be lifted almost directly from a Scientology sales pitch:
This pretty well exemplifies the strain of Esperanto that I think inspires such disdain among the hoi-polloi. If you’re looking for the reason for hostility toward Esperanto, look no further than the Esperanto advocates who claim that the reason for not supporting Esperanto is a neurosis, an unwillingness to confront a fear.
Daniel
E’s not pinin’! 'E’s passed on! This language is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E’s expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E’s off the twig! 'E’s kicked the bucket, 'e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-LANGUAGE! 
Incidentally, I don’t support it because I think its phonotactics are hideously ugly, its phoneme inventory seems both overlarge and oddly-chosen, its derivational system is ill-thought at best, and most of all because of the bizarre sexism of the -ino suffix (patro, “father” and patrino, “mother”).
But Esperantists are okay. A bit silly, if they actually think an auxiliary language is going to somehow change the world. But they’re okay folks.
Incidentally, what is the argument for auxiliary languages? Why would they solve any problems?
Don’t forget case marking for nominative and accusative only (why?) and inherent transitivity of verbs (double why?).
If you’re going to have four suffixed inflections for nouns, then make everything a suffixed inflection (my preference), or abandon inflections and mark everything with pre- or postpositions. What I’d like to see is instead of “de la hundojn” do something like “hundojnlade”. But if you’re going to go that route, just use Lojban and make everybody’s lives easier.
And for transitivity, abandon making it an inherent feature of the verb, and just use ig and igx to mark whether a verb is transitive or intransitive. And make them optional – there’s not many instances where not marking a verb for transitivity is going to be confusing.
And I’m going to start referring to all you Esperanto speakers as “Sunspaceo”, “Fisherqueeno”, etc.
The former is a bad choice in the design of the language, but it’s not one of my special hatreds for Esperanto. I personally only really dislike it because I don’t like how it sounds, and even less how it looks on the page. (Plus it’s enough like a Romance language that noun-adjective combinations always feel to me like failures of gender agreement.) What’s that about inherent transitivity of verbs? I don’t know enough about Esperanto to know what you’re talking about - why would verbs be inherently transitive? I can’t even really imagine how that could work.
Another (minor) bitch is that I can’t read Esperanto. I speak several languages, including some Romance languages - shouldn’t Esperanto be naturally readable without learning any rules? I can never remember what <g> and <gh> sound like - is <gh> /g/ like in Italian? Does that mean <g> is /dZ/?
Ooh! Question for the Esperantists: how do names work in Esperanto? Are there specific “Esperanto names”? Do they all end in -o?
From what I understand, every Esperanto verb is inherently either transitive or intransitive. Thus, the verbs in the sentences “I eat” and “I eat a sandwich” are different. BUT, one can make a transitive verb intransitive by adding an infix, or make an intransitive verb transitive by adding a different infix. If my understanding of this is correct (and I believe it is), it’s is quite possibly the most retarded feature ever intentionally added to a wannabe international auxiliary language.
Forgot to mention, this is my primary hatred of it as well. I was simply adding some secondary hatreds of my own.
Esperanto to me looks like what one would end up with if the Malkavian word eater chewed up Italian and Czech seasoned with a bit of Frisian and then got constipated and shat out a bunch of little rabbit turds in the corner that then dried out and got all dusty and crumbly.
In fact, even Volapük, flawed though it is, is better in this regard than Esperanto. With Volapük, I can at least pretend I’m looking at some weird-ass Altaic language.
It varies pretty widely, from what I’ve seen. In Esperanto, all nouns end in -o. But lots of people use their name as it was given in their own language, with no changes, and others use an Esperantized version of their given names, like Johano for John.
This is one of the three things that annoy me most about Esperanto as well.
There has been proposed a parallel -iĉ- suffix to indicate the male, but it isn’t very common. Root forms like patr would then be considered neuter rather than male. Patro = parent, patriĉo = father, patrino = mother.
You can use a prefix vir-: virbovo = bull, bovino = cow, bovo = …uh, ‘cattlebeast’, as one of Cecil’s classic columns had it, but the vir- seems to be used mostly for animals. I’m not sure what would happen if I referred to someone as a virpatro.
If people start using this, eventually it will be considered normal, in the same way that any other language evolves.
The ‘movado’ Esperantists’ argument is not that Esperanto solves peoblems by itself, but that it removes one of the barriers to solving problems. I have seen similar claims for other auxiliary languages.
This seems reasonable to me: if, for example, you are fighting a war, it helps to be able to communicate with your enemy, even if only to deliver an ultimatum or accept surrender.
BTW, Excalibre, what do you mean by phonotactics?
This is also one of the three things that most bug me about Esperanto. Janton (linked earlier) mentions this, and mentions that people tend to use an *-ig- (“to cause to”, which makes the verb transitive) or -iĝ- (‘to become’, which makes the verb intransitive) suffix to clarify things. I know I’ve gotten confused at times.
This is one area where English can do it better: I move. I move the box. Verbs are intransitive unless there is an object present, in which case they’re transitive.
I predict that this clarifying usage of -ig- and -iĝ- will become more common until Esperanto verbs are of indefinite transitivity. Then the optional object rule appear.
There are a number of cases where it can establish a distinction between otherwise-identical phrases.
No. It was never intended to be that, as far as I know. The choice of Romance roots for so much of its vocabulary makes it easier to learn for anyone who uses a language that uses these Romance roots, though… and with Romance-derived words like ‘television’ going as far afield as Japanese (terebi), that still seems to me to be a fairly decent pragmatic decision, given the times that Zamenhof lived in.
While the greater part of word roots are Romance in origin, how they go together with all the prefixes and suffixes are not. There are many useful little words that are made mostly of or even only of suffixes and prefixes: elirejo exit (el/ir/ej/o; el = from, ir = go, ej = place, o = noun marker)–everything but ir is a prefix or suffix; or aliĝi = to join (i.e., become a member of) something (al/iĝ/i: (al = to, iĝ = to become, i = verb infinitive marker–everything is a prefix or suffix).
Esperanto Ĝ and ĝ are like J in English ‘John’. Esperanto G and g are always like g in English ‘gate’.
As *Fisherqueen said.
I’m familiar with the basic idea that an international auxiliary language will solve problems; I guess I’ve just never seen a really thorough argument explaining exactly what problems we have as a result of our current linguistic situation. Certainly, some things would be easier - the EU has to have an amazing array of translaters to handle all its official languages, for instance - but I don’t know that it would create social change to make things like that more streamlined.
Phonotactics refers to the rules about how sounds combine to form syllables, more or less. For example, English doesn’t permit /vl/ as a syllable onset, so any native English speaker can tell that Vlasic Pickles are named after some sorta foreigner.
I’ve seen arguments that Esperanto doesn’t really seem to have well-established phonotactic rules - that basically, Zamenhof created words willy-nilly, without even coming up with basic phonotactic rules, and basically suiting his own preferences. I don’t know if that’s true, but given his Slavic background, it would explain the rather baroque consonant clusters that Esperanto permits. I don’t know if it’s true that Zamenhof didn’t consider phonotactics at all, but I certainly don’t like the sound of many of Esperanto’s consonant clusters.
Of course, that has lead to certain reform initiatives, since many of those consonant clusters are extremely difficult for people of certain linguistic backgrounds to pronounce. There probably aren’t many native speakers of Chinese that don’t have a great deal of trouble pronouncing Esperanto words.
There’s no question that you can cook up examples of situations in which case endings resolve ambiguities. That doesn’t mean they’re necessary in a language - obviously not, as we’re speaking a language with only traces of a case system right now, and many other languages simply have no case system at all. Obligatory word ordering makes considerably more sense, from the perspective of making the language transparent, as the basic concept of case can be quite difficult for speakers of languages without it to learn. You might argue that there’s some amazing expressive capacity present in being able to rearrange words slightly more freely, but I wonder whether, in practice, Esperanto speakers use that theoretical capacity. At any rate, that’s hardly necessary in a language, as us English-speakers don’t suffer any diminished expressiveness for that lack (since there’s always other linguistic tools for the same purposes - passives, and so forth.)
That’s a major fuck-up if he didn’t even intend that. I don’t mean that I should be able to instantly comprehend a sentence in Esperanto (though if he had chosen bases of words more carefully, a polyglot like myself might have been able to do so.)
The problem I’m getting at is that the orthography is oddly complicated, and not at all transparent. I have no idea how to pronounce many Esperanto words. A well-designed auxiliary language would be set up so that those who don’t speak it could at least do reasonably at reading a text aloud and pronouncing it approximately right; it’s hard to imagine how Esperanto could be worse in that respect. The ridiculous choice to use diacritics - and bizarre ones at that (circumflexes on consonants? Didn’t he think about people trying to use typewriters?!) worsens the situation.
No argument, but the roots he chooses are ironically often ones that haven’t established themselves in international vocabulary. Suno instead of, say, solo for the sun. Why use the English word when more people would recognize the Romance root?
And while we have to cut Zamenhof some slack given that linguistics was far more primitive then, he ought to have availed himself of what knowledge there was, but it always seems strikingly clear from his weird-ass writing system that he didn’t. That’s one irritation - I could cook up a better orthography in my sleep.