BTW, I was agreeing with Polycarp, even if I didn’t make myself clear.
After reading scores of such discussions about the fate of Esperanto there is one thing I don’t really understand:
There are a lot of geeky/idealistic activities/causes that are at best useful, and at worst a harmless waste of effort.
Usually there are a minority of more or less passionate advocates, and a huge majority that’s simply not interested.
With Esperanto there is a sizeable third group: of vocal detractors who somehow seem to feel threatened. I don’t really see why. Do they fear that Esperanto is somehow intended to replace their language?
BTW I have got one very imperfect data point about relative polularity to offer: I had written an ISBN check application as an exercise for me in writing Perl programs. The output language could be selected between English, German and Esperanto.
Relative user numbers (actual people who typed in an ISBN, not search engine spiders and not people who just looked at the front page) were, for the period November 1 until today:
English-language output 36 %
German-language output: 62 %
Esperanto-language output: 2 %
Of course these numbers are skewed by the number of other sites on ISBNs in the various languages: there are quite a few other English-language sites about ISBN with online checkers (hence the underrepresentation of English-language users), much less German-language sites and virtually no other Esperanto-language sites. Still…
Who are unified by what? A language! How are the meanings behind the symbols, themes, values, and beliefs transmitted to the adherents (for lack of a better term) of a specific culture? Through language! While I agree with your assertion that a language by itself is not a culture, the ideas of language and culture are inseparable.
For instance, the green star is a prominent symbol of Esperanto. Offhand I can’t think of any other culture which uses that symbol to fundamentally define itself.
Esperanto has a theme - universal communication. Of course, the basic “theme” of any language is communication within a group, regardless of size; the period of fundamental language development occurred during that era of human history when groups weren’t all that big to begin with. Granted, you might mean something more than that when you cite “theme” but you really didn’t elaborate on it.
Values and beliefs? Worldwide brotherhood in one form or another, for starters.
True, other cultures have symbols, themes, values, and beliefs. But culture is impossible to build without the existence of a language. Language is what we use to first sort out the ideas within ourselves, and then to communicate the ideas we’ve sorted out to others around us. Language is indispensable to culture.
The problem, of course, is that language in and of itself contains no restriction on the kinds of ideas it can convey. So in English we can have Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a dream” speech alongside Klan propaganda. We can have “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights” alongside the Patriot Act. In German, we have the stirring “Proletarier alle Länder, vereinigt euch!” alongside “Mein Kampf”. Same for any other ‘natural’ language across the globe. They can express the most sublime visions of a united humanity alongside the most brutal, violent hatred.
Certainly Esperanto has the same capability. It is possible to construct sexist or racist language using the grammatical rules set forth in it. But, unlike other languages, its express point is not to do so. Esperanto was designed to promote universal communication among the different peoples of the world, and therefore the Esperantist movement consciously committed itself not to communicate hatred and distrust between people who otherwise didn’t speak a common language. In that respect, I’d argue Esperanto has more culture than other languages; it has a purpose to it beyond simple communication.
To what culture does a non-English speaking Latin American immigrant in the US belong? Does he belong to the culture of the US, since he “lives in” it, or does he belong to the culture of the country he came from, since he is still quite steeped in its language, literature, and traditions?
Monthly publications on any one of a number of interests? Regional, national, and international meetings and conferences on a regular, continuous basis? Social get-togethers for groups of all sizes? Pen-pal services? A hotel discount programme? International headquarters that are open to the Esperantist public? Seems to me I mentioned at least one of those in a previous post. What more evidence do you want?
I certainly don’t deny that there is a constant flow of translated literature into Esperanto. I have quite a handful of it myself. But that’s not all there is to the literary Esperanto tradition. There’s plenty of original literary works being composed as well.
Some, but not all, to be sure. Are the tenets of Islam solely Turkish? Of course not. Hell, the crescent and star on their national flag is an Islamic symbol. To expand on your argument, what would be an example of a purely Turkish theme?
Possibly, though I’d have to hear more examples from you on that in order to fully understand your meaning. However, do you deny the possibility that new symbolism, themes, etc. can be created by further development of ideas translated from another language? That is, is it entirely impossible for say, a German to read a translation of a French literary or philosophical work, and develop new and original symbols, themes, and ideas therefrom? If not, do you therefore admit that it is entirely possible that an Esperanto culture can develop, in fact has been developing, since the day of its creation, by drawing from the other world cultural traditions with which it has come in contact?
Could that be because you are IMAGINING that some people feel threatened by Esperanto? One need not feel threatened by something to laugh at its adherents.
Too thin, Olent, too thin by far.
So esperanto has a green star symbol. So what? So did a local natural gas company. Does this mean the gas company has a culture?
As for your attempts at establishing that there is a “database” of themes, thematic elements, iconography, and symbology…nice try. NOT! 
Where is a uniquely “esperantic” symbol for physical strength? You know, like Sampson. Or Heracules?
Where is a uniquely “esperantic” symbol for beauty? Like Aphrodite?
Describe the way that “esperantic culture” <snicker> deals with love. The way that isn’t derived from the culture of the writer?
Can’t do it?
Not suprised.
The real barrier between the peoples of the world is a complete lack of comprehension of the symbols, themes and architypes that each culture has. Until this comprehension is achieved, a common language will not create a common understanding.
The word is not the same as the symbol, nor the architype, nor in fact as the thing. Confusing words with meaning is the core problem here.
I disagree. People typically don’t exert themselves to criticise things that they feel indifferent about. For example I don’t see the point of planespotting, but I don’t waste time and energy to criticise it, because what would be the point of that?
But there is a vast spread between feeling indifferent about something and feeling threatened by it. Maybe it’s because I am a native English speaker and am, therefore a speaker of this century’s Universal Language. As a member of the group in power I tend to be dismissive of ALL minority languages, especially those which hope to be the next Universal. I don’t feel THREATENED by them. They are just cute little sideshows that exist for my entertainment. (I do this Ugly American thing pretty well, don’t I? 
)
On the other hand, I also know that no language has stayed at the top permanently and that English may be the French of the 25th Century and the Latin of the 30th, but I won’t live that long so I don’t have to think about it.
Tschild, may I assume you are German? Perhaps you, as a speaker of a second-tier language (no insult intended, it’s just that right now it’s English, Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, and everybody else) may (will) have a different perspective. Do you find Germans or other Europeans feel threatened by Esperanto? Is there some annoyance in Germany that this “universal” language is primarily based on non-German languages?
Your rebuttals aren’t all that much more substantial.
Of course not; don’t be ridiculous. But your assertion was, and I quote:
The green star, while not a unique symbol, is part of a distinct pattern of symbols, etc. appropriated by Esperanto. Therefore, Esperanto, in this respect at least, fits the definition of having a culture.
You wanna explain how you got this from what I was talking about?
Neither Samson nor Herakles/Hercules are “unique” symbols to any one culture. Samson is a symbol of strength to both Christianity and Judaism. Herakles is the Greek Hercules, and Hercules is the Roman Herakles.
Same thing for Aphrodite/Venus. Romans borrowed her from the Greeks. Just because a symbol isn’t “unique” to one culture doesn’t mean that culture doesn’t therefore exist.
Where have I asserted that Esperanto culture has developed completely independently and in isolation from all other world cultures? You seem to keep thinking that’s what I’m saying, but a careful reading of the final paragraph in my previous post should easily disabuse you of that notion.
How else to explain the meaning behind the symbols, themes, and archetypes except through the use of language? How else to make communication of those meanings easier except through the use of a language consciously designed to be easy to learn and use? A common language will not in and of itself create common understanding, no. But it is a vital step in that direction. Why disparage a step towards a goal just because it doesn’t attain that goal immediately?
I think this is an arguable point against you. Languages have never, in the history of mankind, been known to stay regular, and secondly, the ease of use, I believe, strongly biases individuals whose natural language is indo-european.
These are the two common criticisms I’ve heard of the universiality of Esperanto.
I’m sorry, the ease of use is strongly biased in favor of those whose etc.
English ain’t really half bad to use as a universal language.
Pretty damned good for a bastard language that never knew whether it was French or German.
Need to do something about the spelling though.
Children worldwide need to be learning a phonetic version of English.—at least secondarily and --better-- would be primarily.
And then we would not need Esperanto or any other artificial language to understand each other.
Same one-trick pony as always, eh Olentzero?
When your argument won’t hold water, you prentend to be dense & overfocus on minute details.
There is no body of symbols and architypes associated with esperanto sufficiently extensive enough for you to assert a separate culture, or even a sub culture.
Esperanto, like other languages, is open to development and change, especially since new terms, concepts, and ideas constantly emerge in society (Esperanto didn’t have words for ‘radio’, ‘television’, and ‘airplane’ when it was invented in 1887) but its basic grammar - the Sixteen Rules - are what male the language easy to learn and use and are, by express agreement, inviolable. Therefore any other changes to Esperanto are essentially cosmetic and do not affect the ease of learning and use.
“I believe”. C’mon, eris, you can try to provide better cites than that. How does Esperanto favor those who speak Indo-European languages? Which IE language has the agglutinative structure used by Esperanto nouns? Or the conveying of tenses both simple and compound through a single suffix?
Back it up with some concrete examples, then, if you please.
I would like to quote from the opening sentence of this essay on the Socratic Method:
So thank you for putting me in such good company, Bosda. Indeed a fine compliment.
So what constitutes a “sufficiently extensive” body of symbols and archetypes, then?
I see. Well, in absence of that, I will simply take it as given, without support, that Esperanto is, in fact, a universal language that is easy to learn.
Good day.
What do you mean “without support”? Experience in learning the language and involvement in the Esperantist movement isn’t sufficient grounds for making assertions about Esperanto? What, to you, would constitute sufficient support for my assertions?
Wal, Uh think thet ets not a guud ideeya.
The problem with phonetic spelling is the accents from different regions.
Indications of the sense of the claims.
- When is a language “easy”?
- All languages have a grammar. Why do all language but Esperanto suffer grammatical changes?
- Languages have various structures; For example: where modifiers lie in relation to that which they modify, where verbs lie in relation to the subject that is acting, and the role (or lack thereof) of gender. How do these rather large varieties impact our answer to (1)?
I do not doubt your ability to speak it, nor your investment in the language. These do not immediate induce understanding in me.
I don’t need cites. I don’t like cites: I trust most dopers can support their claims without them through definition and reason. That’s all I’m really asking.
To me, it appeared you made some offhanded remarks, and so I made some other offhanded remarks. I’m not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination, yet I cannot learn through assertion. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Do with it as you wish.
[aside]
I was listening to the BBC last night–can’t they pronounce ANY words right?
[/aside]
Gee whiz, a star!? And I thought American culture was a bit lacking…
Esperanto is a neat concept, but one that will not get anywhere. You may as well learn Klingon. Heck, I took however many years of Latin, but I don’t expect it to make a comeback anytime soon. English is lingua franca (spekaing of dead languages…) of the business world. Esperanto doesn’t fill any need, and will forever remain the domain of academics and those with lots of time on their hands.
Unfortunately, many people have a woefully bad idea about the current state of modern linguistics. You simply CANNOT create a language by committee. It just doesn’t work that way. As much as people would prefer differently, language is an organic process, not a mechanical one and the only way for esperanto to succeed is to throw it out to the world and let it suffer the wierd conjugations and bizarre grammer that is present in all modern languages.