"The Patrol speech had a grammar capable of handling chronokinesis, variable time, and the associated paradoxes, but when it came to human things was as weak as artificial languages generally are. (An Esperantist who hits his thumb with a hammer will not likely yell, 'Excremento!'") (pp. 482-483)
One of my regrets is that I am not fluent in several languages, including Esperanto. I have not had enough exposure to Esperanto to gain fluency although I did understand when an acquaintance met on Morecambe Promenade said, "Ci tio estas mia amikino. Si ne komprenas Esperanton do mi povas diri kion mi volas!" ("This is my girlfriend. She does not understand Esperanto so I can say what I want!")
An Esperantist who hits his thumb will probably swear in his national language and that will be sufficiently expressive to "samideanoj" of other nationalities. However, I am not sure that Esperanto is weak in human things:
it is not completely artificial but is based in Romance languages (with Greek "kaj" instead of Latin "et" for "and");
it is a living language;
I heard that some people have met and been married in it (this is certainly possible);
the Bible and Shakespeare have been translated into Esperanto;
Esperanto has its own original poetry and prose short stories with humorous or emotional conclusions (I read some in a group);
new words can be coined from word parts in conversation, thus -
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I see no need or use for Esperanto, because English is well on the way to becoming a global language many millions of people consider vastly more useful.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
English is useful for many reasons. Ideally, more people would speak or at least understand several languages, particularly English.
No need or use for Esperanto? No NEED, of course, but it can be useful. It is used. There is no need for a competition as to which language is more useful.
The purpose of Esperanto is not to be a language considered useful by millions. It is to be an easily usable universal second language so that everyone, not just many, would be able to travel anywhere in the world and be understood. They can also learn English for all its uses. No one should learn just one other language.
An international agreement to teach Esperanto, as well as other languages, in every school in the world would soon achieve the aim of Esperanto. Anyone would be able to go on holiday, make educational or business trips or emigrate without a language barrier. Of course this envisages a completely different set of international relationships but we badly need that anyway! Esperanto would help. Passing a foreign visitor on the street, you would be able to greet them with "Saluton" and exchange a few remarks.
The purpose of my post was only to reply to Anderson's suggestion that Esperanto is weak in human things. Surely I have demonstrated that Esperanto is a fully expressive living human language?
Paul.
I think that we have discussed Esperanto before - but supporters of Esperanto get used to replying to the assumption that Esperanto was meant to become what English has become instead of something entirely different.
It's a circular argument. People learn different languages because they're -actually- useful. English is much more useful than Esperanto -- which is why university instruction in Europe is increasingly conducted in English, for example.
Again, English is more useful than Esperanto but Esperanto has a different purpose which could be adopted by international agreement. Everyone would learn their national language at home, then Esperanto and (maybe) one other national language at school (more if linguistically inclined) and everyone who wanted to learn English because of its overwhelming usefulness would certainly learn that. Esperanto is not meant to and should not compete with English in the production of scientific and technical texts etc. But Esperanto is meant for conversation with and between individuals and groups travelling around the world although it also has a spin-off in producing its own original literature. Esperanto would be very useful if adopted and used as intended. There are political issues here: nationalism versus internationalism.
Paul: why duplicate effort? Learning a new language -- even Esperanto -- is hard work. Why learn two, when one would do?
I am not really advocating that a lot of adult speakers of other languages should now set out to learn English because it is useful and also Esperanto for the reason that I have given. Quite obviously that is not going to happen. But Esperanto with its minimal inflexions and phonetic spelling is easier than other languages and would be even easier if everyone was introduced to it at school and also if they were taught it properly not from books but in speech.
For several years in a secondary school in the Republic of Ireland, I was taught Irish, French and Latin so badly that I got nowhere with any of them. Although learning a language is difficult (more difficult for some of us than for others), I would have got somewhere if I had been taught better. I went to France and had to admit that I could hardly speak a word despite six years of education.
Early conversational practice in Esperanto supplemented by visits abroad would provide a sound basis for an international second language while not interfering with anyone also learning English or any other language.
Kaor, Paul!
I continue to see no need/use for Esperanto. Why duplicate effort when English is so much better known, widely used, and useful?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have explained the use. There would be no duplication.
Esperanto has phonetic spelling and the simplest possible grammar:
Mi estis, I was;
Mi estas, I am;
Mi estos, I will be;
Mi estus, I would be.
These same endings for every verb.
"-o" at the end of every noun. "-a" at the end of every adjective.
The grammar can be written on a post card.
The idea is that Esperanto would be taught - and taught in use - in every primary school in every country. Then there would be effortless conversational communicational ability between everyone on Earth.
I am not advocating that students and adults who now, very sensibly, learn English because it is useful should stop doing that and should start to learn Esperanto instead. That would indeed be a pointless exercise but it is not what I am talking about. The fact that English is better known, widely used and useful is completely beside the point. English will continue to have all those advantages but we could ALSO have a universal second language for conversation between everyone at any educational level, including those who do not get as far as learning English.
I do not think that you heed or respond to the precise details of what I say. You continue to assume that I am arguing that those who now use English for multiple purposes should instead switch to using Esperanto for those same multiple purposes. I am not arguing that. But clear communication even in our own national language seems to be very difficult. I am surely by now repeating myself.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, what I have been inferring is that you wish Esperanto was more widely used, more popular. This seems to be a hobbyhorse of yours.
I've only seen Esperanto being used in one SF novel, Robert Hugh Benson's LORD OF THE WORLD, pub. about 120 years ago. No other writer I know of bothers with Esperanto.
Considering how passionately devoted many fans of Tolkien are to his Middle-earth legendarium, I suspect even his invented language, Sindarin, is far more of a living language than Esperanto.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It would be good if more people used Esperanto for international travel and communication. A simple value judgment. Hardly a hobby horse. But the main point of Esperanto is that it be taught in all schools so that all people would be able to communicate while continuing to use every other language, including even Sindarin, for the same purposes as they do now. Something HAS gone wrong with communication if the same point has to be repeated.
Paul.
Post a Comment