3 ms·

This is also one of the largest issues with EU politics and elections right now – there’s few EU-wide media, as result, there’s little EU-wide debates, and no r

This is also one of the largest issues with EU politics and elections right now – there’s few EU-wide media, as result, there’s little EU-wide debates, and no real community.

philwelch 8y ago
Is it even possible to have all of that without a shared language?
- kuschku 8y ago
  That’s the other major part of a community, and a major problem, yes.
- adrianN 8y ago
  If only the French hadn't opposed the use of Esperanto as the common language...
  - fwn 8y ago
    It would be great to have a common language in the EU that close to nobody ever heard of. Fun aside, language is not only shaped by culture, but also shapes culture. It couldn't get any harder for people to affiliate with the EU if the EU institutions would embrace a foreign, sterile and planned language. In fact I think it would only strengthen the resentment against the EU.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Introducing a foreign language as lingua franca worked pretty well for India and I'm reasonably sure that there was a lot more resentment for the British in India than for the EU in Europe. I don't think the Indian democracy would be possible without English. Esperanto is easy enough to learn that most people could by now speak it as a second language if it had been introduced in schools back when it had the possibility to become the language of politics (that's a hundred years ago now!).
      - fwn 8y ago
        I did not want to say that speaking a second language to communicate with everyone is a bad thing. In my opinion, having one or a few well established communication languages works pretty well right now, although adoption could of course improve. My comment was mostly targeted at the concept of Esperanto. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a culture-free designer language made to ailinate people from the literature and thoughts of the past. Based on that I have difficulties to see it in a more favourable light.
        adrianN 8y ago
        I think you have the wrong impression of the language. Esperanto was made to encourage the sharing of culture, knowledge and ideas over language barriers, not to alienate people from anything. Maybe check out the introduction of the book that introduced Esperanto: http://www.genekeyes.com/Dr_Esperanto.html http://www.genekeyes.com/Dr_Esperanto.html
        fwn 8y ago
        I have to admit that it has been a while since I have read about it, but reading the introduction right now, it sounds pretty consistent with what I remembered. It states it is neutral, which it obviously can not be. Just because a language doesn't impose current biases (which Esperanto does) that does not mean that it will not impose its very own, new biases. From there it gets highly problematic: The thought that languages shouldn't get translated into each other but should get cleared and isolated by translating them only to and from Esperanto is something you would expect George Orwell to come up with. With this I don't want to say that the current, grown concept (mostly English, Mandarin, Hindu, Spanish, Arabic, etc.) isn't without its flaws, just that Esperanto has those flaws as well, plus its (new) design issues and the dystopian political agenda of its enthusiasts. (Like the culture filter I mentioned from the introduction.) Would you personally see something positive in the adoption of Esperanto compared to the current model? I'm curious.
        adrianN 8y ago

This is also one of the largest issues with EU politics and elections right now – there’s few EU-wide media, as result, there’s little EU-wide debates, and no real community.

philwelch 8y ago

Is it even possible to have all of that without a shared language?

kuschku 8y ago
That’s the other major part of a community, and a major problem, yes.
adrianN 8y ago
If only the French hadn't opposed the use of Esperanto as the common language...
- fwn 8y ago
  It would be great to have a common language in the EU that close to nobody ever heard of. Fun aside, language is not only shaped by culture, but also shapes culture. It couldn't get any harder for people to affiliate with the EU if the EU institutions would embrace a foreign, sterile and planned language. In fact I think it would only strengthen the resentment against the EU.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Introducing a foreign language as lingua franca worked pretty well for India and I'm reasonably sure that there was a lot more resentment for the British in India than for the EU in Europe. I don't think the Indian democracy would be possible without English. Esperanto is easy enough to learn that most people could by now speak it as a second language if it had been introduced in schools back when it had the possibility to become the language of politics (that's a hundred years ago now!).
    - fwn 8y ago
      I did not want to say that speaking a second language to communicate with everyone is a bad thing. In my opinion, having one or a few well established communication languages works pretty well right now, although adoption could of course improve. My comment was mostly targeted at the concept of Esperanto. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a culture-free designer language made to ailinate people from the literature and thoughts of the past. Based on that I have difficulties to see it in a more favourable light.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        I think you have the wrong impression of the language. Esperanto was made to encourage the sharing of culture, knowledge and ideas over language barriers, not to alienate people from anything. Maybe check out the introduction of the book that introduced Esperanto: http://www.genekeyes.com/Dr_Esperanto.html http://www.genekeyes.com/Dr_Esperanto.html
        fwn 8y ago
        I have to admit that it has been a while since I have read about it, but reading the introduction right now, it sounds pretty consistent with what I remembered. It states it is neutral, which it obviously can not be. Just because a language doesn't impose current biases (which Esperanto does) that does not mean that it will not impose its very own, new biases. From there it gets highly problematic: The thought that languages shouldn't get translated into each other but should get cleared and isolated by translating them only to and from Esperanto is something you would expect George Orwell to come up with. With this I don't want to say that the current, grown concept (mostly English, Mandarin, Hindu, Spanish, Arabic, etc.) isn't without its flaws, just that Esperanto has those flaws as well, plus its (new) design issues and the dystopian political agenda of its enthusiasts. (Like the culture filter I mentioned from the introduction.) Would you personally see something positive in the adoption of Esperanto compared to the current model? I'm curious.
        adrianN 8y ago