5 ms·

> A universal shared language for international communication? That is a very good idea. But in order to be successful such a language needs to be spoken by a

by hannob 8y ago

> A universal shared language for international communication? That is a very good idea. But in order to be successful such a language needs to be spoken by a large share of people internationally. The best language we have for this is English. It's not perfect, because in large parts of the world, particularly in Asia, many people don't speak it. But it's far better suited than Esperanto in almost every imaginable way.

the_duke 8y ago
Before WW1, Esperanto was actually becoming popular and was taught in schools in parts of Europe. The nationalistic policies around WW1 and after put a stop to it. I think it's a tremendous shame... it would be so nice to communicate with everyone in a simple language. Note that such a language would not actually need to be actively spoken in normal live much. It just needs to be simple enough to be learn in a short amount of time and to have international backing so it is taught in schools.
- drugme 8y ago
  Note that such a language would not actually need to be actively spoken in normal life much. Almost by definition - if a language isn't "spoken much" - it isn't really language. But rather a collection of rules and definitions.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Latin isn't spoken much and we still call it a language: a dead language. Esperanto is still spoken, it's just a particularly uncommon (but not even the smallest) language.
    - drugme 8y ago
      OK, I'll correct myself: "If a language is (or never has been) spoken much..."
      - em-bee 8y ago
        http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/m.html http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/m.html gives a better definition of a dead language: one that does not naturally evolve because it does not have any native speakers, but only second language speakers.
- 4thaccount 8y ago
  Also, many Esperanto speakers were killed in WWII as Hitler hated it because the inventor was Jewish and for nationalist reasons and Stalin because he thought they would be spies. I recall Zamenhoff's children died in concentration camps. Truly horrifying.
em-bee 8y ago
i can think of a few aspects that make esperanto more suitable: it is easier to learn, even for non-europeans. it is nationally (edit: i used the wrong term 'politically' before) and culturally neutral. english wasn't always the most used language for international communication. until a century ago, that was french. english replaced french because of the success of british colonialism. there is no reason why some day esperanto could not take its place.
- spaced-out 8y ago
  Esperanto is definitely not culturally neutral. How many words come from European languages vs non European languages?
  - em-bee 8y ago
    with culture i don't mean the words in the language but the culture of the speakers. english is dominated by speakers with western (american,british,australian) culture. by comparison, the speakers of latin are all dead. so, while latin has a rich historic culture, it is not dominated by any living culture. likewise, esperanto is not dominated by any living culture because its speakers come from all over the world.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  Esperanto is not really politically neutral. Like other such projects for world peace and understanding, its proponents tend to be overwhelmingly on the left, even if disputes might occasionally arise within it between leftist factions. I spent some years in the Esperanto movement and attended a large number of Esperanto congresses and meetups, and I worked with the main organization representing Esperanto (UEA). In this community, advocacy for world federalism or closer EU integration was heard extremely frequently and such ideas were a common theme for conventions. On one hand, I thought that was cool, because I myself was sympathetic to such causes, but at the same time it was obvious that there was a strong enmity towards any ideas associated with the right and that this "neutral" movement was not as open to just any man off the street around the world as it wanted to seem.

by hannob 8y ago

the_duke 8y ago

Before WW1, Esperanto was actually becoming popular and was taught in schools in parts of Europe. The nationalistic policies around WW1 and after put a stop to it. I think it's a tremendous shame... it would be so nice to communicate with everyone in a simple language. Note that such a language would not actually need to be actively spoken in normal live much. It just needs to be simple enough to be learn in a short amount of time and to have international backing so it is taught in schools.

drugme 8y ago
Note that such a language would not actually need to be actively spoken in normal life much. Almost by definition - if a language isn't "spoken much" - it isn't really language. But rather a collection of rules and definitions.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Latin isn't spoken much and we still call it a language: a dead language. Esperanto is still spoken, it's just a particularly uncommon (but not even the smallest) language.
  - drugme 8y ago
    OK, I'll correct myself: "If a language is (or never has been) spoken much..."
    - em-bee 8y ago
      http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/m.html http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/m.html gives a better definition of a dead language: one that does not naturally evolve because it does not have any native speakers, but only second language speakers.
4thaccount 8y ago
Also, many Esperanto speakers were killed in WWII as Hitler hated it because the inventor was Jewish and for nationalist reasons and Stalin because he thought they would be spies. I recall Zamenhoff's children died in concentration camps. Truly horrifying.

em-bee 8y ago

i can think of a few aspects that make esperanto more suitable: it is easier to learn, even for non-europeans. it is nationally (edit: i used the wrong term 'politically' before) and culturally neutral. english wasn't always the most used language for international communication. until a century ago, that was french. english replaced french because of the success of british colonialism. there is no reason why some day esperanto could not take its place.

spaced-out 8y ago
Esperanto is definitely not culturally neutral. How many words come from European languages vs non European languages?
- em-bee 8y ago
  with culture i don't mean the words in the language but the culture of the speakers. english is dominated by speakers with western (american,british,australian) culture. by comparison, the speakers of latin are all dead. so, while latin has a rich historic culture, it is not dominated by any living culture. likewise, esperanto is not dominated by any living culture because its speakers come from all over the world.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Esperanto is not really politically neutral. Like other such projects for world peace and understanding, its proponents tend to be overwhelmingly on the left, even if disputes might occasionally arise within it between leftist factions. I spent some years in the Esperanto movement and attended a large number of Esperanto congresses and meetups, and I worked with the main organization representing Esperanto (UEA). In this community, advocacy for world federalism or closer EU integration was heard extremely frequently and such ideas were a common theme for conventions. On one hand, I thought that was cool, because I myself was sympathetic to such causes, but at the same time it was obvious that there was a strong enmity towards any ideas associated with the right and that this "neutral" movement was not as open to just any man off the street around the world as it wanted to seem.