6 ms·

Esperanto isn't actually that universal. It's very European, using a Latin alphabet, grammar and syntax from romance languages, etc. Its going to be very easy f

Esperanto isn't actually that universal. It's very European, using a Latin alphabet, grammar and syntax from romance languages, etc. Its going to be very easy for a Spanish or English or German speaker to pick up, for example. Probably a bit less easy for someone speaking a language on the idno side of indo European, like a hindi speaker, and then progressively harder as you get further and further away from the languages' core influences. Im bilingual between languages from two totally unrelated language families (Indo European and dravidian) - and Esperanto is a lot closer to the former than the latter. I dont know if its even possible to make a language universal between disparate language families.

CydeWeys 6y ago
You're not wrong, but if you're designing a universal language I think Latin script is the only feasible option. You're not helping anyone if you invent an entirely new script that everyone has to learn from scratch, and that doesn't even have extant keyboards. Latin script is the only choice that makes sense -- most people worldwide already have at least some familiarity with it, and it has excellent universal hardware and software support. Nothing else even comes close.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  I agree, but for the same reasons shouldn't Esperanto just be English or Spanish? Way more people are familiar with these systems than Esperanto.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Esperanto is much easier to learn.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Not really; maybe for a particularly motivated individual but not on the large scale. You'll have more succeeds teaching English to large numbers of people because more people will be motivated to learn it, because learning English presently had WAY more immediate short-term utility than learning Esperanto.
      - nabla9 6y ago
        Have you tried. I wonder if I'm more qualified to judge or are you. I know three languages, Finnish is my native and I know both Sweden and English. I'm not good at languages and but Esperanto was incredibly easy to learn. The grammar is so simple and logic. Words are created from 900 roots by just adding affixes or making compounds. This makes learning the vocabulary incredibly easy.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        The number of people who succeed is all that matters because that's all that moves you closer to the finish line of 'universal.' It doesn't matter if Esperanto is the most pleasurable language to learn if approximately nobody bothers to learn it because it has no pragmatic use, because nobody uses it. Network effects work in favor of English and against Esperanto. Esperanto simply doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- phlakaton 6y ago
  𐑢𐑦𐑔 ·𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛, 𐑞 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑤𐑴𐑛𐑳𐑒𐑖𐑩𐑯 𐑝 𐑯𐑵 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑𐑦𐑒 𐑕𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑥 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑟𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑕 𐑯𐑴 𐑕𐑦𐑜𐑯𐑦𐑓𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑯𐑩𐑤𐑪𐑡𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑤 𐑐𐑮𐑪𐑚𐑤𐑩𐑥𐑟, 𐑨𐑟 𐑿 𐑒𐑩𐑯 𐑕𐑰. (With Unicode, the introduction of new alphabetic writing systems presents no significant technological problems, as you can see.)
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Now make that as easy to type on computers and phones as Latin script.
    - phlakaton 6y ago
      With enough momentum, it will be. For now, it takes effort to set up a keyboard but it is certainly doable across desktops, tablets, and mobile devices.
- JdeBP 6y ago
  For maximum irony, you should end your post with at least two emojis. (-:
olah_1 6y ago
Let's imagine that there is an auxiliary language that takes 10 words from every language on Earth. Such a language would in fact be profoundly unfair to speakers of minority languages today because it would deny them access to the largest markets of the world. The English speakers would keep their knowledge and access to global markets while the Finnish speakers would gain 10 words of English. Woopty doo. So a language that takes words only from the top 5 languages would be better, yes? Because it teaches minority speakers more words from more important languages. But even still, what does that give you if you learn 500 words from each major language and the grammar is a bizarre mash up of totally different languages? The most "fair" language would be the one that gives the minority language speakers useful and meaningful access to the most influential language family "at a discount". Picking from one family would allow one to distill the grammar and vocabulary, giving the student truly useful and applicable information if they decide to later branch out into natural languages / dialects. In today's world, the most influential language family is by far Indo-European (for better or worse). And it just so happens that this language family is the easiest to synthesize and join back together, although there's nothing stopping others from trying to make a Semitic auxiliary language or a Sino-Tibetan auxiliary language, etc.
akvadrako 6y ago
This is incorrect. First, grammatically Esperanto shares much with Asian languages: http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiat... It's also generally true that a speaker of an Asian language will have an easier time learning Esperanto than another Asian language. The Chinese are one of the biggest state supporters of Esperanto. Radio Beijing has Esperanto programs and you can get a degree in it from some Chinese universities.

CydeWeys 6y ago

You're not wrong, but if you're designing a universal language I think Latin script is the only feasible option. You're not helping anyone if you invent an entirely new script that everyone has to learn from scratch, and that doesn't even have extant keyboards. Latin script is the only choice that makes sense -- most people worldwide already have at least some familiarity with it, and it has excellent universal hardware and software support. Nothing else even comes close.

bigbubba 6y ago
I agree, but for the same reasons shouldn't Esperanto just be English or Spanish? Way more people are familiar with these systems than Esperanto.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Esperanto is much easier to learn.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Not really; maybe for a particularly motivated individual but not on the large scale. You'll have more succeeds teaching English to large numbers of people because more people will be motivated to learn it, because learning English presently had WAY more immediate short-term utility than learning Esperanto.
    - nabla9 6y ago
      Have you tried. I wonder if I'm more qualified to judge or are you. I know three languages, Finnish is my native and I know both Sweden and English. I'm not good at languages and but Esperanto was incredibly easy to learn. The grammar is so simple and logic. Words are created from 900 roots by just adding affixes or making compounds. This makes learning the vocabulary incredibly easy.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        The number of people who succeed is all that matters because that's all that moves you closer to the finish line of 'universal.' It doesn't matter if Esperanto is the most pleasurable language to learn if approximately nobody bothers to learn it because it has no pragmatic use, because nobody uses it. Network effects work in favor of English and against Esperanto. Esperanto simply doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
phlakaton 6y ago
𐑢𐑦𐑔 ·𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛, 𐑞 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑤𐑴𐑛𐑳𐑒𐑖𐑩𐑯 𐑝 𐑯𐑵 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑𐑦𐑒 𐑕𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑥 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑟𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑕 𐑯𐑴 𐑕𐑦𐑜𐑯𐑦𐑓𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑯𐑩𐑤𐑪𐑡𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑤 𐑐𐑮𐑪𐑚𐑤𐑩𐑥𐑟, 𐑨𐑟 𐑿 𐑒𐑩𐑯 𐑕𐑰. (With Unicode, the introduction of new alphabetic writing systems presents no significant technological problems, as you can see.)
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Now make that as easy to type on computers and phones as Latin script.
  - phlakaton 6y ago
    With enough momentum, it will be. For now, it takes effort to set up a keyboard but it is certainly doable across desktops, tablets, and mobile devices.
JdeBP 6y ago
For maximum irony, you should end your post with at least two emojis. (-:

olah_1 6y ago

Let's imagine that there is an auxiliary language that takes 10 words from every language on Earth. Such a language would in fact be profoundly unfair to speakers of minority languages today because it would deny them access to the largest markets of the world. The English speakers would keep their knowledge and access to global markets while the Finnish speakers would gain 10 words of English. Woopty doo. So a language that takes words only from the top 5 languages would be better, yes? Because it teaches minority speakers more words from more important languages. But even still, what does that give you if you learn 500 words from each major language and the grammar is a bizarre mash up of totally different languages? The most "fair" language would be the one that gives the minority language speakers useful and meaningful access to the most influential language family "at a discount". Picking from one family would allow one to distill the grammar and vocabulary, giving the student truly useful and applicable information if they decide to later branch out into natural languages / dialects. In today's world, the most influential language family is by far Indo-European (for better or worse). And it just so happens that this language family is the easiest to synthesize and join back together, although there's nothing stopping others from trying to make a Semitic auxiliary language or a Sino-Tibetan auxiliary language, etc.

akvadrako 6y ago

This is incorrect. First, grammatically Esperanto shares much with Asian languages: http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiat... It's also generally true that a speaker of an Asian language will have an easier time learning Esperanto than another Asian language. The Chinese are one of the biggest state supporters of Esperanto. Radio Beijing has Esperanto programs and you can get a degree in it from some Chinese universities.