4 ms·

You are stating that languages must evolve "naturally" without explaining why that would be necessary or better. Esperanto was created to erase communication ba

by mbs159 2y ago

You are stating that languages must evolve "naturally" without explaining why that would be necessary or better. Esperanto was created to erase communication barriers between different groups of people. How is such a goal wrong or "terrible" and how is that not a actual, natural need for people? Also, people find community in Esperanto-speaking groups all across the world, so are these people in the wrong for daring to speak this "terrible" and "technocratic" language? Not all evolutions of languages are natural and thousands of words were just invented. Shakespeare straight up invented hundreds of words, and some of them, like "lonely" and "lackluster" are still used to this day, because those words are cool! If it was okay for Shakespeare to invent words (considering that you probably use the words that he invented), why is it wrong for the creator of Glish to do so and why does Glish deserve to be "hated"?

vessenes 2y ago
Esperanto is definitely a failure in its goals, which included replacing English —- it is not a rapidly growing communications medium. I think you may have gotten my point backward - I love the creation of new words that English affords; it’s the best part of the language. Glish is removing words for “simplicity” — IMO this is bad because blind removal is losing information that has been proven to be valuable over the course of the evolution of the language, like many of Shakespeare’s invented words. And tens of thousands of our borrowed words. Glish is also cool because it’s using somewhat modern technology to mess with semantics, but taken as a serious endeavor, I hate the direction it’s going. Like I said in my comment, taken as a sweet hack, I like it. Overall you would not find me hating on something that was adding interesting new words to English - it’s the technocratic removal I object to. If there were a project that was finding maximally far apart spaces in word2vec embedding space and trying to name them based on definitions from the surrounding words, I would love it.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >Esperanto is definitely a failure in its goals, which included replacing English —- it is not a rapidly growing communications medium. I don't think anyone involved with any conlangs assumes, or even has the goal, that they'll catch on widely enough to displace native languages.

by mbs159 2y ago

vessenes 2y ago

Esperanto is definitely a failure in its goals, which included replacing English —- it is not a rapidly growing communications medium. I think you may have gotten my point backward - I love the creation of new words that English affords; it’s the best part of the language. Glish is removing words for “simplicity” — IMO this is bad because blind removal is losing information that has been proven to be valuable over the course of the evolution of the language, like many of Shakespeare’s invented words. And tens of thousands of our borrowed words. Glish is also cool because it’s using somewhat modern technology to mess with semantics, but taken as a serious endeavor, I hate the direction it’s going. Like I said in my comment, taken as a sweet hack, I like it. Overall you would not find me hating on something that was adding interesting new words to English - it’s the technocratic removal I object to. If there were a project that was finding maximally far apart spaces in word2vec embedding space and trying to name them based on definitions from the surrounding words, I would love it.

Suppafly 2y ago
>Esperanto is definitely a failure in its goals, which included replacing English —- it is not a rapidly growing communications medium. I don't think anyone involved with any conlangs assumes, or even has the goal, that they'll catch on widely enough to displace native languages.