4 ms·

> Most contracted languages in existence are ridiculous. You can call Esperanto ridiculous, but it's used in all aspects of life. It has a good poetry. I find

• mtts 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point. A creole language, which English is, after a fashion, is a language that comes about when speakers of different languages come together and come up with something that's intelligible to speakers of both languages(1). It is by its very nature simple. Grammatical complexity is very much reduced and the phonology converges on what is pronouncable by all speakers of the new language (and therefore is reduced in complexity as well. Now I'll grant you that the differences between Old English and Old French aren't that large, which probably accounts to English being relatively complex for a creole language, but if you compare English grammar and phonology to that of related non-creole languages such as German, Danish or French, you'll find in English they're much, much simpler. Not as simple as in Indonesian/Malay (which jumbles Arabic, Sanskrit and a bunch of Austronesian languages) or Tok Pisin (which jumbles English and a bunch of mutually unrelated Papuan tongues) but at least as Germanic languages go, English is fairly easy to learn. Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial. I'd argue that a natural creole such as English or Swahili is superior: it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts. I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English. (1) technically speaking, that's a pidgin, of course. But once the pidgin starts having native speakers, it becomes a creole, so the point still stands edit: typo
  • lcedp 13y ago
    > Grammatical complexity is very much reduced... English may be easy for e.g. German speakers but English is not simple. Its rules are complex. English grammar is not simple. It has what (12?) tenses. (on the contrary Russian has basically 3 tenses) And it's full of exceptions. Why 'I see', but I'm looking at you. There's simply no reason. It's an exception. Thousands of them. > ...and the phonology converges on what is pronouncable by all speakers of the new language (and therefore is reduced in complexity as well. Let's just take 2 sounds. Th as in this: "This sound, and its unvoiced counterpart, are rare phonemes. The great majority of European and Asian languages, such as German, French, Persian, Japanese, and Chinese, lack this sound." Th as in "thing": "Among the more than 60 languages with over 10 million speakers, only English, Standard Arabic, Spanish (Spain only), Burmese, and Greek have [it]" > Of course Esperanto is a jumble as well, but it's a jumble that is entirely artificial. Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome! > it's developed over dozens of years by a large number of speakers of widely differing skill levels whereas Esperanto was thought up by a small number of highly skilled language experts. That what happens when you let naturally develop: "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century." > I'll agree with you that for native speakers of Indo-European langues (like mine, which isn't English, by the way), Esperanto is easy to learn and use. But my point is it is not easy to learn for people who aren't native speakers of an Indo-European language and that if you're going to make these people learn an Indo-European language anyway, you might as well just make it English. Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience.
    • mtts 13y ago
      > English grammar is not simple. It has what (12?) tenses. (on the contrary Russian has basically 3 tenses) And it's full of exceptions. Why 'I see', but I'm looking at you. There's simply no reason. It's an exception. Thousands of them. This is actually not such a great example. Yes, English can express 12 tenses, but it doesn't have them in the sense that Russian, Italian or Czech do with affixes and declensions and what have you. > Let's just take 2 sounds. etc In this, of course you're right, but I didn't dispute this fact: English is a Germanic language and as such has a much larger number of phonemes than most other languages in the world (though it has far fewer than other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian, which have an - by global standards - insane number of vowels). Like I said, English isn't ideal, but it could have been worse. German, Polish or French (which has the added bonus of written French and spoken French being essentially two entirely different languages)would have been much worse. Indonesian/Malay, Tok Pisin or Swahili would have been much better in this regard, but alas, we have English. > "In general, English spelling does not reflect* the sound changes in the pronunciation of the language that have occurred since the late fifteenth century." Right. The ortography of English is atrocious and difficult to learn, even for native speakers. So there's that. It's definitely a point against English and it's a matter of taste whether this detracts significantly from its good points. > Artificial != bad. We have tons of artificial things in our life that are awesome! This, I think, is our true bone of contention. My argument is Esperanto brings very little to the table an organically developed Western European creole doesn't already have. You're free to disagree, of course, which brings me to: > Esperanto is several times faster to learn than English for anybody (given similar conditions). Linguists say it and I second that based on experience. Do you have sources for this? I'd be very interested to see the research on this. I would think the chief difficulty in learning a language that is wildly different from your native language is the fact that it's, well, wildly different from your native language, but I am very much open to evidence that learning a language from an entirely different language family than your own becomes easier if that language is rigorously structured and cleaned up instead of being merely an example of a worse is better organic jumble.