|
 |
English as the universal language | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5434 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 193 of 206 10 March 2010 at 7:31am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to prolong a rather moot debate indefinitely. I specifically used the word "accessible" rather than "better"or "easier" to describe the situation of English. Chinese and Persian may have many qualities that are comparable or superior to those of English. That really is not my concern.
As I have stressed a few times, the pervasiveness of English-speaking popular culture, the geographic reach of English and the absence of any form of language control or planning make English a very attractive language. Add to that what I consider some structural qualities despite certain complexities and you have a winning combination. Could Chinese or Persian be as accessible as English? Well, if the history of humanity had been different, yes. But we have what we have. Although the interest in Mandarin is very high in certain circles, and rightly so, and I don't see how one could argue that for all humanity Mandarin is as accessible as English. I don't see a thread in this forum about Mandarin becoming a universal language or taking over the world. Are movies in Mandarin starting to dominate the world's movie screens? And I haven't mentioned Persian. I think my point is well clear, and one is certainly not obliged to agree with it. English is today's lingua franca for whatever reasons. More people want to learn English that any other language. And there is a ton of materials to make learning of English accessible. Edit: I had finished my post when all of a sudden it hit me that I was wrong to focus so much on movies and popular culture in the accessibility of English. Think instead of the Internet, computer technology and devices such as the iPhone, the iPod and the new iPad. Now, most of these technological products are actually made in China. But one could hardly argue that they are encouraging the spread of the Chinese language. Edited by s_allard on 10 March 2010 at 8:17am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| lackinglatin Triglot Groupie United States randomwritingsetc.blRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5984 days ago 62 posts - 146 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, Modern Hebrew Studies: Spanish | Message 194 of 206 15 March 2010 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
I wouldn't call it the elephant in the room. Esperantists openly argue about those finer points--of which there are figuratively a handful. I'd say there are two--the "ata/ita" problem, and the 'root' issue (no pun intended ;).
Though the root issue, I feel, is less a problem than it seems, and that while brosilo may not be common, no one should frown on its usage. As long as it is logical, it is allowed according to Esperanto grammar. That's part of the fundamento. Zamenhof first published a radikaro, a 'root dictionary', not a vortaro, and I like the idea of treating the words freely without some kind of theoretical arbitrary value that is not formally recognized outside of discussions like this anyways. As you fairly state, it doesn't get in the way of communication, and I've never misunderstood someone due to it. In summary, I agree pretty much with your entire post, except for "there are quite a lot of details, when you look closer." I'd just say there are a couple of them--literally, in fact, as you've summed up any/all possible grammatical issue/s right there. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6443 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 195 of 206 15 March 2010 at 7:36pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Esperantists openly argue these points, but if a non-Esperantist has heard anything about Esperanto grammar, it's still much more likely to be the "16 rules are all you need" nonsense. There's ata/ita (I recently realized I was suffering from atismo, which I now shall try to correct), there's passive participles, etc. And then there are things which people just don't understand, use wrong, or debate endlessly, such as 'po'. Esperanto grammar strikes me as being as well-defined as in a national language, and significantly easier, but it does have some snags.
Agreed. The base word type system was grafted on as a post-hoc explanation, after all. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| lackinglatin Triglot Groupie United States randomwritingsetc.blRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5984 days ago 62 posts - 146 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, Modern Hebrew Studies: Spanish | Message 196 of 206 16 March 2010 at 12:05am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
The definition at reta-vortaro.de for "je" cracks me up, speaking of words no one understands:
"Komuna prepozicio, kies senco estas nedifinita kaj kiun oni povas uzi, kiam la senco ne montras klare, kia prepozicio konvenas. Oni tamen uzu ĝin kiel eble plej malofte, kaj preskaŭ nur en la sekvantaj okazoj: [...]" Translated: "Common preposition, whose sense is undefined and which one is able to use when the sense does not show clearly which preposition would be conventional to use. One must use it as least often as possible, and almost just en the following events: [...]" Let the reader know that these don't abound, but there are a nutty handful. And once again, this has never gotten in the way of communication, and I've never not understood what someone meant who used it (it's roughly "at" in English, but not relating to location, as best as I can tell, and I use it as such--most commonly for matters of time, for instance). I wouldn't say '16 rules is all you need' is nonsense, because one can get along perfectly fine without even knowing progressive verbs exist, if one is just told they are redundant. Plenty of languages get on fine without that grammatical principle, and it will just cut a bit of grace and precision off of poetry. Just say any word that ends in "a+[any other letters]=present", "i+[any other letters]=past", and "o+[any other letters]=future", and they'll be fine. I kind of thing the progressives are a bit of unnecessary ballast for the purposes of Esperanto, but it is worth keeping around for fine translation of literature from certain languages that employ it, and since it doesn't get in the way... why not? Doesn't hurt to give more options if it isn't getting in the way of communication. Though I've never heard of "atismo" per se, I can obviously understand what that would mean. Do you have a link to whatever informed you of it? I only a couple months ago heard of the ata/ita problem itself, but I learned all my grammar passively, never did a course that covered the higher verb forms. They just more or less made sense in the chat rooms from context and familiarity. And it's not like the ata/ita problem is being intentionally hid, it's just not the biggest issue when it comes to Esperanto. When you're advertising anything, no matter what it is, it has flaws. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to present all of them, even when they won't be understood, when people are making a preliminary evaluation. It's simply too small an issue in the grand scheme of things. The language isn't perfect, and I do clearly tell people that--I think that suffices. Lastly: any language I overhear the basics about the grammar of, I am sure will not mention the smaller issues involved. People always omit exceptions when stating information in concise form. In my Hebrew classes, I notice this over and over again: they teach you the rules, and then the next level up they go over the same rules, but explain where those rules need asterisks (*), and then again, and again... It's not like it's deceitful. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6443 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 197 of 206 16 March 2010 at 3:48am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
It's used more widely than that; for instance, "I believe in" is "mi kredas je". It's really the catch-all proposition, to avoid having the other ones get ad-hoc and irregular, and I quite like it.
I don't see "16 rules as being nonsense" as being about whether progressive verbs exist or not. This scathing critique has a few errors (the stress of words with the last vowel elided is well-defined, for instance), but points out, for instance, that the 16 rules don't allow for, say, conjunctions. "kaj" is a fairly fundamental part of Esperanto, as far as I'm concerned. The 16 rules are interesting as a sketch of some ideas, but they're not all that you need to talk, or even entirely coherent. I tried using them as a baseline for a while; that did not work well. I fully agree that you can get by with very little grammatical explanation in any language, and even more so in Esperanto (especially if you speak a language with a similar idea of subclauses, etc). That said, the 16 rules are a pretty bad source if you want a concise explanation of Esperanto grammar.
Atismo, as described in PMEG. I'm in favor of passive grammar learning, partially because explanations of it tend to be relatively awful when they go beyond listing forms and into trying to describe what they do/mean.
Sure, we agree.
It is deceitful if people say "there are no exceptions and this is all you need, so you should learn it!", and this happens far too often in Esperanto advocacy. 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| lackinglatin Triglot Groupie United States randomwritingsetc.blRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5984 days ago 62 posts - 146 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, Modern Hebrew Studies: Spanish | Message 198 of 206 18 March 2010 at 1:59am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
I've actually never seen the 16 rules, so I'll take your word for it. What I do tell people is that all the important grammar fits on a postcard, and I've written such a postcard before.
Passive grammar is definitely the brain-friendly way to learn. And I definitely agree that there is lots of over-simplification and broad claims when speaking about Esperanto by lots of people. I tend to stray from "ever" using words like "never, always, perfect", since they rarely (but not never ;) are true. That's all I meant to speak about, I guess. Some people do cross that line, though Esperanto is so close to being without exceptions compared to national languages, who cannot help but be littered with them throughout, that I don't fault them too strongly. Ah well. :) 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6443 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 199 of 206 18 March 2010 at 2:15am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
I partially agree. A postcard can summarize some of the most major things that are time-savers to pick up actively rather than passively, but they don't cover all the important grammar rules. For a trivial example, I originally used -nj instead of -jn for the plural accusative; many postcard descriptions don't prevent this.
Fully agreed, though the occasional glance at a table is something I find helpful.
Yes. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| crackpot Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 6305 days ago 144 posts - 178 votes Speaks: English*, French, Spanish Studies: Italian | Message 200 of 206 19 March 2010 at 10:50pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
I traveled around the world for 5 months, 14 countries with English, what other language
can you do that with? 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
