|
 |
Esperanto a waste of time? | ||
 Language Learning Forum : Esperanto |  | |
| Hoogamagoo Diglot Newbie United States Joined 6349 days ago 14 posts - 70 votes  Speaks: English*, Esperanto | Message 305 of 351 23 November 2010 at 10:30pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
...fixed that for ya. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5143 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 306 of 351 23 November 2010 at 10:39pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
That's a fanatic's viewpoint, and part of what turns many off Esperanto. Either one accepts Esperanto or one is an adversary. No one here has advocated the elimination of Esperanto or the persecution or segregation of its practitioners. That would be intolerance. Simply criticizing it is not. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Hoogamagoo Diglot Newbie United States Joined 6349 days ago 14 posts - 70 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto | Message 307 of 351 23 November 2010 at 11:52pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
"Tolerant" might have been a poorly chosen word, then. You can't halfway tolerate. You either tolerate or you don't. It's a logical impossibility, not a fanatical viewpoint. I'm not suggesting that Esperanto must be accepted or embraced, anymore than you have suggested that Esperanto must be eliminated. Actually, in my experience, people who are ignorant of any given topic tend to be intolerant rather than tolerant, (with a greater amount of ease), when they are confronted with said topic. Without confrontation, they simply remain unaware of the topic. So, if I understand your drift, let me suggest the following adjustments: It is effortless to remain ignorant of something that one knows nothing about. It is effortless to be tolerant of something that one cares nothing about. Those who know about AND care about a topic cannot be ignorant of it, by definition, and must logically either tolerate it or not. How effortless this is relies on a variety of variables, not the least of which is one's level of understanding of the topic. In my experience, (and I think world history generally backs me up here), those who care about something and have limited understanding are more likely to find it effortless to be intolerant of that something than those who care and have a greater level of understanding. There are exceptions, to that. And it's perfectly plausible that Esperanto could be something that as one learns about it that one finds it increasingly more intolerable, but the anecdotal evidence seems to argue against that. Oh, and there is some academic evidence as well, but as has been demonstrated earlier in this forum (the list is pages and pages behind this post) it is easy to discount it. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5143 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 308 of 351 24 November 2010 at 12:26am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
So I can't simply dislike particular literary or musical genres, I must be "intolerant" of them?
I don't recall anyone ever accusing me of "intolerance" towards reguetón or Vonnegut. This obsession over correct speech and correct observance of political correctness leaves a taste of detergent and makes Esperanto unpalatable to me even beyond the issues attestable to constructed languages. 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| GREGORG4000 Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5321 days ago 307 posts - 479 votes Speaks: English*, Finnish Studies: Japanese, Korean, Amharic, French | Message 309 of 351 24 November 2010 at 1:33am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
What's our definition of "tolerate" here? The word "tolerate", like the word "ignorant", has so many different meanings to different people, and I don't think either of those should be used in a serious argument.
In my opinion Esperanto is an interesting concept that could be done so much better; the agglutination aspect is fantastic, but cutting down on the consonant phonemes and removing the strong focus on Romance vocabulary would make it much better.
I have no idea what this means. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Hoogamagoo Diglot Newbie United States Joined 6349 days ago 14 posts - 70 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto | Message 310 of 351 24 November 2010 at 1:38am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Not political correctness. Just correctness. And Esperanto has little to do with it. I just hate to see people express themselves poorly and then defend themselves. it's a little embarrassing. I was really just trying to set you on the right track with my previous post. It would be interesting if you could point out exactly where I suggested that "not liking" is synonymous with "intolerant of." You see, like and dislike are not synonyms for tolerate and not tolerate. Tolerate comes from the Latin word for endurance. It means to endure or to bear Rather than Vonnegut, you should try cyanide. It is possible to tolerate cyanide, but that doesn't mean you like it. And in fact, most people can't tolerate very much cyanide. Most people can tolerate chocolate, beans, meat and cheese with various extremes of like and dislike associated with those items. Actually some people can't tolerate chocolate, beans, meat or cheese, no matter how much they might like to. If you prefer a social example, I know people who don't tolerate the presence of men in the ladies room. I know others who tolerate it. Liking and disliking that scenario? Well, that's different, isn't it? Back to your literary example, I highly doubt you can't tolerate Vonnegut. There are those who won't tolerate hate speech or nudity or sacrilegious texts. There are even those who say they can't tolerate them, but they like them. The way you attempted to use the word, "tolerate," suggests that you are using a common scheme, which is acceptable but peculiar when used in the way you used it. The idea that, for example, one accepts "Spanish," tolerates "Esperanto," and does not tolerate "Pig Latin." This is, of course, perfectly normal, but it seemed exceedingly peculiar to suggest that ignorant people were more likely to tolerate, since in this sense, tolerance implies disapproval, which implies knowledge. Since disapproval could not logically be on the table at that point, it stands to reason that you meant the more literal meaning of the word. That's why I suggested a more accurate explanation of why people don't mind Esperanto on the boards. I was merely trying to help you make a stronger point. Yet you keep turning my responses into a hyperfanatical defense of Esperanto? Interesting that it's only because this is in the context of an Esperanto forum that you associated an otherwise unrelated digression to this language. There are many people who are completely ignorant of Esperanto who would also take issue with your abuse of the English language. It's not Esperanto that tastes like detergent here. It's me and my English. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| GREGORG4000 Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5321 days ago 307 posts - 479 votes Speaks: English*, Finnish Studies: Japanese, Korean, Amharic, French | Message 312 of 351 24 November 2010 at 1:50am | IP Logged | ||||||||
This is a semantics argument again, because some people (I'm not one of them) believe that languages need irregularities, oddities, ancient history that's reflected in the vocabulary or honorifics, etc. The entire argument about whether Esperanto is a language is just a huge argument about what "being a language" entails, and it's pretty futile. In my definition of "language", Ithkuil is a real language, and it hasn't yet had any fluent speakers. But I still don't get what you mean by "Esperanto deniers not being complete". Are they missing big chunks of their bodies? Edited by GREGORG4000 on 24 November 2010 at 1:51am 2 persons have 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. |
