Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

My English teacher really hates Esperanto

  Tags: Esperanto | English
 Language Learning Forum : Esperanto Post Reply
194 messages over 25 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 ... 24 25 Next >>
Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6227 days ago

4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 97 of 194
10 November 2007 at 10:47am | IP Logged 
Art wrote:
I don't know, maybe nowadays I'm alone in my view that Esperanto is an ideology and it is a very dangerous thing and it is impossible to separate Espreatno as a language and Espreanto as a world movement. But to me Esperanto is in its essence about politics, not about language.


Anything can be given a political interpretation. Many things are given utterly bizarre ones, supported by nothing more than the assertion that "x is intrinsically y!". For most values of x and y, this varies from silly to meaningless. I would argue that "Esperanto is intrinsically socialist" falls into the silly category.

Esperanto is separate as a language and a world movement. There are very non-political, non-idealistic Esperantists, though I forget the exact name for the group that subscribes very strongly to this idea.

I've seen so many different ideologies linked by various online commentators to Esperanto that I really can't seriously consider it to be strongly linked to only one. I've found the people I've talked to in Esperanto to not be particularly political - in fact, I don't think politics have ever come up in the discussions. I personally am somewhat political; out of respect for the rules of this forum, I won't state my personal political views here, beyond saying that it would take a distortion of epic proportions to cast me as a classical socialist, much less a Marxist or Communist.


Art wrote:

---
... There are certainly several common characteristics between, on the one hand, basic socialist ideology and, on the other hand, the principle of an international language and its significance for worker Esperantists. Here are some examples of those common characteristics:

1. Firstly, living within both are internationalist ideas about unity of the workers of the world.


Esperanto is internationalist; socialism, in practice, has been significantly less so (witness the difficulty associated with leaving the USSR). I wouldn't say that Esperanto aims for 'unity of the workers of the world'; it has a strong history of idealistic aiming for international understanding and cooperation, but to put this strictly in terms of one group or social class strikes me as misleading at best.

Art wrote:

2. Secondly, socialism is linked to scientific planning of society, and Esperanto, as a constructed language, is congruent with this concept.


Would you abandon all planning of everything because it can be linked to socialism? Would you argue that the USA putting a man on the moon was inherently socialist, because it involved scientific planning? Leaving aside the very tenuous idea of socialism being linked to scientific planning of society, which seems poorly borne out in actual history as opposed to ideology, having something be congruent with scientific planning seems neither inherently bad nor inherently socialist to me.

Art wrote:

3. Thirdly, a common international language, like Esperanto, tends to undermine national loyalty, and thus the chauvinism which nourishes militarism and capitalism - two enemies of socialism.


To address this point thoroughly, I'd need to delve more deeply into politics than I feel is appropriate here, so I'll leave it alone after pointing out that there is a wide spectrum of non-socialist opposition to nationalistic chauvinism and militarism.

Art wrote:

4. Fourthly, the practical use of Esperanto is important for the education of workers, hence for their emancipation, for which socialism strives.


There's already mandatory education until around 16 years of age in much of the developed world - and first world workers already are largely emancipated, compared to the conditions which prevailed a century ago. Read Orwell's description of the conditions of the coal miners of yesteryear, and compare it to the majority of jobs today for an example of this.

Aside from this, I see absolutely no link between use of Esperanto and education of workers: they're orthogonal. It's perfectly possible to be multilingual and ignorant, or a fairly well-educated monoglot - and the wealth of educational materials in Esperanto is beyond that of any major world language. This point seems like a cute rhetorical flourish, with nothing behind it.

Art wrote:

In short, socialist ideology is in principle very much in accord with the democratic spirit of Esperanto.


That sounds like a conclusion that someone who likes both socialism and Esperanto would like to come to. I'd argue that whether or not 'the democratic spirit of Esperanto' (what a deconstructable phrase... but I digress) has some overlap with some of the more neutral goals of socialism (of the sort that many other ideologies also overlap with) is utterly irrelevant to any evaluation of Esperanto.


Art wrote:

....

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/409/esperanto.html



That URL points out that many major socialist leaders were strongly against Esperanto, and that both Stalin and Nazi Germany repressed Esperantists. This hardly strikes me as a glowing endorsement for how 'socialist' Esperanto is.

1 person has voted this message useful



Sprachprofi
Nonaglot
Senior Member
Germany
learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6258 days ago

2608 posts - 4866 votes 
Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian
Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese

 
 Message 98 of 194
10 November 2007 at 12:07pm | IP Logged 
Just a quick remark: for an interesting research on outside views of Esperanto throughout history, particularly when it comes to various regimes, read "The dangerous language" by Ulrich Lins.

It is true that supporters of Communism at some point found Esperanto to be very useful for their goals, but eventually the higher-ranking members of Soviet Communists found that the people corresponding with foreigners were less likely to believe in propaganda, e. g. how awful conditions for workers were in capitalist countries - and they also weren't ready to glorify and lie about their own situation as much as the government would have liked them to.

Edited by Sprachprofi on 10 November 2007 at 12:11pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Kugel
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6326 days ago

497 posts - 555 votes 
Speaks: English*

 
 Message 99 of 194
10 November 2007 at 12:21pm | IP Logged 
Sprachprofi, do you find that Esperanto speakers are typically the bohemian type? The idea of it being an international auxiliary language is great, but it's only useful, at least generally speaking, to bohemians living in Europe and Japan, right?
1 person has voted this message useful



epingchris
Triglot
Senior Member
Taiwan
shih-chuan.blog.ntu.
Joined 6816 days ago

273 posts - 284 votes 
5 sounds
Studies: Taiwanese, Mandarin*, English, FrenchB2
Studies: Japanese, German, Turkish

 
 Message 100 of 194
10 November 2007 at 6:11pm | IP Logged 
remush wrote:
epingchris wrote:
of course it would be called “世界語”. You want us to call it “愛斯不難讀” (ai-si-bu-nan-du, “Es is not hard to read”) ? :)
?

is 愛斯不難讀 actually used, or did you just made it up right now?
(for those who did not notice, this is the phonetic for "esperanto")

I like your analogy with corn and babies.


Somebody do use 愛斯不難讀, although it's very, very rare I think. It is unfavorable to use the phonetic of a foreign word as the translation for it is very inefficient and awkward to do that in Chinese - we have to both conform to the syllable forming rules and search for a syllable that looks/sounds/means appealing enough. To call Esperanto 愛斯不難讀 would be somewhat like to call "president" 伯里璽天德 (bo-li-xi-tian-de) (which people advocated, along with lots of other loaned words, during the initial ROC years).

I just picked those as example randomly when replying, but come to think of it I think it is somehow very suitable in this discussion. Biological organisms, like languages, have come a long way during evolution and have adopted distinct shapes and characteristics, but humans have demonstrated many times that we could alter these traits and come up with an outcome that doesn't fit very well into older definitions.

I'm probably off topic very seriously by now, but the bisyllability in Chinese is a very interesting and complicated subject which I would really love to elaborate more about. Maybe we could start a thread.
1 person has voted this message useful



remush
Tetraglot
Groupie
Belgium
remush.beRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6056 days ago

79 posts - 94 votes 
Speaks: French*, Esperanto, English, Dutch
Studies: German, Polish

 
 Message 101 of 194
10 November 2007 at 7:35pm | IP Logged 
epingchris wrote:

I'm probably off topic very seriously by now, but the bisyllability in Chinese is a very interesting and complicated subject which I would really love to elaborate more about. Maybe we could start a thread.

By all means, do.
The common believe is that Chinese is monosyllabic.
1 person has voted this message useful





Hencke
Tetraglot
Moderator
Spain
Joined 6682 days ago

2340 posts - 2444 votes 
Speaks: Swedish*, Finnish, EnglishC2, Spanish
Studies: Mandarin
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 102 of 194
11 November 2007 at 5:52am | IP Logged 
epingchris wrote:
remush wrote:
epingchris wrote:
of course it would be called “世界語”. You want us to call it “愛斯不難讀” (ai-si-bu-nan-du, “Es is not hard to read”) ? :)?

Somebody do use 愛斯不難讀, although it's very, very rare I think. It is unfavorable to use the phonetic of a foreign word as the translation for it is very inefficient and awkward to do that in Chinese

For the record, since it has not been explained afaics and people who don't understand Chinese will not have been able to follow this little side track of the debate:

Apparently the name being used for Esperanto in Chinese is 世界语, pronounced "shi4 jie4 yü3", literal meaning "World Language".

I try to stay out of the debate on Esperanto myself, though I largely agree with Iverssen's observations and Volte's comments above, but whatever stand one takes, it could be interesting to ponder whether "World Language" is a fitting name for a language with an estimated number of competent speakers in the (low) hundreds of thousands.


Edited by Hencke on 11 November 2007 at 5:57am

1 person has voted this message useful



furyou_gaijin
Senior Member
Japan
Joined 6174 days ago

540 posts - 631 votes 
Speaks: Latin*

 
 Message 103 of 194
11 November 2007 at 7:07am | IP Logged 
remush wrote:
epingchris wrote:

I'm probably off topic very seriously by now, but the bisyllability in Chinese is a very interesting and complicated
subject which I would really love to elaborate more about. Maybe we could start a thread.

By all means, do.
The common believe is that Chinese is monosyllabic.


I'll happily contribute to such a thread if it is created... For now, a quote from Wikipedia:

Like Vietnamese, modern Chinese has often been erroneously classed as a "monosyllabic" language. While
most of her morphemes are single syllable, Modern Chinese today is much less a monosyllabic language in that
her nouns, adjectives and verbs are largely di-syllabic. The tendency to create disyllabic words in the modern
Chinese languages, particularly in Mandarin, has been particularly pronounced when compared to Classical
Chinese. Classical Chinese is a highly isolating language, with each idea (morpheme) generally corresponding to
a single syllable and a single character; Modern Chinese though, have the tendency to form new words through
disyllabic, trisyllabic and tetra-character agglutination.

1 person has voted this message useful



remush
Tetraglot
Groupie
Belgium
remush.beRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6056 days ago

79 posts - 94 votes 
Speaks: French*, Esperanto, English, Dutch
Studies: German, Polish

 
 Message 104 of 194
11 November 2007 at 7:20am | IP Logged 
furyou_gaijin wrote:
remush wrote:
epingchris wrote:

I'm probably off topic very seriously by now, but the bisyllability in Chinese is a very interesting and complicated
subject which I would really love to elaborate more about. Maybe we could start a thread.

By all means, do.
The common believe is that Chinese is monosyllabic.


I'll happily contribute to such a thread if it is created... For now, a quote from Wikipedia:

Like Vietnamese, modern Chinese has often been erroneously classed as a "monosyllabic" language. While
most of her morphemes are single syllable, Modern Chinese today is much less a monosyllabic language in that
her nouns, adjectives and verbs are largely di-syllabic. The tendency to create disyllabic words in the modern
Chinese languages, particularly in Mandarin, has been particularly pronounced when compared to Classical
Chinese. Classical Chinese is a highly isolating language, with each idea (morpheme) generally corresponding to
a single syllable and a single character; Modern Chinese though, have the tendency to form new words through
disyllabic, trisyllabic and tetra-character agglutination.


Also read Le chinois: idées reçues et réalité or La ĉina : mitoj kaj realo (if you can trust the author:-)


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 194 messages over 25 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.4063 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.