When Xu Jie came across a book introducing Esperanto while browsing in his university library years ago, he had no idea of the exciting journey that lay ahead.
just because a language originates from a region does not mean it, in any conceivable way, supports that reigon. As the article states Esperanto has been in China for over a century and if it helps the various ethnicities of China communicate and understand each others struggles I don’t see how that supports European imperialism
I don't mean that it originates in Europe, i mean that it was deliberately constructed from European languages to make it easier for Europeans to learn. If company managers from China can communicate with company managers from the UK, but not a prole with a fellow prole in the neighboring province, it doesn't deliver on the promise.
Would you for example support the EU standardizing Mandarin? Would that make it easier for people of different European ethnicities to understand each other's struggles, than standardizing something relevant like Latin?
the point of a global language is that it is easy to learn for most everyone, which, from the anecdotes of many native mandarin/Japanese speakers, Esperanto is.
but not a prole with a fellow prole in the neighboring province, it
yes it is. it is far easier for a Portuguese speaker and a mandarin speaker to both learn and then communicate in Esperanto than it is for one to learn mandarin or verse vica.
And no because mandarin is wildly excepted as a hard language to learn, Esperanto is not, even for non western speakers.
e: also a majority of the world speaks a form of European language as a result of colonialism, Arabic/mandarin concepts are not as easily learned and picked up by European speakers, where as Esperanto is far easier for non European speakers to use than than for European speakers to learn non western language concepts. So if you want to make a world language you should use the one that is exceptionally easy to learn for most people, and harder, but still far easier than other common languages for non western speakers
Languages are only "easy to learn" to the extent that they are similar to a language the learner already knows. Anecdotal evidence comes from Esperantists who I am going to assume already know either English, French or similar (all of which admittedly have more complicated and irregular features than Esperanto). E.g. Japanese-only speakers would usually have an easier time learning Korean since the grammar is basically the same.
edit: your edit is interesting since knowing a colonial language is often a class divide
you are literally denying what non westerners who learn the language say about the language. Yes obviously it is easier if the concepts carry over, but it is far more difficult for a global language to be established if nothing is carried over. colonialism is a reality, it happened, because of that a vast number of people speak indo-European rooted languages, therefore most everyone can learn Esperanto concepts easily. And for non western speakers, as explained by said people, it is far easier than any other western language, like English, to learn.
If a common global language is to be used, does it not make sense to make it as easy as possible to learn as a second language?
And obviously it is a class divide because rich people can travel/spend time learning a language instead of working, yet another reason a second global language should be as easy to learn as possible for the world round
I don't think I'm denying what they say, rather adding context to it. Maybe that counts as dismissing, but not denying.
I'm probably mostly upset about the discrepancy between Esperanto's idealist messaging and the real world compromises. If it is easy for Angolans to learn Esperanto because they already speak Portuguese, why not just use Portuguese and slim 3 languages down to 2? For practical purposes this is.
If we want to have a good idealist representative global language, we can do much better than Esperanto. There are already conlangs that take inspiration from all of the world, but I can't remember which they are atm.
edit: I guess what I'm clawing at is that while colonial languages present opportunities, we shouldn't assume that everyone already knows colonial languages, and if we do, we will screw over those who don't. A global language should be easy for everyone to learn.
you have to be trolling at this point. Esperanto IS easier for everyone to learn compared to any other some what prominent language, that is the entire POINT. Portuguese is much harder for non Portuguese speakers to learn than Esperanto is. Esperanto is not a colonial language, China adopted it literally citing that as a benefit.
The problem with “taking from every language” is it makes it difficult as fuck for EVERYONE because they have to learn completely foreign concepts, whereas many non western speakers already are taught English in schooling, and even if they don’t remember it it still provides a very strong base to build on.
Esperanto is not some “Anglo” language, it’s mostly used in the global south and China. And it’s adoption is not “screwing over” anyone, it literally helps facilitate human interaction that otherwise would not occur
I repeat: there is no such thing as a universally simple language. "non Portuguese speakers" is a comically large group that includes everyone from Spanish to Cherokee speakers. Can you guess which one of those will have an easier time learning either Portuguese or Esperanto?
Esperanto removes some complex features, but keeps others, like consonant clusters, case conjugations, multi-syllable words, etc. (not to mention the vocabulary which is 99% Euro). Those features exist in most European languages but are completely or mostly absent in other parts of the world, and to them seem completely exotic and alien. So no, "taking from every language" would just make it slightly harder for you, but make it easier for everyone else.
The argument against English being the world language is that it gives an unfair advantage to native English speakers. Why should we then give an unfair advantage to European language speakers by adopting specifically Esperanto? Why should we privilege people who were taught colonial languages earlier? You seem to ignore this large group of monolingual people in the global south. What makes them less important?
The point is it is easier for the vast majority of people than learning another language like English or Chinese , what is hard to grasp about that? Any globally adopted language is going to be easier for certain people who speak something similar.
like Chinese people who speak it literally say it is easy to learn
You sounds like the people that argue against universal heathcare/education because people who can afford it will also get it
just because a language originates from a region does not mean it, in any conceivable way, supports that reigon. As the article states Esperanto has been in China for over a century and if it helps the various ethnicities of China communicate and understand each others struggles I don’t see how that supports European imperialism
I don't mean that it originates in Europe, i mean that it was deliberately constructed from European languages to make it easier for Europeans to learn. If company managers from China can communicate with company managers from the UK, but not a prole with a fellow prole in the neighboring province, it doesn't deliver on the promise.
Would you for example support the EU standardizing Mandarin? Would that make it easier for people of different European ethnicities to understand each other's struggles, than standardizing something relevant like Latin?
the point of a global language is that it is easy to learn for most everyone, which, from the anecdotes of many native mandarin/Japanese speakers, Esperanto is.
yes it is. it is far easier for a Portuguese speaker and a mandarin speaker to both learn and then communicate in Esperanto than it is for one to learn mandarin or verse vica.
And no because mandarin is wildly excepted as a hard language to learn, Esperanto is not, even for non western speakers.
e: also a majority of the world speaks a form of European language as a result of colonialism, Arabic/mandarin concepts are not as easily learned and picked up by European speakers, where as Esperanto is far easier for non European speakers to use than than for European speakers to learn non western language concepts. So if you want to make a world language you should use the one that is exceptionally easy to learn for most people, and harder, but still far easier than other common languages for non western speakers
Languages are only "easy to learn" to the extent that they are similar to a language the learner already knows. Anecdotal evidence comes from Esperantists who I am going to assume already know either English, French or similar (all of which admittedly have more complicated and irregular features than Esperanto). E.g. Japanese-only speakers would usually have an easier time learning Korean since the grammar is basically the same.
edit: your edit is interesting since knowing a colonial language is often a class divide
you are literally denying what non westerners who learn the language say about the language. Yes obviously it is easier if the concepts carry over, but it is far more difficult for a global language to be established if nothing is carried over. colonialism is a reality, it happened, because of that a vast number of people speak indo-European rooted languages, therefore most everyone can learn Esperanto concepts easily. And for non western speakers, as explained by said people, it is far easier than any other western language, like English, to learn.
If a common global language is to be used, does it not make sense to make it as easy as possible to learn as a second language?
And obviously it is a class divide because rich people can travel/spend time learning a language instead of working, yet another reason a second global language should be as easy to learn as possible for the world round
I don't think I'm denying what they say, rather adding context to it. Maybe that counts as dismissing, but not denying.
I'm probably mostly upset about the discrepancy between Esperanto's idealist messaging and the real world compromises. If it is easy for Angolans to learn Esperanto because they already speak Portuguese, why not just use Portuguese and slim 3 languages down to 2? For practical purposes this is.
If we want to have a good idealist representative global language, we can do much better than Esperanto. There are already conlangs that take inspiration from all of the world, but I can't remember which they are atm.
edit: I guess what I'm clawing at is that while colonial languages present opportunities, we shouldn't assume that everyone already knows colonial languages, and if we do, we will screw over those who don't. A global language should be easy for everyone to learn.
you have to be trolling at this point. Esperanto IS easier for everyone to learn compared to any other some what prominent language, that is the entire POINT. Portuguese is much harder for non Portuguese speakers to learn than Esperanto is. Esperanto is not a colonial language, China adopted it literally citing that as a benefit.
The problem with “taking from every language” is it makes it difficult as fuck for EVERYONE because they have to learn completely foreign concepts, whereas many non western speakers already are taught English in schooling, and even if they don’t remember it it still provides a very strong base to build on.
Esperanto is not some “Anglo” language, it’s mostly used in the global south and China. And it’s adoption is not “screwing over” anyone, it literally helps facilitate human interaction that otherwise would not occur
I repeat: there is no such thing as a universally simple language. "non Portuguese speakers" is a comically large group that includes everyone from Spanish to Cherokee speakers. Can you guess which one of those will have an easier time learning either Portuguese or Esperanto?
Esperanto removes some complex features, but keeps others, like consonant clusters, case conjugations, multi-syllable words, etc. (not to mention the vocabulary which is 99% Euro). Those features exist in most European languages but are completely or mostly absent in other parts of the world, and to them seem completely exotic and alien. So no, "taking from every language" would just make it slightly harder for you, but make it easier for everyone else.
The argument against English being the world language is that it gives an unfair advantage to native English speakers. Why should we then give an unfair advantage to European language speakers by adopting specifically Esperanto? Why should we privilege people who were taught colonial languages earlier? You seem to ignore this large group of monolingual people in the global south. What makes them less important?
deleted by creator
No one is making that argument? It’s stupid and asinine. Why do you care about “advantage”? Like what the fuck ROFL
The point is it is easier for the vast majority of people than learning another language like English or Chinese , what is hard to grasp about that? Any globally adopted language is going to be easier for certain people who speak something similar.
like Chinese people who speak it literally say it is easy to learn
You sounds like the people that argue against universal heathcare/education because people who can afford it will also get it