Following a long tail from BrothersJudd, I discovered this debate on which would be the better international language: Japanese or Esperanto. As far as I can tell, both sides are dead (morto?) serious.
Esperanto is one of those things that crazy bearded men in cardigans get obsessed with bringing back, in spite of any evidence or reason. Like steam trains, or communism.
Skimmed it, didn't read the whole thing. As crazy bearded men in cardigans go, these guys are at least faultlessly polite to one another. Maybe we should take an example from that.
Well, I agree with you, but only to the extent that Esperanto certainly has an image problem.
If you're ever thinking of travelling the world, touring Europe, or China, or South America, you could do yourself a big favour by learning Esperanto before you set off. You might just be amazed at how many places you can find free bed and breakfast with Esperanto speakers. Try this Google Earth file for example -- it shows all the places where one particular network of spare-room-offering Esperantists live.
PS No beard here, although I did used to have a cardigan.
Leaving aside my cheap gibe about cardigans, I have two problems with the promotion of Esperanto:
The first is practical: maybe there are some Esperanto speakers everywhere, but do they outnumber English speakers anywhere? And can you get by in those countries with Esperanto - ie. go into the shops and restaurants – or are you forced to rely entirely on your (bearded?) Esperanto pal for translation? In which case, you may as well stay with an English speaker and save yourself the bother of learning Esperanto.
Free B&B with a fellow spirit is one thing - but that would be because you're both hobbyists, not because Esperanto has any particular use. You might just as easily have a network of steam train enthusiasts offering B&B.
The second problem is conceptual. Language is a fluid thing: it has an evolution, driven by the slang and usage of the speakers, not by inventors. It is pretty much impossible to artificially maintain a language, as the French are finding out. If everyone in the world was forced to speak Esperanto today, within a generation there would be English-Esperanto, Chinese-Esperanto, American-Esperanto, French-Esperanto etc, and it would not take long at all before they were so different as to require translators between them. Stephen Pinker’s The Language Instinct has some excellent stuff on this subject.
> The first is practical: > maybe there are some Esperanto > speakers everywhere, but do > they outnumber English speakers > anywhere?
That depends how you define a "speaker" of a language. If you mean "someone who can direct you to the Post Office or sell you a postcard", then no, you're far better off with English in any tourist spot in the world. (Outside the tourist spots, English may be of no use to you either, of course).
But if you mean someone who's comfortable enough in using the language to sit down for dinner and have a few drinks afterwards with you, without the danger of having to resort to pointing, gurning and miming instead of conversation, then I've a better chance of finding an Esperanto speaker than an English speaker of that level in many places. At least I know where to look for them!
To sum up: English gives you quantity of interactions, Esperanto gives you quality.
"Why's that?" I hear you cry. Because it's so much quicker to learn -- seriously, something like an order of magnitude quicker. Take a random sample of people who've studied English for four or five years, and you'll find a similar level of comprehension and expression as you typically get in Esperanto students who are less than a year into their course. If that sounds like an exaggeration, I would agree that it sounds somewhat unlikely; but having been through it myself, and now having taught English, French and Esperanto to speakers of other languages, it's something I've seen time and time again.
> are you forced to rely entirely > on your (bearded?) Esperanto > pal for translation?
Oi! You said no more weirdy beardy references, thank you. :o)
> You might just as easily have a > network of steam train > enthusiasts offering B&B.
You're right that this aspect of the movement only works because of Esperanto's current status as a minority interest; if it ever were widely adopted, the hospitality network would fall apart pretty quickly.
I don't agree with your analogy though; if I'm staying with a steam train enthusiast in Bologna, Krakow, Havana, Yokohama, or Moscow, then once we've finished admiring his model locomotives, again we're stuck for conversation. I want to tell him about my job and my baby and my country and the mess our government's making of things and God and the internet and... when I'm staying with Esperanto speakers, all of that comes out, and more, and I learn an awful lot about what makes exotically foreign people tick. And that's interesting. Even more interesting than steam trains.
> Language is a fluid thing: it > has an evolution, driven by the > slang and usage of the speakers, > not by inventors.
You're pretty much quoting Esperanto's initiator, Dr Zamenhof -- he agreed with you, as do I, and that's why he publically relinquished all control over the language in 1905. Since then it's been evolving, through poetry, through literature, through magazines and radio programmes, and through everyday use by a thinly spread but very active community of speakers.
> If everyone in the world was > forced to speak Esperanto today, > within a generation there would > be English-Esperanto, Chinese- > Esperanto, etc.
Well, the simple answer is that nobody knows what would happen. Certainly that's what has happened to English over the last couple of hundred years, although there's still debate over whether we're now converging or still diverging as we go forward.
Esperanto has been around for over a century though, developing and evolving throughout all that time, but has yet to show any significant regional schisms.
Consider this too: the whole point of Esperanto is that it's not my language and it's not your language or anybody else's. The point of speaking Esperanto is so that you can have meaningful contact with people who don't speak your first language, which means it's not really in anyone's interest to Balkanise the language.
When Czechoslovakia was split up, to quote just one example, the Czechs and the Slovaks immediately declared that their languages were different, independent entities, and (I believe) have gone out of their way to create, or at least accentuate, differences between them. That's entirely understandable though -- it's a statement of identity, of national pride, with the mother tongue being an embodiment of that. Esperanto is the total opposite -- it's no country's national language, nor could I envisage it ever being; that's not what it's for, and I don't know why any country would adopt it for that role. If speaking Esperanto is a statement of identity at all, then it could be seen as a statement of empathy and openness towards fellow men and women everywhere... one which note, I shall reach for my cardigan and hit the send button. :o)
> Stephen Pinker’s The Language > Instinct has some excellent stuff > on this subject.
I've got it on the shelf behind me, although it's a few years since I read it.
You make some very good points about Esperanto, particularly with respect to the difficulty attending the learning of any other language; English must be among the most difficult. Who knew photi is a phonetically correct spellng for fish?
I do think your assertion of some wider realm of interests automatically attending Esperanto speakers, while automatically avoiding train enthusiasts is strained. There seems no particular reason to make an assumption one way or the other.
Consider this too: the whole point of Esperanto is that it's not my language and it's not your language or anybody else's.
Which makes it seem like the whole point is to evenly distribute the pain of learning another language. It is true that native English speakers get a pass that others do not. That isn't fair, but there you have it.
Regarding language possession, I think you can make precisely the same point about English as Esperanto. English has long since stopped belonging to England, and has almost certainly (no, I don't have a cite) passed the point where the number of non-native speakers outnumbers the native speakers.
English doesn't belong to anyone, not even a special interest group.
The point of speaking Esperanto is so that you can have meaningful contact with people who don't speak your first language, which means it's not really in anyone's interest to Balkanise the language.
Whether it is in anyone's interest is beside the point. To the extent there are impediments to transmission -- geography, for instance -- Balkanisation happens, just as it has happened between US and British English.
I travel a great deal, and I'll bet anywhere I've been sports a thousand people eager to practice their English skills for everyone desiring to perfect their Esperanto.
Sad as it is to say, Esperanto is a brilliant idea that, thanks to the American economy, globalization, and the internet, doesn't seem likely to work in practice.
Hey, let's save some scorn for the guy who thinks that Japanese ought to be the universal language. I'd love to learn Japanese and I've made a start a couple of times. I don't see the world following in my footsteps.
In fact, I did it partly so that I would fit in at sushi restaurants, just to discover that almost all American such bars are staffed by Koreans who don't speak Japanese and just give you a blank stare when you tell them that their Ebi Tempura Maki is Ichi Ban.
I recall a quote somewhere that in 50 years the majority of the world's population will speak a half-dozen mutually unintelligible languages, all of them called English. Seems likely to me, but then I spend a lot of time on the phone with tech support.
Hey Skipper: > You make some very good points > about Esperanto
Why thank you. :o)
> I do think your assertion of some > wider realm of interests > automatically attending Esperanto > speakers, while automatically > avoiding train enthusiasts is > strained.
Sorry, you misunderstand me -- my point is that staying with foreign Esperantists means we can *talk* about things. I was disputing Brit's assertion that it was just like any other informal network of people with a common interest offering each other B&B. I'm not saying steam train enthusiasts are boring; what I'm saying is that if I were staying with a steam train enthusiast in some random foreign city, we'd *both* be equally bored, because we'd have no way of having any kind of meaningful discussion.
> Which makes it seem like the whole > point is to evenly distribute the > pain of learning another language. > It is true that native English > speakers get a pass that others do > not. That isn't fair, but there > you have it.
That's a fully fledged fine point you made there, and the thing with learning Esperanto, as I said, is that it is far, far easier to pick up than English. The difference is partiularly remarkable with Asian learners.
I think the language handicap that non-native speakers suffer compared to native speakers is greatly underestimated. It's true even when people want to communicate with each other, but doubly so in any kind of situation of conflict, whether it's two salesmen bidding for a contract, two politicians arguing a point of procedure, or just a sharp word about who was next in the queue -- being forced to use someone else's language to do these things is like being made to use your left hand to fight (assuming that you're right handed of course).
> English doesn't belong to anyone, > not even a special interest group.
It most certainly does. It belongs to the UK, the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, et al. -- the anglophone, Anglo-Saxon world, and it absolutely does not belong to France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico and the rest.
Being born, by chance, a native of one of these countries bestowes on you a native command of English, making it your language. This is not true for 90% of the world's population.
> I travel a great deal, and I'll > bet anywhere I've been sports a > thousand people eager to practice > their English skills for everyone > desiring to perfect their > Esperanto.
Exactly as I said in my first post -- English for quantity, but Esperanto for quality.
> what makes these kind of things > the butt of jokes or rolled eyes > is when the gentle rationalists > that promote them tag on the > "building a better world" boast > at the end.
Damn, I need to make my irony more spot-able. My bit about "empathy and openness towards fellow men and women everywhere" was intended to be taken with a pinch of salt (hence the reference to "reaching for my cardigan"). Apologies for being ambiguous.
I am equally exasperated (probably more in fact!) by people claiming that Esperanto will bring world peace, which unfortunately sometimes still happens. "If people can talk through their differences, there'll be no more wars." Nope, sorry, don't believe it. Look at Northern Ireland, look at the Balkans -- any communication problems they have are purely down to not wanting to listen...
Let me try again then: I was making a contrast between someone's first language, which has a very strong role in defining who a person is (their nationality, ethnicity, group affiliation), and Esperanto, which is a second language to be used in places where the first language doesn't work. Thus, speaking Czech instead of Slovakian puts you firmly on one side of a border, even though the two languages are as close as British and American English. The principle function of Esperanto, in contrast, is not to define my group as opposed to yours, but to be able to discuss things between those groups. Not to deny their existence, far from it, but to allow conversations between them.
> After all, the Peruvian guy might > not like the way you talk about > his wife and start a war or > something.
Which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been able to talk at all, true...
> Enjoy your eccentric hobby---the > world doesn't have enough of them > anymore, but hold the > evangelizing, please.
Hang on, I don't think I'm evangelizing. I'm answering points that other people are making about something I know a bit about (and yes, something I enthusiastically support), but I don't remember admonishing anybody for being monolingual or American, or trying to send people pamphlets or get them to sign up for a course.
I'll bet there are few countries in the world where the number of Esperanto speakers is greater than the number of train enthusiasts who also happen to speak a bit of English.
Brit: > I'll bet there are few countries in > the world where the number of > Esperanto speakers is greater than > the number of train enthusiasts who > also happen to speak a bit of > English.
You're right, but once again, I make the point that "a bit of English" isn't what I'm interested in. Yeah, I can always find someone to have a two minute exchange with to get some important but essentially trivial piece of information. It's useful to be able to do that, certainly, and pidgin English serves that role pretty well.
I'm talking about a whole 'nother level of communication though, of the kind you have with your colleagues, your friends, and your family. Imagine having a colleague or a brother-in-law who couldn't comfortably hold a conversation in English for more than a couple of minutes; would you ever get to know that person properly? (How?!) Would you ever have any particular relationship with him/her other than polite nodding as you pass?
Case in point: here in Europe, we're periodically treated to the somewhat laughable Eurobarometer surveys, which tell us that 47% of Europeans speak English (up to 92% in Sweden, apparently). This is a survey though, not a test -- essentially they ask people, "Do you speak any foreign languages?" and if they answer (in their own language), "Yes, I speak English," then they get a tick in that box.
A more in depth study of English comprehension in Sweden found that actually only 6% -- six per cent -- had a level that was even vaguely approaching that of a native speaker, although many many more believed that they had such a level.
I'm scratching around for the reference now and I can't find it :o( but my two points are: (1) there is a vast difference between knowing two minutes of polite small talk in a language and knowing the language (2) most people wildly over-estimate their actual level of ability in speaking and understanding foreign languages.
To Peter Burnet: > If someone had told me twenty-five > years ago I would be arguing about > Esperanto though my computer... oh > well, I guess we'll argue about > anything around here.
It's been condemned to death and/or dismissed as still-born for just short of 120 years now, but it's still around, and -- with no small debt to the internet -- growing nicely thank you.
To quote Claude Piron's similar example -- if someone had asked you 25 years ago to bet your house on the future existence of SwissAir, the USSR or Esperanto... well, you'd probably be homeless now! Of course, that's very easy to say with hindsight, and I'm not claiming that my home would have been any more secure ;o) but my point is that it's remarkably difficult to see even a few years into the future, never mind twenty or fifty years hence.
> I'm a firm believer in learning > languages and I have little > patience with the defiantly > unilingual
Good for you, sir. Hear hear.
> but there are only twenty-four > hours in a day and choices must be > made, so the practical question is > Esperanto or a national language.
Well, there's a project in the UK whereby they teach Esperanto to primary school children as a primer for future language learning. The rationale is that a far greater number of kids will be able to grasp the language and fly with it because it is so much more straightforward to learn than French, Spanish, etc. And the strictly regular and "transparent" grammar helps them to "see" and understand the structure of language.
The results so far are that even the weaker learners -- 7-year-olds who have difficulty reading in English -- love it because they can read and write and spell it like their classmates, and the majority are leaving each lesson with the feeling, "Hey, I can do this!" That enthusiasm alone will help them when they later start to falter over irregular subjunctives in French, but the language knowledge -- even if they never meet another Esperanto speaker in their lives -- will also be a very solid base to build on.
> For the hard utilitarian (getting > a job, negotitating a peace > treaty, etc.)or for historical/ > cultural enrichment, it doesn't > make the grade.
You might be surprised that a number of diplomats, politicians and the odd former president speak it (Małgorzata Handzlik, Sean O'Riain, Gary Koren, Ralph Harry, Dr Heinz Fischer, to name five that immediately come to mind -- google for 'em!).
If reading masterpieces of literature (including many from smaller languages that haven't been translated into English) doesn't count as cultural enrichment, then I don't know what does. If, as I've previously mentioned, spending time and getting on with and really taking to people from foreign countries doesn't count as cultural enrichment, then I don't know what does.
You're right that very very few companies use currently make any use of it, but work isn't everything, and David Gaines is one person among many whose life would have been considerably different without it.
> As to a catylst for romance, > you'll have to enlighten us.
Well, I've certainly enjoyed the company of several Esperanto speakers who may well have tempted me if I (and in some cases, also they) had not already been happily settled with partners, children, etc. It's certainly not uncommon though, and I have several friends with foreign partners and multi-lingual children -- the record, I think, is the little boy who lives in Holland with his Hungarian mum and French dad; the common language they all share is Esperanto, making him a native speaker of four languages.
> Esperanto was one of a number of > late 19th century inventions/ > causes that sought to inject a > sunny rationalism into human > affairs.
Yes, you're not wrong, but as David Gaines says in the piece I linked to above, "Surprise. The Esperanto community is, like, SO over that." There are various projects and pressure groups pushing for wider adoption of the language, but there is also a good proportion of speakers of the language who take the view that if the rest of the world isn't interested, then that's just fine thanks, and they get on with using and enjoying the language themselves.
> And I do promise you this. If > anyone ever forces me to choose > between Esperanto and Japanese as > the principle international > language, I'm going with you all > the way.
That's probably how a great many Asians feel right now when faced with English.
You're unlikely ever to face the choice of Esperanto vs. Japanese, but what about Esperanto vs. Chinese, or even Esperanto vs. Spanish? You'd be fluent in Esperanto in less than half the time you'd need for Spanish, and in a tiny fraction of the time you'd need for Chinese...
Tim: I read the David Gaines comment you linked to. As you note, he starts out by ridiculing the idea that Esperantists are naive, one-world, can't we all get along goo-goos.
But he ends up here:
I’ve been the one and only American that many people in different countries will ever meet, and I have left hundreds of people with a favorable impression of the United States simply because I spoke flawless Esperanto and expressed an interest in their countries while doing so. Take that, Condoleezza Rice....
As a composer, a political activist, an animal welfare supporter, and a vegetarian, I believe in leading by example. I don’t like to beat people over the head. People who know me well stopped making fun of Esperanto long ago, and not because of anything I’ve said. It’s because of what I’ve done, and what I’ve shown others doing. We’ll just keep on doing that and the world will always have Esperanto in it as an option to choose for those who are interested. Even if the New York Times, the BBC, and the United Nations aren’t.
Esperanto as political activism, animal rights, vegetarianism, the New York Times and the United Nations rolled into one, only more so, is pretty much what we're afraid of.
To David: > Esperanto as political activism, > animal rights, vegetarianism, the > New York Times and the United > Nations rolled into one, only more > so, is pretty much what we're afraid > of.
[Note that David Gaines says the NYT and UN essentially ignore Esperanto; whatever 'package' it is you say you're 'afraid' of doesn't include them.]
Not sure what it is that you're afraid of though. Mr Gaines says he doesn't fervently try to convert anyone and everyone he meets, doesn't ram it down people's throats; if we take him at his word, then I'm not sure what the problem is. The worst he could be accused of is leading by example, and there are far worse lifestyle examples being set by people much more influential than him.
[Seriously, I'm not being stubborn or argumentative, I just don't understand what you're asking. Please ask again in different words, and I'll try to reply.]
You said of Mr. Gaines that "[t]he worst he could be accused of is leading by example, and there are far worse lifestyle examples being set by people much more influential than him."
Oh right, I see. Well, at least as far as the Esperanto bit is concerned, he's leading anyone who might choose to follow him into opening their mind to "the other", whoever and wherever said other might be, and that can't be a bad thing. Many people are far too insular in their thinking, with everything they think they know about most foreign countries having come from news media and Hollywood films. (I could add that Americans seem to be worse for this than Europeans... but I won't because I promised not to). A bit more first-hand knowledge, whether through travelling, receiving visitors, or just reading foreign blogs, would be enriching for one and all.
In a wider context, I'd say he's setting an example simply by relying on his beliefs to guide his behaviour and the choices he makes, and whether people choose to follow his particular beliefs or not isn't the main point -- simply following the example of sometimes refusing to take the path of least resistance for reasons of principle is, in my opinion, a Good Thing.
[I ought to add that I don't actually know the man we're discussing, so my impressions of him are based on exactly the same few paragraphs that you've read too. On that basis, everything I've said above should be taken as statements I believe to be generally true, rather than about any particular person.]
[H]e's leading anyone who might choose to follow him into opening their mind to "the other", whoever and wherever said other might be, and that can't be a bad thing. Many people are far too insular in their thinking, with everything they think they know about most foreign countries having come from news media and Hollywood films. (I could add that Americans seem to be worse for this than Europeans... but I won't because I promised not to). A bit more first-hand knowledge, whether through travelling, receiving visitors, or just reading foreign blogs, would be enriching for one and all.
Yeah, that's pretty much what we're afraid of. What foreigners think is irrelevant. That's pretty much what "foreigner" means. Now, if foreigners take the trouble to learn English and, more importantly, what they have to say is intrinsically sensible, then we're more than happy to talk with them.
[Also, you might want to consider the possibility that you're experience with foreigners is skewed by the fact that you're all drawn from the small and not-necessarily typical population of Esperanto speakers. My impression has been that many foreigners are just as ignorant about the US as Americans are about foreign parts -- more so, in fact, cause they never have to send their armies over here to save our bacon.]
> What foreigners think is > irrelevant. That's pretty much > what "foreigner" means.
Wow. That's a point of view that I can't remember ever hearing expressed quite so baldly. Why does the place where somebody was born or brought up make them irrelevant to you? Why are you afraid to talk to them? It's not inconceivable you might learn something that'd be really useful to you.
> Now, if foreigners take the > trouble to learn English and, more > importantly, what they have to say > is intrinsically sensible, then > we're more than happy to talk with > them.
Certainly there's no point listening to people who spout crap, whatever language they do it in, but again, I'm slightly taken aback by your... well, what comes across as arrogance in saying that essentially "nobody matters unless they speak English". I can't possibly agree with you. Half of my family and a good number of my friends don't speak English, but that doesn't make them any less human, or intelligent, or important.
I'm re-reading your post to try to find a hint that you're writing deliberately provocative things to poke the debate a bit and/or wind me up, but if the hint's there, I can't see it.
So your position is that what foreigners have to say is important just because they're foreigners? That "foreigner" is a status akin to "family member" or "countryman," making what the person partaking of that status has to say relevant regardless of whether it makes sense or is even comprehensible?
Is this belief related to your participation in Esperanto and, if so, which way does the causation run?
> So your position is that what > foreigners have to say is > important just because they're > foreigners?
Not at all. My position is that what foreigners have to say has an equal chance of being useful/relevant/insightful or alternatively deceitful/worthless/moronic as anything said by any of my countrymen or yours.
To put it another way, there's little correlation between somebody's nationality (or the language they speak) and the value of their point of view and of them personally.
This is something that I've taken for granted for quite a long time, and it's a bit of a shock to read the polar opposite stated as a serious and considered viewpoint.
> Is this belief related to your > participation in Esperanto and, if > so, which way does the causation > run?
I hope my belief is clearer to you now, as it's not at all what you described in your last post, but I'll anwer your question in relation to my belief as set out above in this post.
Initially it was the already-held conviction that led to jumping at the chance to study Esperanto when it came along, but now I would say that the causation is a two-way street -- both feed each other.
> Would I be correct in assuming > that means you expect such > opinions to be held by > semi-literate guys named Billy-Bob > muttering about "furriners" in > rural bars, but not by anybody > thoughful?
I probably wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly, but essentially yes, that is what I meant.
> Why do I feel somebody may be hard > at work building a very big straw > man?
I'm familiar with the concept of a straw man argument, and its faults, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
> Again, no one here is against > international travel or cultural > enrichment.
Well that's good to hear at least; I had my doubts for a minute.
> But what is it that makes you > believe bare contact and dialogue > translates into anything more > than, well, bare contact and > dialogue?
Well, part of the value of international travel for me is getting to know the people, the lifestyles, the things that make country X different from my own, and pretty much the only way to do that is by talking to local people. Esperanto is not the only way to do this of course, but it's one way that works well for me.
Take this conversation we've been having for the last couple of days. It has challenged the way I think about a few things, and may even have changed the way I think about them in some way. Sure that makes me a little mentally richer than before? My ideas have developed a little in a way that they may not have done otherwise. Do you not agree that there is value in that?
> it has never crossed my mind to > think I am wiser and/or deeper > because of all the points of view > I pick up on my visits there.
I think that answers my question above -- you don't see any value in exchanging ideas with other people. This raises the question of why you're posting on here, and I can only see two possible answers: (1) You in fact do see value in exchanging ideas, as evidenced by the fact that you're doing it, but for some reason want to deny it. (2) You, a little arrogantly, believe that other people can be enriched by your opinions, but not the reverse.
OK, third possibility: (3) I've misunderstood something you've said. In which case, please do elucidate.
> [...] then goes on to believe his > "technique" can resolve all > conflicts of any kind anywhere, > anytime if only people will see > the world the way he does.
You're back with "Esperanto=World Peace", and I don't know why. I can't see how I led you there.
My point, in its most general form is this: communicating with people is a Good Thing, be it for social reasons, for business, for mental stimulation, to ask for help, or whatever. If talking to other people wasn't a good thing, we wouldn't spend so much of our lives doing it, and we wouldn't be so frustrated when we try and fail to do it. Esperanto is one tool that I use to facilitate communication in some circumstances where it wouldn't otherwise be possible. By doing so, I believe my mind and my life to be richer, and like anything that brings me pleasure, it's nice to share it with other people, if they want to. I'm not forcing anybody, but if someone asks me questions about it, I'll enjoy talking to them about it.
> Scientists are good rationalists, > so why, after more than a hundred > years, is Esperanto not all the > rage among them?
Because they're human. Here's an analogy: the metric system. It's clearly a better way of doing things, it's much more widely understood than any other system, it makes the maths easier for everyone... and yet it lay virtually untouched for a couple of hundred years after its creation, and even today, in our globalised world, is still not widely used in some countries.
Things change, but they change at the glacial pace of history. Sometimes there are revolutions, but even they take decades to build up a head of steam.
> And why can't you just sit back > and have fun without feeling you > have a mission to share with the > world?
Tim, I think the difference between us is that whereas you think it would be great if we and all the furriners could meet up and exhange well-wishing platitudes in a mutually unthreatening tongue, I think it would be great if the furriners learned to speak English, since then they could read Shakespeare.
I also think it's best to let these things sort themselves out, as trying to impose order nearly always backfires.
Of course, you know, you got your high-class furriners, and then you got your funny-talking furriners. This Tim fella sounds like he might be one of them funny-talking furriners.
My point, in its most general form is this: communicating with people is a Good Thing.
Yes, this is exactly where we disagree. To quote a foreigner, and a Frenchman to boot, "Hell is other people." I have no choice but to care what family members and other Americans believe. I'm stuck with them. In a sense, foreigners are the best kind of person; the kind that can be ignored unless they've earned our attention.
You said to Peter: You're back with "Esperanto=World Peace", and I don't know why. I can't see how I led you there. It seems to me that there is a pretty clear connection between going out of your way to learn Esperanto and believing that communicating with people is a Good Thing. I think that you ignore that the latter is a conclusion, not a universally accepted premise.
> I think it would be great if the > furriners learned to speak > English, since then they could > read Shakespeare.
Top marks to the ones that do, but that still strikes me as a very one-sided argument. Wouldn't we all be better off if we learnt Russian? Then we could read Chekhov and Dostoyevski. Or Hungarian, then we could read Kertész. Shakespeare is world-class heritage material worthy of any scholar, but so are all of the above, and plenty more you and I have never heard of.
> I also think it's best to let > these things sort themselves out, > as trying to impose order nearly > always backfires.
This doesn't stop the UK government spending millions on the British Council every year, promoting the learning of English (like it really needed promotion). I can't immediately think of the US equivalent, but I'm sure it's there.
To David:
> > communicating with people is a > > Good Thing. > > Yes, this is exactly where we > disagree.
Actions speak louder than words, and you're still posting on this thread. I'm not saying I wish you wouldn't, but surely the fact that you're communicating with me means you see some sort of value in doing so...?
> In a sense, foreigners are the > best kind of person; the kind that > can be ignored unless they've > earned our attention.
Well, that does seem to be a fundamental difference between the two of us -- I actively seek out contact with people, English speakers and others; it seems that you shun it for the most part, and the fact that 90% of the world can't speak to you is actually a handy filtering mechanism for you.
When put like that, it makes more sense, and sounds much less Billy-Bob to me than when you first said it half a dozen posts ago.
> [...] believing that communicating > with people is a Good Thing. I > think that you ignore that the > latter is a conclusion, not a > universally accepted premise.
I think you're probably right; I assumed it was pretty universally accepted, and perhaps that was wrong.
So you see, by communicating with you, you've challenged the way I think, I've had to accept a point of yours and you've helped me to slightly modify the way I see the world. That to me is a valuable and useful experience, so thanks for it, even if you don't agree!
To Peter Burnet:
> I go back to the point that there > are only twenty-four hours in a > day and choices have to be made. > We all have our interests and > diversions for our own reasons.
Same point as I made above again -- you say you're not interested in exchanging opinions with other people because it's worthless, yet you're still posting to the thread. Again, that's not a request to stop, but it does seem to me that there's an inescapable contradiction in there.
> No, Tim, I don't think just > talking to people is a good thing > or a bad thing without knowing to > whom and about what.
Well I agree with you completely. I don't think I've ever said that every conversation is intrinsically valuable, and Christ I have met some dullards in the Esperanto movement. If I have no means of talking to somebody though, I have no way of finding out whether she has an interesting mind, whether she'd be someone I want to have a few beers with, or whether I want to run a mile after five minutes. And I like to at least allow for the possibility that anybody I meet might fall into the first two categories.
> And I don't think there is > anything wrong with the States or > the West that can be cured by > seeking out as many points of view > as possible in strange lands > [...] the importance of learning > about the glory and richness of > their own cultures and celebrating > them than seeking insight from > others in remote places about our > problems.
Again, I don't disagree with much of what you said there. We do seem to be having something of an identity crisis in the west -- even more so if you're male to boot. Where we differ is that I can't see a problem with travelling far and wide to see how other people do stuff and think about stuff; sometimes it provides useful insights into things at home, but yes, sometimes it's bollocks.
> Like Joe, I am mightily impressed > with your manners. Now there is a > cause I could get behind in any > language.
Why thank you, and I have to return the compliment to you and the other posters on here. It's easy for this kind of topic to descend quickly into rabid flame wars, and I'm always pleased when it doesn't.
> But I'm also equally respectful > of, and impressed with, > Billy-Bob's NASCAR fixation.
Again, I have to agree. Coming home from a number of years abroad, I was much more acutely aware of and pleased to see things that were traditionally English, even things that I didn't particularly like. Whereas ten years ago I would have dismissed as worthless the trivial and pointless interests of the Billy-Bobs, be it NASCAR, Manchester United, or whatever, I'm now actually pleased that all that is there and doesn't change too much, so that I've still got a country I recognise to come back to.
Then we could read Chekhov and Dostoyevski. Or Hungarian, then we could read Kertész. Shakespeare is world-class heritage material worthy of any scholar, but so are all of the above, and plenty more you and I have never heard of.
But I have read Chekhov and Dostoevski, and they didn't write in Esperanto.
Also, I've just noticed that I didn't complete my sentence. It should have read:
...whereas you think it would be great if we and all the furriners could meet up and exhange well-wishing platitudes in a mutually unthreatening tongue, I think it would be great if the furriners learned to speak English, since then they could read Shakespeare and come to terms with the full extent of their inferiority.
I'll respond to your post, even though it comes across a bit trollish. "[...] come to terms with the full extent of their inferiority" indeed? Arrogance, trolling, or both. However...
> But I have read Chekhov and > Dostoevski, and they didn't write > in Esperanto.
So who needs to learn English to read Shakespeare then, if translations are good enough?
And if Chekhov and Dostoevski didn't write in Esperanto, others certainly did -- Julio Baghy, Kalman Kalocsay, Marjorie Boulton... William Auld was thrice nominated for a Nobel Prize for his poetry. Many languages -- yes, even Esperanto -- have their great literature. Unfortunately, very few non-native learners of any language get to a level where they can really appreciate it.
And to David: at least your quote ("I never doubted that foreigners have a lot to learn from me") leaves open the possibility that the transfer may possibly, even occasionally, be two-way.
40 comments:
Esperanto is one of those things that crazy bearded men in cardigans get obsessed with bringing back, in spite of any evidence or reason. Like steam trains, or communism.
The train has long left the station on this.
The international language is English.
If you are an English speaker, it is a real quandry is to which other language to learn.
For everyone else, the choice is obvious.
Skimmed it, didn't read the whole thing. As crazy bearded men in cardigans go, these guys are at least faultlessly polite to one another. Maybe we should take an example from that.
On second thought, Nah.
Well, I agree with you, but only to the extent that Esperanto certainly has an image problem.
If you're ever thinking of travelling the world, touring Europe, or China, or South America, you could do yourself a big favour by learning Esperanto before you set off. You might just be amazed at how many places you can find free bed and breakfast with Esperanto speakers. Try this Google Earth file for example -- it shows all the places where one particular network of spare-room-offering Esperantists live.
PS No beard here, although I did used to have a cardigan.
Tim:
Leaving aside my cheap gibe about cardigans, I have two problems with the promotion of Esperanto:
The first is practical: maybe there are some Esperanto speakers everywhere, but do they outnumber English speakers anywhere? And can you get by in those countries with Esperanto - ie. go into the shops and restaurants – or are you forced to rely entirely on your (bearded?) Esperanto pal for translation? In which case, you may as well stay with an English speaker and save yourself the bother of learning Esperanto.
Free B&B with a fellow spirit is one thing - but that would be because you're both hobbyists, not because Esperanto has any particular use. You might just as easily have a network of steam train enthusiasts offering B&B.
The second problem is conceptual. Language is a fluid thing: it has an evolution, driven by the slang and usage of the speakers, not by inventors. It is pretty much impossible to artificially maintain a language, as the French are finding out. If everyone in the world was forced to speak Esperanto today, within a generation there would be English-Esperanto, Chinese-Esperanto, American-Esperanto, French-Esperanto etc, and it would not take long at all before they were so different as to require translators between them. Stephen Pinker’s The Language Instinct has some excellent stuff on this subject.
Brit,
> Leaving aside my cheap gibe about cardigans,
Yes, let's!
> The first is practical:
> maybe there are some Esperanto
> speakers everywhere, but do
> they outnumber English speakers
> anywhere?
That depends how you define a "speaker" of a language. If you mean "someone who can direct you to the Post Office or sell you a postcard", then no, you're far better off with English in any tourist spot in the world. (Outside the tourist spots, English may be of no use to you either, of course).
But if you mean someone who's comfortable enough in using the language to sit down for dinner and have a few drinks afterwards with you, without the danger of having to resort to pointing, gurning and miming instead of conversation, then I've a better chance of finding an Esperanto speaker than an English speaker of that level in many places. At least I know where to look for them!
To sum up: English gives you quantity of interactions, Esperanto gives you quality.
"Why's that?" I hear you cry. Because it's so much quicker to learn -- seriously, something like an order of magnitude quicker. Take a random sample of people who've studied English for four or five years, and you'll find a similar level of comprehension and expression as you typically get in Esperanto students who are less than a year into their course. If that sounds like an exaggeration, I would agree that it sounds somewhat unlikely; but having been through it myself, and now having taught English, French and Esperanto to speakers of other languages, it's something I've seen time and time again.
> are you forced to rely entirely
> on your (bearded?) Esperanto
> pal for translation?
Oi! You said no more weirdy beardy references, thank you. :o)
> You might just as easily have a
> network of steam train
> enthusiasts offering B&B.
You're right that this aspect of the movement only works because of Esperanto's current status as a minority interest; if it ever were widely adopted, the hospitality network would fall apart pretty quickly.
I don't agree with your analogy though; if I'm staying with a steam train enthusiast in Bologna, Krakow, Havana, Yokohama, or Moscow, then once we've finished admiring his model locomotives, again we're stuck for conversation. I want to tell him about my job and my baby and my country and the mess our government's making of things and God and the internet and... when I'm staying with Esperanto speakers, all of that comes out, and more, and I learn an awful lot about what makes exotically foreign people tick. And that's interesting. Even more interesting than steam trains.
> Language is a fluid thing: it
> has an evolution, driven by the
> slang and usage of the speakers,
> not by inventors.
You're pretty much quoting Esperanto's initiator, Dr Zamenhof -- he agreed with you, as do I, and that's why he publically relinquished all control over the language in 1905. Since then it's been evolving, through poetry, through literature, through magazines and radio programmes, and through everyday use by a thinly spread but very active community of speakers.
> If everyone in the world was
> forced to speak Esperanto today,
> within a generation there would
> be English-Esperanto, Chinese-
> Esperanto, etc.
Well, the simple answer is that nobody knows what would happen. Certainly that's what has happened to English over the last couple of hundred years, although there's still debate over whether we're now converging or still diverging as we go forward.
Esperanto has been around for over a century though, developing and evolving throughout all that time, but has yet to show any significant regional schisms.
Consider this too: the whole point of Esperanto is that it's not my language and it's not your language or anybody else's. The point of speaking Esperanto is so that you can have meaningful contact with people who don't speak your first language, which means it's not really in anyone's interest to Balkanise the language.
When Czechoslovakia was split up, to quote just one example, the Czechs and the Slovaks immediately declared that their languages were different, independent entities, and (I believe) have gone out of their way to create, or at least accentuate, differences between them. That's entirely understandable though -- it's a statement of identity, of national pride, with the mother tongue being an embodiment of that. Esperanto is the total opposite -- it's no country's national language, nor could I envisage it ever being; that's not what it's for, and I don't know why any country would adopt it for that role. If speaking Esperanto is a statement of identity at all, then it could be seen as a statement of empathy and openness towards fellow men and women everywhere... one which note, I shall reach for my cardigan and hit the send button. :o)
> Stephen Pinker’s The Language
> Instinct has some excellent stuff
> on this subject.
I've got it on the shelf behind me, although it's a few years since I read it.
Tim:
You make some very good points about Esperanto, particularly with respect to the difficulty attending the learning of any other language; English must be among the most difficult. Who knew photi is a phonetically correct spellng for fish?
I do think your assertion of some wider realm of interests automatically attending Esperanto speakers, while automatically avoiding train enthusiasts is strained. There seems no particular reason to make an assumption one way or the other.
Consider this too: the whole point of Esperanto is that it's not my language and it's not your language or anybody else's.
Which makes it seem like the whole point is to evenly distribute the pain of learning another language. It is true that native English speakers get a pass that others do not. That isn't fair, but there you have it.
Regarding language possession, I think you can make precisely the same point about English as Esperanto. English has long since stopped belonging to England, and has almost certainly (no, I don't have a cite) passed the point where the number of non-native speakers outnumbers the native speakers.
English doesn't belong to anyone, not even a special interest group.
The point of speaking Esperanto is so that you can have meaningful contact with people who don't speak your first language, which means it's not really in anyone's interest to Balkanise the language.
Whether it is in anyone's interest is beside the point. To the extent there are impediments to transmission -- geography, for instance -- Balkanisation happens, just as it has happened between US and British English.
I travel a great deal, and I'll bet anywhere I've been sports a thousand people eager to practice their English skills for everyone desiring to perfect their Esperanto.
Sad as it is to say, Esperanto is a brilliant idea that, thanks to the American economy, globalization, and the internet, doesn't seem likely to work in practice.
Hey, let's save some scorn for the guy who thinks that Japanese ought to be the universal language. I'd love to learn Japanese and I've made a start a couple of times. I don't see the world following in my footsteps.
In fact, I did it partly so that I would fit in at sushi restaurants, just to discover that almost all American such bars are staffed by Koreans who don't speak Japanese and just give you a blank stare when you tell them that their Ebi Tempura Maki is Ichi Ban.
I recall a quote somewhere that in 50 years the majority of the world's population will speak a half-dozen mutually unintelligible languages, all of them called English. Seems likely to me, but then I spend a lot of time on the phone with tech support.
Hey Skipper:
> You make some very good points
> about Esperanto
Why thank you. :o)
> I do think your assertion of some
> wider realm of interests
> automatically attending Esperanto
> speakers, while automatically
> avoiding train enthusiasts is
> strained.
Sorry, you misunderstand me -- my point is that staying with foreign Esperantists means we can *talk* about things. I was disputing Brit's assertion that it was just like any other informal network of people with a common interest offering each other B&B. I'm not saying steam train enthusiasts are boring; what I'm saying is that if I were staying with a steam train enthusiast in some random foreign city, we'd *both* be equally bored, because we'd have no way of having any kind of meaningful discussion.
> Which makes it seem like the whole
> point is to evenly distribute the
> pain of learning another language.
> It is true that native English
> speakers get a pass that others do
> not. That isn't fair, but there
> you have it.
That's a fully fledged fine point you made there, and the thing with learning Esperanto, as I said, is that it is far, far easier to pick up than English. The difference is partiularly remarkable with Asian learners.
I think the language handicap that non-native speakers suffer compared to native speakers is greatly underestimated. It's true even when people want to communicate with each other, but doubly so in any kind of situation of conflict, whether it's two salesmen bidding for a contract, two politicians arguing a point of procedure, or just a sharp word about who was next in the queue -- being forced to use someone else's language to do these things is like being made to use your left hand to fight (assuming that you're right handed of course).
> English doesn't belong to anyone,
> not even a special interest group.
It most certainly does. It belongs to the UK, the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, et al. -- the anglophone, Anglo-Saxon world, and it absolutely does not belong to France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico and the rest.
Being born, by chance, a native of one of these countries bestowes on you a native command of English, making it your language. This is not true for 90% of the world's population.
> I travel a great deal, and I'll
> bet anywhere I've been sports a
> thousand people eager to practice
> their English skills for everyone > desiring to perfect their
> Esperanto.
Exactly as I said in my first post -- English for quantity, but Esperanto for quality.
To Peter Burnet:
> what makes these kind of things
> the butt of jokes or rolled eyes
> is when the gentle rationalists
> that promote them tag on the
> "building a better world" boast
> at the end.
Damn, I need to make my irony more spot-able. My bit about "empathy and openness towards fellow men and women everywhere" was intended to be taken with a pinch of salt (hence the reference to "reaching for my cardigan"). Apologies for being ambiguous.
I am equally exasperated (probably more in fact!) by people claiming that Esperanto will bring world peace, which unfortunately sometimes still happens. "If people can talk through their differences, there'll be no more wars." Nope, sorry, don't believe it. Look at Northern Ireland, look at the Balkans -- any communication problems they have are purely down to not wanting to listen...
Let me try again then: I was making a contrast between someone's first language, which has a very strong role in defining who a person is (their nationality, ethnicity, group affiliation), and Esperanto, which is a second language to be used in places where the first language doesn't work. Thus, speaking Czech instead of Slovakian puts you firmly on one side of a border, even though the two languages are as close as British and American English. The principle function of Esperanto, in contrast, is not to define my group as opposed to yours, but to be able to discuss things between those groups. Not to deny their existence, far from it, but to allow conversations between them.
> After all, the Peruvian guy might
> not like the way you talk about
> his wife and start a war or
> something.
Which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been able to talk at all, true...
> Enjoy your eccentric hobby---the
> world doesn't have enough of them
> anymore, but hold the
> evangelizing, please.
Hang on, I don't think I'm evangelizing. I'm answering points that other people are making about something I know a bit about (and yes, something I enthusiastically support), but I don't remember admonishing anybody for being monolingual or American, or trying to send people pamphlets or get them to sign up for a course.
I'll bet there are few countries in the world where the number of Esperanto speakers is greater than the number of train enthusiasts who also happen to speak a bit of English.
Brit:
> I'll bet there are few countries in
> the world where the number of
> Esperanto speakers is greater than
> the number of train enthusiasts who
> also happen to speak a bit of
> English.
You're right, but once again, I make the point that "a bit of English" isn't what I'm interested in. Yeah, I can always find someone to have a two minute exchange with to get some important but essentially trivial piece of information. It's useful to be able to do that, certainly, and pidgin English serves that role pretty well.
I'm talking about a whole 'nother level of communication though, of the kind you have with your colleagues, your friends, and your family. Imagine having a colleague or a brother-in-law who couldn't comfortably hold a conversation in English for more than a couple of minutes; would you ever get to know that person properly? (How?!) Would you ever have any particular relationship with him/her other than polite nodding as you pass?
Case in point: here in Europe, we're periodically treated to the somewhat laughable Eurobarometer surveys, which tell us that 47% of Europeans speak English (up to 92% in Sweden, apparently). This is a survey though, not a test -- essentially they ask people, "Do you speak any foreign languages?" and if they answer (in their own language), "Yes, I speak English," then they get a tick in that box.
A more in depth study of English comprehension in Sweden found that actually only 6% -- six per cent -- had a level that was even vaguely approaching that of a native speaker, although many many more believed that they had such a level.
I'm scratching around for the reference now and I can't find it :o( but my two points are:
(1) there is a vast difference between knowing two minutes of polite small talk in a language and knowing the language
(2) most people wildly over-estimate their actual level of ability in speaking and understanding foreign languages.
To Peter Burnet:
> If someone had told me twenty-five
> years ago I would be arguing about
> Esperanto though my computer... oh
> well, I guess we'll argue about
> anything around here.
It's been condemned to death and/or dismissed as still-born for just short of 120 years now, but it's still around, and -- with no small debt to the internet -- growing nicely thank you.
To quote Claude Piron's similar example -- if someone had asked you 25 years ago to bet your house on the future existence of SwissAir, the USSR or Esperanto... well, you'd probably be homeless now! Of course, that's very easy to say with hindsight, and I'm not claiming that my home would have been any more secure ;o) but my point is that it's remarkably difficult to see even a few years into the future, never mind twenty or fifty years hence.
> I'm a firm believer in learning
> languages and I have little
> patience with the defiantly
> unilingual
Good for you, sir. Hear hear.
> but there are only twenty-four
> hours in a day and choices must be
> made, so the practical question is
> Esperanto or a national language.
Well, there's a project in the UK whereby they teach Esperanto to primary school children as a primer for future language learning. The rationale is that a far greater number of kids will be able to grasp the language and fly with it because it is so much more straightforward to learn than French, Spanish, etc. And the strictly regular and "transparent" grammar helps them to "see" and understand the structure of language.
The results so far are that even the weaker learners -- 7-year-olds who have difficulty reading in English -- love it because they can read and write and spell it like their classmates, and the majority are leaving each lesson with the feeling, "Hey, I can do this!" That enthusiasm alone will help them when they later start to falter over irregular subjunctives in French, but the language knowledge -- even if they never meet another Esperanto speaker in their lives -- will also be a very solid base to build on.
> For the hard utilitarian (getting
> a job, negotitating a peace
> treaty, etc.)or for historical/
> cultural enrichment, it doesn't
> make the grade.
You might be surprised that a number of diplomats, politicians and the odd former president speak it (Małgorzata Handzlik, Sean O'Riain, Gary Koren, Ralph Harry, Dr Heinz Fischer, to name five that immediately come to mind -- google for 'em!).
If reading masterpieces of literature (including many from smaller languages that haven't been translated into English) doesn't count as cultural enrichment, then I don't know what does. If, as I've previously mentioned, spending time and getting on with and really taking to people from foreign countries doesn't count as cultural enrichment, then I don't know what does.
You're right that very very few companies use currently make any use of it, but work isn't everything, and David Gaines is one person among many whose life would have been considerably different without it.
> As to a catylst for romance,
> you'll have to enlighten us.
Well, I've certainly enjoyed the company of several Esperanto speakers who may well have tempted me if I (and in some cases, also they) had not already been happily settled with partners, children, etc. It's certainly not uncommon though, and I have several friends with foreign partners and multi-lingual children -- the record, I think, is the little boy who lives in Holland with his Hungarian mum and French dad; the common language they all share is Esperanto, making him a native speaker of four languages.
> Esperanto was one of a number of
> late 19th century inventions/
> causes that sought to inject a
> sunny rationalism into human
> affairs.
Yes, you're not wrong, but as David Gaines says in the piece I linked to above, "Surprise. The Esperanto community is, like, SO over that." There are various projects and pressure groups pushing for wider adoption of the language, but there is also a good proportion of speakers of the language who take the view that if the rest of the world isn't interested, then that's just fine thanks, and they get on with using and enjoying the language themselves.
> And I do promise you this. If
> anyone ever forces me to choose
> between Esperanto and Japanese as
> the principle international
> language, I'm going with you all
> the way.
That's probably how a great many Asians feel right now when faced with English.
You're unlikely ever to face the choice of Esperanto vs. Japanese, but what about Esperanto vs. Chinese, or even Esperanto vs. Spanish? You'd be fluent in Esperanto in less than half the time you'd need for Spanish, and in a tiny fraction of the time you'd need for Chinese...
Cheers and thanks yourself. :o)
Tim: I read the David Gaines comment you linked to. As you note, he starts out by ridiculing the idea that Esperantists are naive, one-world, can't we all get along goo-goos.
But he ends up here:
I’ve been the one and only American that many people in different countries will ever meet, and I have left hundreds of people with a favorable impression of the United States simply because I spoke flawless Esperanto and expressed an interest in their countries while doing so. Take that, Condoleezza Rice....
As a composer, a political activist, an animal welfare supporter, and a vegetarian, I believe in leading by example. I don’t like to beat people over the head. People who know me well stopped making fun of Esperanto long ago, and not because of anything I’ve said. It’s because of what I’ve done, and what I’ve shown others doing. We’ll just keep on doing that and the world will always have Esperanto in it as an option to choose for those who are interested. Even if the New York Times, the BBC, and the United Nations aren’t.
Esperanto as political activism, animal rights, vegetarianism, the New York Times and the United Nations rolled into one, only more so, is pretty much what we're afraid of.
To David:
> Esperanto as political activism,
> animal rights, vegetarianism, the
> New York Times and the United
> Nations rolled into one, only more
> so, is pretty much what we're afraid
> of.
[Note that David Gaines says the NYT and UN essentially ignore Esperanto; whatever 'package' it is you say you're 'afraid' of doesn't include them.]
Not sure what it is that you're afraid of though. Mr Gaines says he doesn't fervently try to convert anyone and everyone he meets, doesn't ram it down people's throats; if we take him at his word, then I'm not sure what the problem is. The worst he could be accused of is leading by example, and there are far worse lifestyle examples being set by people much more influential than him.
Could you explain a bit more?
Where is he leading?
Sorry, who? I'm lost. Where is who leading whom?
[Seriously, I'm not being stubborn or argumentative, I just don't understand what you're asking. Please ask again in different words, and I'll try to reply.]
You said of Mr. Gaines that "[t]he worst he could be accused of is leading by example, and there are far worse lifestyle examples being set by people much more influential than him."
So, where is he leading us?
Oh right, I see. Well, at least as far as the Esperanto bit is concerned, he's leading anyone who might choose to follow him into opening their mind to "the other", whoever and wherever said other might be, and that can't be a bad thing. Many people are far too insular in their thinking, with everything they think they know about most foreign countries having come from news media and Hollywood films. (I could add that Americans seem to be worse for this than Europeans... but I won't because I promised not to). A bit more first-hand knowledge, whether through travelling, receiving visitors, or just reading foreign blogs, would be enriching for one and all.
In a wider context, I'd say he's setting an example simply by relying on his beliefs to guide his behaviour and the choices he makes, and whether people choose to follow his particular beliefs or not isn't the main point -- simply following the example of sometimes refusing to take the path of least resistance for reasons of principle is, in my opinion, a Good Thing.
[I ought to add that I don't actually know the man we're discussing, so my impressions of him are based on exactly the same few paragraphs that you've read too. On that basis, everything I've said above should be taken as statements I believe to be generally true, rather than about any particular person.]
[H]e's leading anyone who might choose to follow him into opening their mind to "the other", whoever and wherever said other might be, and that can't be a bad thing. Many people are far too insular in their thinking, with everything they think they know about most foreign countries having come from news media and Hollywood films. (I could add that Americans seem to be worse for this than Europeans... but I won't because I promised not to). A bit more first-hand knowledge, whether through travelling, receiving visitors, or just reading foreign blogs, would be enriching for one and all.
Yeah, that's pretty much what we're afraid of. What foreigners think is irrelevant. That's pretty much what "foreigner" means. Now, if foreigners take the trouble to learn English and, more importantly, what they have to say is intrinsically sensible, then we're more than happy to talk with them.
[Also, you might want to consider the possibility that you're experience with foreigners is skewed by the fact that you're all drawn from the small and not-necessarily typical population of Esperanto speakers. My impression has been that many foreigners are just as ignorant about the US as Americans are about foreign parts -- more so, in fact, cause they never have to send their armies over here to save our bacon.]
To David:
> What foreigners think is
> irrelevant. That's pretty much
> what "foreigner" means.
Wow. That's a point of view that I can't remember ever hearing expressed quite so baldly. Why does the place where somebody was born or brought up make them irrelevant to you? Why are you afraid to talk to them? It's not inconceivable you might learn something that'd be really useful to you.
> Now, if foreigners take the
> trouble to learn English and, more
> importantly, what they have to say
> is intrinsically sensible, then
> we're more than happy to talk with
> them.
Certainly there's no point listening to people who spout crap, whatever language they do it in, but again, I'm slightly taken aback by your... well, what comes across as arrogance in saying that essentially "nobody matters unless they speak English". I can't possibly agree with you. Half of my family and a good number of my friends don't speak English, but that doesn't make them any less human, or intelligent, or important.
I'm re-reading your post to try to find a hint that you're writing deliberately provocative things to poke the debate a bit and/or wind me up, but if the hint's there, I can't see it.
So your position is that what foreigners have to say is important just because they're foreigners? That "foreigner" is a status akin to "family member" or "countryman," making what the person partaking of that status has to say relevant regardless of whether it makes sense or is even comprehensible?
Is this belief related to your participation in Esperanto and, if so, which way does the causation run?
To David:
> So your position is that what
> foreigners have to say is
> important just because they're
> foreigners?
Not at all. My position is that what foreigners have to say has an equal chance of being useful/relevant/insightful or alternatively deceitful/worthless/moronic as anything said by any of my countrymen or yours.
To put it another way, there's little correlation between somebody's nationality (or the language they speak) and the value of their point of view and of them personally.
This is something that I've taken for granted for quite a long time, and it's a bit of a shock to read the polar opposite stated as a serious and considered viewpoint.
> Is this belief related to your
> participation in Esperanto and, if
> so, which way does the causation
> run?
I hope my belief is clearer to you now, as it's not at all what you described in your last post, but I'll anwer your question in relation to my belief as set out above in this post.
Initially it was the already-held conviction that led to jumping at the chance to study Esperanto when it came along, but now I would say that the causation is a two-way street -- both feed each other.
Why do you ask?
Congratulations, David. You haven't just got trolls, you've got...Esperanto trolls. I think you may have found your niche in the blogosphere.
Now, Joe, Tim's not a troll. I completely believe that everything he's said here is in earnest.
Skipper:
Who knew photi is a phonetically correct spellng for fish?
It's ghoti in the Bernard Shaw example: gh as in 'rough', o as in 'women' and 'ti' as in 'motion'.
But my sister observed recently that it could just as easily be "uoti" - with the 'u' as in the British pronounciation of "lieutenant".
But at least it's less geeky than Klingon.
Marginally.
Some of my best friends are furriners, Peter.
To Peter Burnet:
> Would I be correct in assuming
> that means you expect such
> opinions to be held by
> semi-literate guys named Billy-Bob
> muttering about "furriners" in
> rural bars, but not by anybody
> thoughful?
I probably wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly, but essentially yes, that is what I meant.
> Why do I feel somebody may be hard
> at work building a very big straw
> man?
I'm familiar with the concept of a straw man argument, and its faults, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
> Again, no one here is against
> international travel or cultural
> enrichment.
Well that's good to hear at least; I had my doubts for a minute.
> But what is it that makes you
> believe bare contact and dialogue
> translates into anything more
> than, well, bare contact and
> dialogue?
Well, part of the value of international travel for me is getting to know the people, the lifestyles, the things that make country X different from my own, and pretty much the only way to do that is by talking to local people. Esperanto is not the only way to do this of course, but it's one way that works well for me.
Take this conversation we've been having for the last couple of days. It has challenged the way I think about a few things, and may even have changed the way I think about them in some way. Sure that makes me a little mentally richer than before? My ideas have developed a little in a way that they may not have done otherwise. Do you not agree that there is value in that?
> it has never crossed my mind to
> think I am wiser and/or deeper
> because of all the points of view
> I pick up on my visits there.
I think that answers my question above -- you don't see any value in exchanging ideas with other people. This raises the question of why you're posting on here, and I can only see two possible answers:
(1) You in fact do see value in exchanging ideas, as evidenced by the fact that you're doing it, but for some reason want to deny it.
(2) You, a little arrogantly, believe that other people can be enriched by your opinions, but not the reverse.
OK, third possibility:
(3) I've misunderstood something you've said. In which case, please do elucidate.
> [...] then goes on to believe his
> "technique" can resolve all
> conflicts of any kind anywhere,
> anytime if only people will see
> the world the way he does.
You're back with "Esperanto=World Peace", and I don't know why. I can't see how I led you there.
My point, in its most general form is this: communicating with people is a Good Thing, be it for social reasons, for business, for mental stimulation, to ask for help, or whatever. If talking to other people wasn't a good thing, we wouldn't spend so much of our lives doing it, and we wouldn't be so frustrated when we try and fail to do it. Esperanto is one tool that I use to facilitate communication in some circumstances where it wouldn't otherwise be possible. By doing so, I believe my mind and my life to be richer, and like anything that brings me pleasure, it's nice to share it with other people, if they want to. I'm not forcing anybody, but if someone asks me questions about it, I'll enjoy talking to them about it.
> Scientists are good rationalists,
> so why, after more than a hundred
> years, is Esperanto not all the
> rage among them?
Because they're human. Here's an analogy: the metric system. It's clearly a better way of doing things, it's much more widely understood than any other system, it makes the maths easier for everyone... and yet it lay virtually untouched for a couple of hundred years after its creation, and even today, in our globalised world, is still not widely used in some countries.
Things change, but they change at the glacial pace of history. Sometimes there are revolutions, but even they take decades to build up a head of steam.
> And why can't you just sit back
> and have fun without feeling you
> have a mission to share with the
> world?
This is me having fun. :o)
Tim, I think the difference between us is that whereas you think it would be great if we and all the furriners could meet up and exhange well-wishing platitudes in a mutually unthreatening tongue, I think it would be great if the furriners learned to speak English, since then they could read Shakespeare.
I also think it's best to let these things sort themselves out, as trying to impose order nearly always backfires.
The metric system is the Devil's Handiwork, too.
Of course, you know, you got your high-class furriners, and then you got your funny-talking furriners. This Tim fella sounds like he might be one of them funny-talking furriners.
Tim:
My point, in its most general form is this: communicating with people is a Good Thing.
Yes, this is exactly where we disagree. To quote a foreigner, and a Frenchman to boot, "Hell is other people." I have no choice but to care what family members and other Americans believe. I'm stuck with them. In a sense, foreigners are the best kind of person; the kind that can be ignored unless they've earned our attention.
You said to Peter: You're back with "Esperanto=World Peace", and I don't know why. I can't see how I led you there. It seems to me that there is a pretty clear connection between going out of your way to learn Esperanto and believing that communicating with people is a Good Thing. I think that you ignore that the latter is a conclusion, not a universally accepted premise.
To Brit
> I think it would be great if the
> furriners learned to speak
> English, since then they could
> read Shakespeare.
Top marks to the ones that do, but that still strikes me as a very one-sided argument. Wouldn't we all be better off if we learnt Russian? Then we could read Chekhov and Dostoyevski. Or Hungarian, then we could read Kertész. Shakespeare is world-class heritage material worthy of any scholar, but so are all of the above, and plenty more you and I have never heard of.
> I also think it's best to let
> these things sort themselves out,
> as trying to impose order nearly
> always backfires.
This doesn't stop the UK government spending millions on the British Council every year, promoting the learning of English (like it really needed promotion). I can't immediately think of the US equivalent, but I'm sure it's there.
To David:
> > communicating with people is a
> > Good Thing.
>
> Yes, this is exactly where we
> disagree.
Actions speak louder than words, and you're still posting on this thread. I'm not saying I wish you wouldn't, but surely the fact that you're communicating with me means you see some sort of value in doing so...?
> In a sense, foreigners are the
> best kind of person; the kind that
> can be ignored unless they've
> earned our attention.
Well, that does seem to be a fundamental difference between the two of us -- I actively seek out contact with people, English speakers and others; it seems that you shun it for the most part, and the fact that 90% of the world can't speak to you is actually a handy filtering mechanism for you.
When put like that, it makes more sense, and sounds much less Billy-Bob to me than when you first said it half a dozen posts ago.
> [...] believing that communicating
> with people is a Good Thing. I
> think that you ignore that the
> latter is a conclusion, not a
> universally accepted premise.
I think you're probably right; I assumed it was pretty universally accepted, and perhaps that was wrong.
So you see, by communicating with you, you've challenged the way I think, I've had to accept a point of yours and you've helped me to slightly modify the way I see the world. That to me is a valuable and useful experience, so thanks for it, even if you don't agree!
To Peter Burnet:
> I go back to the point that there
> are only twenty-four hours in a
> day and choices have to be made.
> We all have our interests and
> diversions for our own reasons.
Same point as I made above again -- you say you're not interested in exchanging opinions with other people because it's worthless, yet you're still posting to the thread. Again, that's not a request to stop, but it does seem to me that there's an inescapable contradiction in there.
> No, Tim, I don't think just
> talking to people is a good thing
> or a bad thing without knowing to
> whom and about what.
Well I agree with you completely. I don't think I've ever said that every conversation is intrinsically valuable, and Christ I have met some dullards in the Esperanto movement. If I have no means of talking to somebody though, I have no way of finding out whether she has an interesting mind, whether she'd be someone I want to have a few beers with, or whether I want to run a mile after five minutes. And I like to at least allow for the possibility that anybody I meet might fall into the first two categories.
> And I don't think there is
> anything wrong with the States or
> the West that can be cured by
> seeking out as many points of view
> as possible in strange lands
> [...] the importance of learning
> about the glory and richness of
> their own cultures and celebrating
> them than seeking insight from
> others in remote places about our
> problems.
Again, I don't disagree with much of what you said there. We do seem to be having something of an identity crisis in the west -- even more so if you're male to boot. Where we differ is that I can't see a problem with travelling far and wide to see how other people do stuff and think about stuff; sometimes it provides useful insights into things at home, but yes, sometimes it's bollocks.
> Like Joe, I am mightily impressed
> with your manners. Now there is a
> cause I could get behind in any
> language.
Why thank you, and I have to return the compliment to you and the other posters on here. It's easy for this kind of topic to descend quickly into rabid flame wars, and I'm always pleased when it doesn't.
> But I'm also equally respectful
> of, and impressed with,
> Billy-Bob's NASCAR fixation.
Again, I have to agree. Coming home from a number of years abroad, I was much more acutely aware of and pleased to see things that were traditionally English, even things that I didn't particularly like. Whereas ten years ago I would have dismissed as worthless the trivial and pointless interests of the Billy-Bobs, be it NASCAR, Manchester United, or whatever, I'm now actually pleased that all that is there and doesn't change too much, so that I've still got a country I recognise to come back to.
Sorry, server quirk -- last post went up twice. Feel free to delete one of them, along with this note too.
Then we could read Chekhov and Dostoyevski. Or Hungarian, then we could read Kertész. Shakespeare is world-class heritage material worthy of any scholar, but so are all of the above, and plenty more you and I have never heard of.
But I have read Chekhov and Dostoevski, and they didn't write in Esperanto.
Also, I've just noticed that I didn't complete my sentence. It should have read:
...whereas you think it would be great if we and all the furriners could meet up and exhange well-wishing platitudes in a mutually unthreatening tongue, I think it would be great if the furriners learned to speak English, since then they could read Shakespeare and come to terms with the full extent of their inferiority.
Tim: I never doubted that foreigners have a lot to learn from me. After all, I've run the experiment.
Brit:
I'll respond to your post, even though it comes across a bit trollish. "[...] come to terms with the full extent of their inferiority" indeed? Arrogance, trolling, or both. However...
> But I have read Chekhov and
> Dostoevski, and they didn't write
> in Esperanto.
So who needs to learn English to read Shakespeare then, if translations are good enough?
And if Chekhov and Dostoevski didn't write in Esperanto, others certainly did -- Julio Baghy, Kalman Kalocsay, Marjorie Boulton... William Auld was thrice nominated for a Nobel Prize for his poetry. Many languages -- yes, even Esperanto -- have their great literature. Unfortunately, very few non-native learners of any language get to a level where they can really appreciate it.
And to David: at least your quote ("I never doubted that foreigners have a lot to learn from me") leaves open the possibility that the transfer may possibly, even occasionally, be two-way.
Me trolling?
You're the one who's arguing that I should learn Esperanto on the grounds that Chekhov wrote in Russian.
Post a Comment