which is your opinion on the international languages?
Having a whole a goal: That everyone can be understood...
Having a whole a goal: That everyone can be understood...
Esperanto, ido, volapük, interlingua... what think about it?
I think that if a language like esperanto was adopted as a neutral, international language of communication, by custom or convention, everyone on this planet (except the english-speaking) would be better off. Plus lots of small languages could be saved from extinction.
I agree with you, but this time there did not come yet and maybe will not never come you it...
Already if a country indicated to adopt a language(tongue) as the esperanto, it would already advance things, I know that that would not favor the English speakers internationally, but sacrifices must be made, I recall that everyone does not know English alone 1/8th...
Already if a country indicated to adopt a language(tongue) as the esperanto, it would already advance things, I know that that would not favor the English speakers internationally, but sacrifices must be made, I recall that everyone does not know English alone 1/8th...
Mi povas paroleti Esperanton, sed mi skribos angle.
It is important to understand that there are significant differences between the objectives of different constructed languages. For example, the original aims of Esperanto are very different from those of Interlingua. One should also note that the original aims of Esperanto are very different from those shared by a significant proportion of Esperantists today.
The original aim of Esperanto was that everyone would learn it as a second language in order to facilitate international communication. Contrary to popular belief, those Esperanto speakers who still have this vision are now a minority. Instead, Esperanto speakers today generally perceive Esperanto as the language of their own small but highly international community. The same is true for Ido, which is heavily based on Esperanto, but has significantly fewer speakers. Volapük is practically dead, as it has only about 20 speakers, all of whom also speak Esperanto. Although Esperanto is very Eurocentric, and although about 70% of the vocabulary is Latin-derived, it has speakers from all over the world and was intended as such.
Interlingua, on the other hand, was created as a language which would be understandable to all speakers of Romance languages, or speakers of English with some knowledge of a Romance language. Likewise, Folkspraak does the same with Germanic languages, and Slovio does the same with Slavic languages. In general, I find that Interlingua works best in the written form, whilst Folkspraak works best in the spoken form.
It is important to understand that there are significant differences between the objectives of different constructed languages. For example, the original aims of Esperanto are very different from those of Interlingua. One should also note that the original aims of Esperanto are very different from those shared by a significant proportion of Esperantists today.
The original aim of Esperanto was that everyone would learn it as a second language in order to facilitate international communication. Contrary to popular belief, those Esperanto speakers who still have this vision are now a minority. Instead, Esperanto speakers today generally perceive Esperanto as the language of their own small but highly international community. The same is true for Ido, which is heavily based on Esperanto, but has significantly fewer speakers. Volapük is practically dead, as it has only about 20 speakers, all of whom also speak Esperanto. Although Esperanto is very Eurocentric, and although about 70% of the vocabulary is Latin-derived, it has speakers from all over the world and was intended as such.
Interlingua, on the other hand, was created as a language which would be understandable to all speakers of Romance languages, or speakers of English with some knowledge of a Romance language. Likewise, Folkspraak does the same with Germanic languages, and Slovio does the same with Slavic languages. In general, I find that Interlingua works best in the written form, whilst Folkspraak works best in the spoken form.
Although I'm not an esperanto speaker, I consider myself an Esperanto fan and a fan of the whole ideia of having a common, neutral language for communication, just has we have the metric system as a common standard of measures.
I've read and thought a bit about these issues and I've reached the conclusion that, in order for an international language (like Esperanto) to succeed, it needs a strong core of ideologically motivated speakers, who are engaged full-time in propagating the language. It is not enough to leave that effort to isolated individuals, who meet with other speakers from time to time.
It is also naive, I think, to expect that some organization or country will adopt it as it is. One has to be realistic. A large group of people or an institution, such as international organizations and governments don't usually take decisions based on ideal supositions. A decision will be made that is usefull or adequate to a particular circumstance, not because it is abstractily more just and fair.
Only, and only when a language like Esperanto proves its usefulness and has a large, permanent and geographically spread body of native speakers (yes, native) it will have any change of being adopted (gradually) by peoples and organizations.
I've read and thought a bit about these issues and I've reached the conclusion that, in order for an international language (like Esperanto) to succeed, it needs a strong core of ideologically motivated speakers, who are engaged full-time in propagating the language. It is not enough to leave that effort to isolated individuals, who meet with other speakers from time to time.
It is also naive, I think, to expect that some organization or country will adopt it as it is. One has to be realistic. A large group of people or an institution, such as international organizations and governments don't usually take decisions based on ideal supositions. A decision will be made that is usefull or adequate to a particular circumstance, not because it is abstractily more just and fair.
Only, and only when a language like Esperanto proves its usefulness and has a large, permanent and geographically spread body of native speakers (yes, native) it will have any change of being adopted (gradually) by peoples and organizations.
Benjamin : « Interlingua, on the other hand, was created as a language which would be understandable to all speakers of Romance languages, or speakers of English with some knowledge of a Romance language. Likewise, Folkspraak does the same with Germanic languages, and Slovio does the same with Slavic languages. In general, I find that Interlingua works best in the written form, whilst Folkspraak works best in the spoken form. »
Sans oublier le tviskengermaansk (ou intergermania = IG) de Travis.
Un très beau projet. Très didactique pour ceux qui s'intéressent aux langues germaniques en général.
Sans oublier le tviskengermaansk (ou intergermania = IG) de Travis.
Un très beau projet. Très didactique pour ceux qui s'intéressent aux langues germaniques en général.
>> Esperanto, ido, volapük, interlingua... what think about it? <<
I think that it should be in the Languages forum ;)
I think that it should be in the Languages forum ;)
viri amaoro: <<Plus lots of small languages could be saved from extinction. >>
I still can't see how to replace f.e. English for Esperanto or whatever would save "small" languages if it is intended to spread around the world. Practically it would do the same that English, or any other, does to local languages.
And anyway who would warrant that Esperanto would not mute, or as some say 'evolve', absorbing local words and grammar. Then the main idea of an unique language would be lost.
Presley: <<I think Esperanto is a STUPID language>>
It's an utopia.
I still can't see how to replace f.e. English for Esperanto or whatever would save "small" languages if it is intended to spread around the world. Practically it would do the same that English, or any other, does to local languages.
And anyway who would warrant that Esperanto would not mute, or as some say 'evolve', absorbing local words and grammar. Then the main idea of an unique language would be lost.
Presley: <<I think Esperanto is a STUPID language>>
It's an utopia.