Since the demise of Latin in the 15th century the world has lacked an official language of communication. The EU has two working languages (French and English) while the UN has six (French, Chinese, Arabic, Russian, English and Spanish). Many have since argued that it would be easier and contribute to global harmony if we could agree on one standard language. In fact L. L. Zamenhof created Esperanto specifically for this purpose at the end of the 19th century. However since then many have viewed English as a de-facto global language with local dialects like Singlish being spoken in many corners of the globes. The advance of English is resisted within many cultures who see language as an essential component of identity as well as a key tool for accessing the history and literatures of individual peoples.
Language is often seen as a badge of identity and more conflict may be created if the global community is seen to prefer one language over another. Even ‘neutral’ languages like Esperanto use the Latin alphabet and are based on Romance grammar rules. These do not reflect global diversity and can be especially difficult to learn for those whose languages do not use words or alphabets but rather characters like Chinese or Japanese. If groups or individuals feel unable to express themselves (or are ignored because they do so outside the official language) they are likely to feel frustrated and angry.
Translation is not always successful in preserving ideas or literary constructions meaning cultural diversity may be lost. However many new works a global language would provide access to, true appreciation is best gained from studying them in the language in which they were written. By reducing the use of other languages we risk cutting people off from historical documents and literature in their old languages, works which often carry emotional or religious significance. Understanding of some languages may be lost altogether if they are not spoken everyday.
Picking just one language disadvantages those whose languages are replaced especially if they are unable or unwilling to use the new language. It would be extremely practically difficult and expensive to teach everyone the new language, especially when literacy levels, even in their own language are very low in some countries. Those without good enough language skills may find it hard to get a job at all, thereby disadvantaging those without access to good education.
Meaning is given to words by their cultural context rather than a dictionary definition. This means people from different cultures may use the same word to mean different things in different contexts, even when speaking the same language. Crucial cultural distinctions maybe overlooked if translation is no longer considered.
I dont think there should be a world language. There is no reason to take away people's culture and make everyone speak the same.
Esperanto was not intended to replace anyone's national language but to act as a neutral, second language for the entire world.
It is the inter-national language that works!
It may work, but hardly anybody speaks it after almost 100 years. That leaves it not very useful. It has not been a ringing success.
It would help preserve individual languages if technical literature was published in a common, easy to learn auxilliary language. That would make it easily and equally accessible to speakers of Urdu, Amayra, Inuit or any of the other 3000 separate languages.
There is already an Esperanto-Urdu dictionary available.
As to Aymara there is a Peruvian Esperanto association.
As to Inuit there is an Alaskan Esperanto association as well.
A new film will address this issue. The film, named "Babel," starring Brad Pitt is scheduled to come out in October. The director has been contacted to propose that it gets subtitled in Esperanto also. For a petition to get the UN to use Esperanto as their official language, and save millions of dollars spent annually in translation / interpretation expenses can be found at: www.petitionspot/petitions/esperanto Dankon!
You say that "Even ‘neutral’ languages like Esperanto use the Latin alphabet" and so Chinese, Japanese or other groups may "feel unable to express themselves".
Could I ask you whether you've ever put the question to a Japanese or Chinese person? Whenever I've asked Japanese, Koreans and Chinese how they feel about communicating with foreigners, even those with ten years of English study say they still feel strongly disadvantaged when using English with Europeans and particularly with native English speakers.
However, those with only 18 months of Esperanto under their belts express confidence at their ability to communicate directly and frankly with Westerners, and on a far more equal footing too.
It is impossible to claim that Esperanto (or any other language, for that matter) is *perfectly* neutral and equally easy/difficult for *everyone* on the planet to learn. The only way to achieve this would be to create a language that was utterly alien for every learner, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.
However, it is true to say that of all the languages currently in widespread use, Esperanto comes the closest to the ideal of neutrality, and beats any national language hands down when it comes to ease of learning.
we shoudl have one language for all
Oh yeah, sieg heil.
--Mike
How many times does it have to be repeated that the goal of Esperanto is not, and never has been, to be a single world language? The idea is to have the same SECOND language for all, or "universal bilingualism", where everbody has to do their bit towards inter-ethnic co-operation, and no one gets a free ride (as English-speakers nowadays do on the world scene), and no one has to give up their own language. This inter-language must thus be as politically, economically & culturally neutral as possible, and also non-ethnic (belonging to no ethnic group, & privileging no one). Look into it, & you will find that the only rational candidate is Esperanto. The idea that Esperanto is supposedly "artificial" (totally NOT true if you check an Esperanto etymological dictionary!) holds many people back, but this becomes totally irrelevant when you speak the language fluently & read its literature. The Prague Manifesto at http://www.esperanto.se/dok/praguemanifesto.html or http://esperanto.memlink.ca are two places to start your search for more info.
The idea of a second world language is a good idea. To have a medium between languages is good, however there are issues to worry about. Etymologically, Esperanto is based off of European languages, thus it cannot capture the cultural nuances of languages with different origins, therefore much will get lost in translation, and translating through a second language makes things even trickier.
--Mike
Mike:
While you are correct that Esperanto vocabulary is based largely on European languages (on the principle of <B>"maximum internationality"</B>), this is not excusively so. Check for yourself here in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_vocabulary#Source_languages
Re your second point: Esperanto has not infrequently been used as a "bridge language" for translations between unusual (for English-speaking westerners!) languages, such as for example Japanese and Croatian. And you can get an idea of some of the literary works translated into/from Esperanto in the section "Translations" here:
http://www.uea.org/info/angle/an_ghisdatigo.html
Your statement about capturing
>cultural nuances of languages with different origins
is true of translations between any two languages, not just Esperanto, and so spurious. To wit the Italian "traduttore, tradittore" [a translator is a deceiver].
No offense meant, but Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source for factual information. Anyone can put their "facts" on that site, and while a lot of it is actually true, some of it isn't, and you have to be very careful when citing anything from that website.
While a world-wide language sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure it works in real life. In movies, yes, but in reality, I'm not confident.
People feel most comfortable when speaking their own language, don't they? By making people learn one language, that would take a long time, and there would probably be protests on it.
Most people want to be able to keep native languages alive to use in their own cultures, but learn a second, world-wide language that could be used to facilitate business and cultural transactions. In the US, most high schools already require at least a year of a foreign language, and many elementary schools offer simple courses on various languages. Why not start an Esperanto (or similar) class young so that kids grow up to be bilingual, instead of trying to force everyone to start learning it as adults?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!