Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Oakes

Esperanto

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What do you think about the Esperanto language, and the goal behind it? I wrote the following intro earlier today.

Esperanto is an International Auxiliary Language (IAL), "international" because it is spoken all over the world and has no home country, "auxiliary" because it is not meant to replace languages, but to be a commonly-held second language that everyone can use to speak to foreigners. It was designed by a Polish man named Lazar Zamenhof in the late 19th century, and has grown to some 2 million speakers -- about the population of Iceland -- making it by far the most popular consciously designed language in existence. The arrival of the internet greatly turbocharged its growth.

As a boy, Zamenhof considered many natural languages for the role of an IAL, but learned quickly that they were all much too complex. The insanely awkward spelling of English and French throw off even natural speakers. Irregular verbs abound in almost any language you find, all with scores of conjugations you must memorize. All languages have developed idioms like "It's raining cats and dogs", nonsensical to foreign learners. It takes years of rigorous study to even begin to speak a foreign language fluently. Zamenhof set out to create a language that could be learned in months, rather than years.

One reason for Esperanto's success is that Zamenhof wrote a book, La Fundamento de Esperanto (The Foundation of Esperanto), which provided an unshakable bedrock of the language, ensuring its speakers that no more tinkering would be done. Beyond those basic rules, Esperanto became the domain of the public, its evolution decided by its speakers.

Another reason for Esperanto's success is its linguistic features, which contrast with its mainly European-looking exterior:

* The vowel at the end of each word indicates its grammatical category:

ebla = possible (adjective)

eble = maybe (adverb)

eblo = possibility (noun)

ebli = to be possible (verb)

With any word, you can convert it to any other part of speech with a simple change of the end-vowel.

* Esperanto spelling is completely regular and all verbs are conjugated the same way:

ami = to love (infinitive)

amas = love (present)

amis = loved (past)

amos = will love (future)

amus = would love (conditional)

amu = love! (imperative)

* Esperanto lets users coin new words unrestrained:

1. altrangulo = a big shot, a high-ranking person

alta (high) + rango (rank) + ulo (person)

2. kunparolantino = a female who is taking part in a conversation or dialogue

kun (with) + parolanto (one who is speaking) + ino (female)

3. retsendi = to send using the internet

rete (with the internet) + sendi (send)

4. enretigi = to put on the internet

en (in) + reto (internet) + igi (cause)

5. informpetanto = someone who is requesting information

informo (information) + petanto (one who is requesting)

The end-vowels on each morpheme are cut off unless there the resulting consonant cluster is too hard to say.

Esperanto: A Language for the Global Village

Esperanto Grammar

Word-Building with Esperanto Affixes

The Sixteen Rules of Esperanto Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think about the Esperanto language, and the goal behind it?

The supposed merit of the language, its morphological regularity, is a small consideration -- people manage to learn the virtual random singular / plural system of Arabic with little problem. It's founded on an a priori and ill-supported notion of what constitutes "difficult" for language. The idea that irregular verbs are a near-universal of human language reflects what you might expect out of someone speaking an Indo-European language, which does have a fair burden of lexical complications. The idea that Esperanto can magically avoid the development of irregularities by fiat and by creating a language currently lacking irregularity is, well, questionable to the billionth power. If he thinks that somehow he can prevent the creation of metaphors and idioms by failing to include metaphors and idioms in the original language, then he's got another thing coming [the aforementioned example is a basically unstoppable process in natural language]. By including any component of inflectional and derivational morphology, Zamenhof sewed the seeds of the destruction of Esperanto, in terms of the supposed no-irregularity property.

The reason why Esperanto will fail as a language, and why English will succeed, is that Esperanto is not associated with any specific nation and not associated with any culture or economy. That is why English will win. [Or, Chinese, but that would not be the optimal outcome from my POV]. Languages do not ever succeed for structural reasons -- they succeed because of non-linguistic facts. Like money.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that a simplistic language would be desirable from a market POV. If you want a fake language that has some objective basis for people to select, go for Klingon. It, at least, sounds cool.

Until there are numerous real first-language speakers of the language, the very definition of the language is uncertain -- Zamenhof certainly didn't completely specify the language and there are no real first-language speakers who can make the decision in his place. Of course, what they can do is substitute the rules of their own language for whatever is undefined in Zamenhof's version of the language.

But these objections aside, the real question is this: why should anyone care about Esperanto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The supposed merit of the language, its morphological regularity, is a small consideration -- people manage to learn the virtual random singular / plural system of Arabic with little problem.

But what entices people to learn it is its simplicity over all these other languages.

It's founded on an a priori and ill-supported notion of what constitutes "difficult" for language.
Numerous irregularities and complexities of other languages aren't difficult to you?

The idea that Esperanto can magically avoid the development of irregularities by fiat and by creating a language currently lacking irregularity is, well, questionable to the billionth power. If he thinks that somehow he can prevent the creation of metaphors and idioms by failing to include metaphors and idioms in the original language, then he's got another thing coming [the aforementioned example is a basically unstoppable process in natural language]. By including any component of inflectional and derivational morphology, Zamenhof sewed the seeds of the destruction of Esperanto, in terms of the supposed no-irregularity property.
I suppose this is why it is intended as a quick to learn second language purely for bridging communication gaps, not as a first language.

The reason why Esperanto will fail as a language, and why English will succeed, is that Esperanto is not associated with any specific nation and not associated with any culture or economy. That is why English will win. [Or, Chinese, but that would not be the optimal outcome from my POV]. Languages do not ever succeed for structural reasons -- they succeed because of non-linguistic facts. Like money.

Random fact: Note that Chinese will become the most used language on the internet by '06

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that a simplistic language would be desirable from a market POV. If you want a fake language that has some objective basis for people to select, go for Klingon. It, at least, sounds cool.
I think the whole "simplistic" thing is the entire desirability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that Esperanto can magically avoid the development of irregularities by fiat and by creating a language currently lacking irregularity is, well, questionable to the billionth power.

Have you ever been emoil? Probably not, but I bet you've been emailed. Can you point to a single newly-coined verb that goes through the same weird internal change as "sit"/"sat"? People will always opt for the more regular system because it's easier that way.

Languages do not ever succeed for structural reasons -- they succeed because of non-linguistic facts. Like money.

What about idealism?

Until there are numerous real first-language speakers of the language, the very definition of the language is uncertain -- Zamenhof certainly didn't completely specify the language and there are no real first-language speakers who can make the decision in his place.

Are you not aware that there are many native Esperanto speakers?

Of course, what they can do is substitute the rules of their own language for whatever is undefined in Zamenhof's version of the language.

I doubt there is anything left to be undefined considering it has been spoken by so many for so long.

But these objections aside, the real question is this: why should anyone care about Esperanto?

Because of the goal behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you point to a single newly-coined verb that goes through the same weird internal change as "sit"/"sat"? People will always opt for the more regular system because it's easier that way.
The sit/sat system used to be regular, but the language has changed to its current irregular state. Your supposition that people do not create irregularity in language is false. Esperanto is irregular in that form-meaning relations are not strictly compositional, cf. the junk derivational suffix -um- giving vento "wind" ~ ventumi "to ventilate"; kolo "neck" ~ kolumo "collar", akvo "water" ~ akvumi "to sprinkle". You have to learn the specific semantics of these relations.

What about idealism?

That is an example of a non-structural fact. What you're missing is that the ideal that you're striving for is irrelevant to life. You will not be richer or better able to defend yourself from enemies because you've learned a nominally "regular" language.

Are you not aware that there are many native Esperanto speakers?
I am aware that there are no first-language speakers of Esperanto. Feel free to introduce me to the counterexample if you believe that one exists. This is the reason why the language will fail.

I doubt there is anything left to be undefined considering it has been spoken by so many for so long.

This was not my point, which you apparently did not understand. The myriad properties of the language which Zamenhof failed to specify

Because of the goal behind it.

That assumes that the goal is of some value. You yourself might find it of value to learn a made-up language, but if your interest is in learning a purely "regular" language, Esperanto is an arbitrary choice compared with existing natural languages like Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesian, Lao, Khmer or Khoe. It fails totally in terms of international useability: try ordering food in a restaurant in Germany using Esperanto. If you want an international language, learn English (bonus: you don't need to learn anything!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esperanto is irregular in that form-meaning relations are not strictly compositional, cf. the junk derivational suffix -um- giving vento "wind" ~ ventumi "to ventilate"; kolo "neck" ~ kolumo "collar", akvo "water" ~ akvumi "to sprinkle". You have to learn the specific semantics of these relations.

-um- is intentionally that way. It is made for those situations when there is no other suffix available to get the meaning across, or if you want to show a metaphorical relation:

plenumi = to fulfill

plena (full) + umi (to do something unspecified)

Yes, the specific semantics of each of these words must be learned individually, but that doesn't reflect on the language as a whole.

What you're missing is that the ideal that you're striving for is irrelevant to life. You will not be richer or better able to defend yourself from enemies because you've learned a nominally "regular" language.

I think you misunderstand Esperanto. It was not made with the end goal of being a regular language; its creator added that feature because it was conducive to Esperanto's goal of being an International Auxiliary Language, to facilitate communication between people all over the world. Hardly "irrelevent to life".

I am aware that there are no first-language speakers of Esperanto. Feel free to introduce me to the counterexample if you believe that one exists.

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Esperanto_speakers

This was not my point, which you apparently did not understand. The myriad properties of the language which Zamenhof failed to specify

In that case, your point is irrelevent. Zamenhof may have left parts unspecified in the very beginning (I don't know if this is true), but it couldn't possibly still be that way.

That assumes that the goal is of some value. You yourself might find it of value to learn a made-up language, but if your interest is in learning a purely "regular" language, Esperanto is an arbitrary choice compared with existing natural languages like Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesian, Lao, Khmer or Khoe.

Okay, now I'm certain that you misunderstand Esperanto. It was not made with the end goal of being a regular language; its creator added that feature because it was conducive to Esperanto's goal of being an International Auxiliary Language, to facilitate communication between people all over the world.

And no, east-asian languages will not work for an IAL, even if they are regular in a specific area like spelling or verb conjugation. The tones, the characters, the ever-present idioms, and the lack of political neutrality all boot these and other natural languages off the list of choices.

It fails totally in terms of international useability: try ordering food in a restaurant in Germany using Esperanto.

Esperanto hasn't grown enough yet, so obviously you won't be able to order fast food with it. Any proposed IAL will suffer from this chicken and egg syndrome until people finally decide to learn it.

If you want an international language, learn English (bonus: you don't need to learn anything!).

Which English? Outside the US, you will find many dialects, some unintelligable to you.

Don Harlow:

Interestingly, while English was spoken by about 10 % of the world's population in 1900, and by about 11 % in 1950, it is today spoken by about 8.5-9 %. The corollary is that, for better than 90 % of the world's population, it is not the de facto means of international communication.

Konrad Hinsen:

Although many people all over the world study English and often think they speak it well, the number of people who can participate in a non-trivial conversation in English is very small outside English-speaking countries. Knowing English may be sufficient to survive as a tourist in many places, but not for more.

http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-9.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you misunderstand Esperanto. It was not made with the end goal of being a regular language; its creator added that feature because it was conducive to Esperanto's goal of being an International Auxiliary Language, to facilitate communication between people all over the world.

Okay, so the statements in your initial post about the confusion caused by irregularity was a complete smokescreen with no irrelevance. The putative merit of Esperanto lies in the deluded purpose of creation, as an "International Auxiliary Language", a Euro=speak before the EU was hatched. The fact is that Esperanto is of no use as an international language, since it isn't used, so until you magically change that fact, there really is no merit to Esperanto as any kind of language. Evaluating a language in terms of an intent behinds its origin -- "because of the goal behind it" -- makes no sense. How does phylogeny bear on value for a purpose? [Do you think that language has a purpose?] I mean, unless you think that the purpose of language is to be created for use as an International Auxiliary Language.

And no, east-asian languages will not work for an IAL, even if they are regular in a specific area like spelling or verb conjugation. The tones, the characters, the ever-present idioms, and the lack of political neutrality all boot these and other natural languages off the list of choices.
You should brush up on the details of those languages. You can adopt Chinese as your medium of communication without getting wedded to the characters; over half of those languages do not have tone; and Indonesian is phonetically trivial unlike Esperanto. The consonant system and syllable structure of Esperanto boots it off of the list of choices, for the same reason. Actually, I'd nominate Hawaiian as the best choice for a simple-and-regular language, one which is a couple of orders of magnitude better than Esperanto, in terms of the "simplicity" factor. And what do you mean by this nonsense about "political neutrality?" Esperanto is squarely a highly ethnic and political language -- jeez, if you know a couple of major Western European language or two, you can guess pretty well at what an Esperanto text says. English is vastly less "political" since it's the native language of quite a number of countries, and is the preeminent second language for people to learn.

Which English? Outside the US, you will find many dialects, some unintelligable to you.

And inside the US, for that matter. But so what? It doesn't matter much what dialect: the two choices are US Standard and UK Standard. Nobody teaches Geordie as a second language, so I figured it wouldn't be necessary for me to say that. You're just deluding yourself if you think that English isn't the default "other language". It is the language for publishing and presenting scientific research, for example; the language for international commerce and diplomacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the statements in your initial post about the confusion caused by irregularity was a complete smokescreen with no irrelevance.

I mentioned irregularity as one of the reasons why natural languages are too hard to learn and are not suited for IAL. No smokescreen here.

The fact is that Esperanto is of no use as an international language, since it isn't used, so until you magically change that fact, there really is no merit to Esperanto as any kind of language.

Short-sighted people who want a universally-used language right away won't get it with Esperanto -- if you really want this to happen, you're the one believing in magic -- but then again, short-sighted people won't get immediate gratification with a fuel-cell car either. Esperanto is like any other technological improvement; the infrastructure isn't there yet, but those who could envisage the long-term benefits decided to learn it, knowing they wouldn't be able to speak to many people for a while.

That said, you are be able to buy a fuel cell car now and use it with ease within a small area that has hydrogen pumps. In the same sense, you are able to learn Esperanto and put it to use within its current circle of speakers.

[Do you think that language has a purpose?] I mean, unless you think that the purpose of language is to be created for use as an International Auxiliary Language.

The purpose of language is to allow us to communicate complex ideas. Implicit is the requirement that we all are using the same language. A language doesn't have to be used worldwide to serve its purpose, but it would certainly serve its purpose better if it was.

You can adopt Chinese as your medium of communication without getting wedded to the characters;

There are many homonyms in chinese and japanese that would be hard to distinguish without characters. Anyway, you would need a number to follow each word, which would get annoying.

and Indonesian is phonetically trivial unlike Esperanto. The consonant system and syllable structure of Esperanto boots it off of the list of choices, for the same reason.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that Esperanto is pretty popular in China, which means they seem to be dealing with the consonant clusters just fine.

And what do you mean by this nonsense about "political neutrality?" Esperanto is squarely a highly ethnic and political language -- jeez, if you know a couple of major Western European language or two, you can guess pretty well at what an Esperanto text says.

You're mixing up political neutrality with derivational neutrality. Esperanto derives most of its words from Indo-European roots, but it isn't part of any nation, which gives it political neutrality. I think this is the main requirement of an IAL, besides ease-of-learning, standing in the way of all the natural languages you are proposing.

To get derivational neutrality, you would need to randomly generate words, which would be difficult for everyone, rather than just some.

English is vastly less "political" since it's the native language of quite a number of countries, and is the preeminent second language for people to learn.

It's also one of the hardest languages to learn on the planet.

You're just deluding yourself if you think that English isn't the default "other language". It is the language for publishing and presenting scientific research, for example; the language for international commerce and diplomacy

What evidence do you have for any of these assertions? Articles like this one and quotes from individual Esperantists (like the ones at the end of my last post) all have given me a picture contrary to the one you're giving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* Esperanto lets users coin new words unrestrained:

This appears to make it easy to create "false concept" words. Also, Oakes, you were saying that there are problems with English dialects...doesn't this "flexibility" make Esperanto dialects potentially much worse?

I agree with the essentials of what DavidOdden has written, as well, so don't take this as my main problem with Esperanto. This was the main one I thought of that hadn't already been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Oakes, you were saying that there are problems with English dialects...doesn't this "flexibility" make Esperanto dialects potentially much worse?

You have to look at things in context. Back when the fastest communication technology was the Pony Express, there was no need for an IAL to break down the language barrier with people on the other side of the planet. There was a geographic isolation that allowed for different languages and sub-languages and dialects to form.

As technology changed this, the need for Esperanto arose. So you ask: What will stop Esperanto from splitting into dialects? Precisely the thing that arose the need for it in the first place: technology. Esperanto won't split into dialects because it began and continues to thrive in an interconnected world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are missing the point. It's not the linguistic details that matter; it's the ideology behind the language.

My father is an Esperantist and has spoken to me in Esperanto from my birth on. He explained to me Zamenhof's purpose with creating the language when I was perhaps 4 or 5 years old.

The town of Bialystok, where Zamenhof was born, had a mixed population made up of Poles, Germans, Russians, and Jews, who were not living very peacefully side by side. Zamenhof thought this was because they didn't understand each other due to the different languages they spoke. If only there were a language which everyone understood, he thought, the nations of the world could live in peace.

As I said, I was a little kid when my father first told this to me, but even at that age it struck me as a rather lame non-sequitur. (I didn't know the word "non-sequitur" at that time, but my reaction to the argument was what my mind now associates with that word. ;)) Men can choose to be evil even if they understand everyone perfectly well. The idea that a common language can end all violence is an example of the naive kind of determinism that holds that all men are fundamentally good and evil is only there due to some unfortunate circumstance X--in this case, X = different languages. The idea that non-understanding causes aggression is a view of man as a freak of nature whose perverted reflexes make him aggressive whenever he sees something unfamiliar. While it is true that some men behave that way, it is because they chose so, not because it is necessitated by human nature.

As the very foundation of the Esperantist movement is a fallacy, it is not surprising that most of the people attracted to it are the kind of people who are attracted to fallacies--or, for my fellow lovers of plain English: losers. Esperantists are people who know that Esperanto is not winning and cannot win--and dedicate their lives to promoting Esperanto.

Why can't Esperanto win? Because English has reached the critical mass needed to become and stay the world's standard international language--and Esperanto, well, hasn't. Everyone is learning English because English is the language everyone is learning. Esperantists try to persuade them to learn Esperanto instead--a language which most people haven't even heard about. And what argument do they offer in favor of Esperanto? They say that Esperanto is preferable to English because it is "netural," i.e. it is not a national language. The world's standard language, the propaganda goes, should not be a nation's native tongue because that gives the native speakers an "unfair advantage."

Esperantists would like Americans, Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Canadians, and all the other native speakers of English to need to learn a second language, just like everyone else needs to. If some people are facing an obstacle, let everyone face it!

Esperantists say to individual language students that they should prefer little-known Esperanto over world-dominant English because by choosing Esperanto, they will be advancing this "noble" cause. The individual shouldn't selfishly choose what's best for him but sacrifice his interests to the great cause of creating obstacles for Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If only there were a language which everyone understood, he thought, the nations of the world could live in peace.

For the record, this isn't why I am interested in Esperanto. I want the language barrier down because we can all benefit from the new avenues of commerce and communication that will open up.

Why can't Esperanto win? Because English has reached the critical mass needed to become and stay the world's standard international language

You didn't offer any statistics here so I can't say much about this at the moment.

Everyone is learning English because English is the language everyone is learning.

Who is "everyone" and what portion of the human population do they compose?

The world's standard language, the propaganda goes, should not be a nation's native tongue because that gives the native speakers an "unfair advantage." . . . If some people are facing an obstacle, let everyone face it!

Don't you think Zamenhof would've randomly generated words if he really wanted to get rid of the "unfair advantage"? He didn't; there is no derivational neutrality. There is only political neutrality, and the reason for it is that people will not have the image that a particular government is imperializing them. An IAL must be the property of everyone, so being tied to a particular nation would be huge turn-off.

But this is only one side of a two-sided coin; the IAL must also be very easy to learn, which is the main reason why Esperanto is more preferable than English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, this isn't why I am interested in Esperanto.

I'm relieved to hear that. :confused:

You didn't offer any statistics here so I can't say much about this at the moment.

I don't think you need any statistics to know this. It's enough to watch an international sports event, observe tourists asking for directions, or sit down a restaurant in a non-English-speaking country and watch which language the foreigners place their orders in. (Not to mention listening to Esperantists complain about the dominance of guess which language!)

Who is "everyone" and what portion of the human population do they compose?

Everyone who is interested in international communication. What portion of the population they are doesn't matter here; you should rather be asking questions like "What portion of international trade is conducted in English?"

Don't you think Zamenhof would've randomly generated words if he really wanted to get rid of the "unfair advantage"?

I'm not saying that Zamenhof believed in the "unfair advantage" argument. What I am saying is that Esperantists currently offer that argument as the main reason for choosing to learn Esperanto over English.

An IAL must be the property of everyone

Doesn't that sound rather...un-capitalist?

so being tied to a particular nation would be huge turn-off.

English isn't tied to any particular nation.

(It is tied to a particular culture, though: the culture of reason and individualism. This is why I love English and why I expect my fellow rational men to love it as well.)

But this is only one side of a two-sided coin; the IAL must also be very easy to learn, which is the main reason why Esperanto is more preferable than English.

Since I was taught Esperanto as a native language, I cannot tell whether I would find it easier to learn than English. However, I have taught English to numerous students and have also taught Esperanto and German, and my experience has been that the ease with which a student learns a language depends almost exclusively on the degree of his motivation to learn it. Surely, the structure of the language can have a major effect on the motivation (people will have more enthusiasm for easier languages), but my observation is that the students who are truly interested in learning English find it on the whole an extremely easy language to learn.

And so did I when I learned English. Although I learned it as a second language, I find it much easier today to express myself in English than in Esperanto, especially when talking about complicated subjects. The same idea can usually be expressed in English in a much more compact way--the mere fact that you are not adding o's at the end of nouns and mal's at the beginning of every negative adjective makes English a whole order of magnitude more fluid, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. The need to use suffixes to express even the most basic notions adds an immense amount of clutter to the language. It may be nice as a linguistic experiment to form the word for "girl" as "knab/in/o" (=boy/female/noun) but when you have to use the word a hundred times in a speech, you'll be grateful to good ole' English for letting you say it in one easy and intuitive syllable and concentrate on the content you want to express instead of having to break your tongue on a three-syllable contraption that says, "you know, I mean the noun that is the female version of 'boy.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's enough to watch an international sports event, observe tourists asking for directions, or sit down a restaurant in a non-English-speaking country and watch which language the foreigners place their orders in . . . you should rather be asking questions like "What portion of international trade is conducted in English?"

We'll never be able to agree whether or not our experiences sufficiently represent reality, so I don't want to get too much into this. It's hard to tell exactly how pervasive English has become.

What I am saying is that Esperantists currently offer that argument as the main reason for choosing to learn Esperanto over English.

I don't doubt this; some of the rhetoric has annoyed me too.

Doesn't that sound rather...un-capitalist?

I hope not! Actually, I meant "own" in a more psychological sense; a language tied to a particular nation just doesn't *feel* like something that could be used as an IAL. This really isn't a problem with English as you pointed out, because it is not tied to only one nation; my argument against English has been particularly focused on how hard it is to learn.

. . . my experience has been that the ease with which a student learns a language depends almost exclusively on the degree of his motivation to learn it.

That's a good point. I'm going to be starting my first linguistics class in a few weeks so hopefully I'll learn more about language-learning and get a better idea of how possible it is to master a language like English. I'm a native English speaker so at this point I've only had the claims of Esperantists to rely on when making my arguments against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oakes, I have a solution for you.

English is the world-dominant language because the nation which speaks it is the most free.

All you need to do is found a comparably sized nation speaking Esperanto, keep it more free than America, and the world will inevitably shift to speaking Esperanto. The more free your nation is than America, the faster the transition will happen.

You should be aware that this is the only solution possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't doubt this; some of the rhetoric has annoyed me too.

You're on the right track then. ;)

While there are a couple of decent folks among Esperantists, the overwhelming majority of them are pretty bad altruists. I occasionally take a glance at the Esperantist magazines my father reads, like Monato and Heroldo, but they are so full of anti-capitalist, environmentalist, anti-American, pro-UN, and pro-Paliestinian propaganda that I can't stomach reading them for more than a few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm french and I really like english, but I think that esperanto is really more interesting.

After 10 years of english learning, I don't have a good english. I've learned esperanto only 4 years, one hour a week, and I really speak it better !

Moreover, esperanto is known for its quality of "propedeutics" (I don't know if this word exists in english in fact :P ), it means that people who learn esperanto find it easier learning others languages after.

And I really like international esperanto meetings because we can meet people from rusia, ... and it's really easier to speak with them with esperanto than with english for me ! :D

That's all !

If you want to find penpals (in english or esperanto), you can have a lok on my website :

http://www.esperantomondo.net

There are 287 people from 40 countries on it :rolleyes:

But excuse me if the english translation isn't very good... the esperanto translation is better :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...