Saluton Ian kai Jonathon. Dankon por vi interese mesago. Mi estas komensanto. Mi lernas Esperanto en Toowoomba, Qld. Australia. Ni havas multajn Esperantistojn en Australia. En Jan. 2017 mi visitas mi unuan Esperanton congreson en Brisbano. Vi havas una semanojn lescionojn- Bone! Duolingo kaj Amikumu estas mirinda. Gis revido! Claire.
Saluton al vi, Claire. Mi ĝojas, ke vi uzas Esperanton post tiom mallonga studado. Estas kelkaj eraroj, kompreneble, sed mi bone komprenas tion, kion vi diris al mi, kaj mi volas gratuli vin pro via progreso. Se vi volas, ke mi kontrolu tion, kion vi skribis, bonvolu sciigi al mi kaj mi tre ĝojos helpi vin. Ĝis baldaŭ! Jano
I'm starting to learn and understand it quite quickly. I think it's because Spanish is my second language and a lot of Esperanto has resemblance to Spanish
You're right that there is a superficial resemblance towards Spanish, but once you really get into word building, you'll find it quite a different beast. Being able to construct words from the building blocks of the language gives you such a sense of control and achievement, instead of the usual insecurity that comes with post-beginners' efforts (e.g. the worrying thought: "is that how they say it in X?")
Mi dankas vin, Jim, pro via komento. Notu, ke vi ne bezonas "estas" kun "lerni", ĉar "lernas" egalas al la simpla nun-tempo (angle: "learn/s") *kaj* al la daŭra nun-tempo ("am/is/are learning".) Kaj sufiĉe multaj personoj parolas kaj skribas en Esperanto, tiel ke vi mem povos trovi korespondanton kun kiu vi povos interŝanĝi retmesaĝojn, ktp.
La intervuo estis brila. Nur la historio pri apero de Esperanto estas erariga. Sian lingvokrean modelon Zamenhof havis jam preta en 1885, kiam li ankorau ne estis okulisto. Kaj la ideon li havis jam en 1869, kiam li, dekjara knabo, estis verkanta 5-aktan tragedion pri Belostoka turo Babela. Le estis denaska poligloto kaj virtuozo de verlano - infana luda sekretlingvo, kiun li serendipe invertis al klarlingvo.
Given that Esperanto is coming up to its 130th birthday (next year), and that reforms have been suggested and ignored over much of that time, one would think people would have got the message by now. Why has Ido not had the same success as Esperanto? The reality is that the foundation stone of Esperanto absolutely can NOT be touched or changed - even when mistakes have been noticed in it. One can only add to it, provided that any new additions are found necessary by the entire Esperanto community. The whim of a handful of participants has never dictated the way the language has developed. Zamenhof himself wisely handed over all responsibility and authority to the community.
This is interesting because there are 3 camps in the Esperanto movement: Fundamentalists, innovators for the sake of innovation and those who are practical. I fall in the practical camp, and do not have any emotional attachment to "canon" as it were, especially if it stifles either communication or the dissemination of Esperanto. The main feature that I love about Esperanto is that it is a practical second language - I do not see it anything more than a means of bridging the language gap. The fact that the proposals have been ignored is probably not that they are not necessary, but because there is no real authority and no real resources to do the work required. There are many words that may be considered contrary to the "Fundamento" that are not necessary that have entered general use. There is nothing wrong with that. It would be naive to think that the language can be changed if the entire community agrees - how is it possible to do so? It is not, so proposals are most probably thrown out for the sake of ease. The fact that it could not be changed even if mistakes are noticed is quite narrow-minded IMO. I somehow do not think that Zamanhof gave authority over to the community as much as the leaders either passed away or defected from the movement.
I'm afraid that what stifles communication (in any language) is when learners have to stop and think about the grammar. When people just talk and *use* what they've learned, communication tends to flow. (I say this with some authority, having conducted intermediate/advanced conversational English classes in Yangon, Myanmar, for 10 years).
Bonege! Love the part where you discuss it's lack of progress and how there is no money behind it, hopefully years down the line it moves toward that! Won't make any realistic progress until major European legislation gets put in. I love how I said these phrases like "years down the line" and "gets put in". There's hundreds of those little phrases like that, like "ends up" as in "He ended up choosing the red pill" or "at all" as in "I don't want that at all!". They don't make any sense or relate to the actual definition of each word alone, but we just know them because we learned it out of birth and lifetime immersion. That's why we need EO, just so we can understand a damn sentence without troubles even after hundreds of hours. Thanks for this talk though, great job!
+Nick Johnson - My pleasure. Such idioms as those you quote are part and parcel of what makes English the language it is. Unfortunately, many people try to translate such phrases word for word, which is very confusing for non-native speakers (imagine what a Chinese person makes of "it's raining cats and dogs") and sometimes even for native speakers!
The first Esperanto speaker was no young eye-doctor when he conceived this language game. He was not yet 13 years old (the age when the natural infantlle linguistc creatvity disappears, when he, a native polyglot and a virtuoso of Pig Latm„ turned the language mechanism inside-out, replacing the concealing syllables by revealing. syllables. SO it was fhat Zamenhof serendipously discoverd ththat reciprocally language-creative toy, model with the totally strange code, still unexplained by the conventional grammarians. Valdas Banaitis from Lithua, the motherland of Zamenhof
I think you should take more care when you're copying someone else's ideas. There are so many typos in here - and none of them look like mere slips of the fingers ("infantlle linguistc creatvity", "Latm", "fhat", "serendipously discoverd", "ththat", "Lithua"). If you have something genuine to add to the conversation, all well and good. Otherwise, I'll have to block your input in future.
These are the most british people ive ever bloody seen. Im american. this is why i consider british, australian and north american english different dialects of english
I'm struggling to understand what your comment relates to (with its near-total disregard for punctuation). You're right about the different dialects of English, but don't forget Indian English, Singaporean English, Philippine English and so on. By the way, have you ever noticed a connection between "English" and "England"? (Might be something in that!)
No hate ok I was just pointing out something interesting to me at least ok. And I was to lazy to type all the englishes. Reading my comment now I know it had a hateful tone I didn't mean it to sound like that. Also the american accent was actualy the origional accent.
No worries. I'll accept that American spelling is in many cases older than British spelling - that's because some stupid "clever" people here (c. 17th century) decided to show our debt to French, and stuck unwanted U's all over the place (color --> colour), as well as rearranging -ER to give -RE (theatre, centre, ...) When it comes to accents, though, it depends which American accent you're thinking of. It's true that the United States has such a wide range of regional accents that they outnumber even the many that we have here in the UK. But where did the Pilgrims' accents originate? And the Boston accent, which reminds many people of a British accent (but I'm not talking about RP or "Received Pronunciation" like the Queen's. It's a fascinating subject, and I would heartily recommend anything by *David Crystal* - particularly his _Encyclopedia of the English Language_.
ian i want to learn esperanto im 16 i already speak english and spanish do u think i can learn it in a year?? ian quiero aprender el esperanto tengo 16 años y ya se hablar ingles ademas del español.. crees q sera posible q lo aprenda en un año¿?
I should think, with some serious study, you could learn Esperanto to an acceptable level in much less than one year. I reckon that, when I was your age, it took me only 3 months to secure an intermediate command. I gained a diploma after only 2 years of study. Entonces, ¡creo que sí!
***** thats great but im not that good with languages im just lucky im half spanish but i'll give it a try.. i'm on duolingo right now. thanks for the reply. un saludo
It's a proven fact that bilingual (or multilingual) people are more flexible thinkers than monolinguals. So that kind of gives me the confidence to predict that you can do it! Don't doubt your own abilities. Go for it! If you want to try studying with me as your tutor, try this free email course: esperanto.org.uk/fpc.
It does take an awful lot of self-discipline and motivation to keep going when you're learning a language on your own. On top of that, TYE is getting a bit long in the tooth, isn't it? Have you checked out lernu.net? It's just had a huge makeover.
TYE was and still is a good book, I got up to chapter 5 and had a basic knowledge of the language but have forgotten most of it now but if I hear it spoken I can still make out the odd word.
That's great. It's a bit like riding a bike, I suppose. There are plans afoot to revive TYE, by the way. Watch this space! (or some other probably more appropriate space)
Duolingo (phone app) is an excellent introduction to the language. If you'd like to study with perhaps a bit more structure, why not try the free taster course from EAB? I'm a study guide on that course, and would be delighted to help you with your studies.
+Ian Carter I think the comment made by the interviewer was rather mean "You must be the only person to ever have taken one of those Teach Yourself books off the shelf". Like: What did he mean with that? I don't like the general attitude he has to the language. I've met another journalist with a similar approach. Although you did a great job responding!
Absolutely right, etymologically, but don't forget that, over time, meanings of words can change. Sometimes the change is quite subtle, but at other times it can be quite drastic (cf. "gay").
Etymologically and till nowadays DI means TWO, TWICE, DOUBLE, TWOFOLD. Meanings can change in the street slangs or jargons, not in normative language. Thanks.
Good try, +Sean. I hope you don't mind if I tweak it a bit to make it more appropriate? "Mi venis al ĉi tiu filmeto post mi finis esperantan lecionon ĉe Duolingo." Mi esperas ke vi studos eĉ plu! (= "I hope that you will study even further")
+Ian Carter woah I thought nobody ever answered to UA-cam comments. Congratulations on your show... I was talking about traveling kind of "for free" by using Esperanto. Thanks anyway!
Even if it's "too late" for the travel grants from NOJEF for under-25-year-olds, there are still lots of opportunities to travel and meet new people. You could start by taking part in a FREE chatty two-day course called "Lernu" (or the higher level "Lernu Plu") held at Esperanto House in Barlaston, Staffordshire, UK. Check out this page: esperanto.org.uk/eab/eab_events.htm
In general, I would say that Esperanto-users show considerably more acceptance of all types of people. There are LGBTQ adherents of the language, just the same as with any other medium of communication.
I would think that it would depend on the individual Esperantist, actually. We (esperantistoj) would be the first to say that it is unhealthy to focus on one aspect of one's own life and derive our identity from it, as many in the movement have done to their detriment. For me it is a tool to get to know others from other backgrounds so that I can become a better person. The world has just got that much smaller. Things are constantly changing and the movement is growing even here in South Africa. It is quite exciting!
Tre bona intervjuo! Vi nur forgesis diri, ke George Soros ne estas kutima Esperantisto, sed li estas denaska parolanto de Esperanto. Lia patro instruis Esperanton al li en lia infanaĝo.
Lerni Esperanton junaĝe kaj denaske ne estas same. Tivadar ja instruis Esperanton al la filo, sed ĝi ne estis denaska lingvo por Georgo. Ja dum jaroj oni parolas pri la denaska Georgo, sed Humphrey Tonkin, la biografisto de Tivadar, substrekis, ke Esperanto estas lingvo kiun Tivadar lernigis al la filo kiel plian lingvon en la junaĝo.
I haven't had time to delve into Lojban in any great detail, but what worries me about it is that it may be too clinical, too logical to suit the human brain, which uses fuzzy logic and lateral thinking and the like. Given more time to study it (unlikely) I would probably come to understand what it's all about much more than I do now, so please don't take this as my definitive answer.
Mr. Carter, I was wondering something a few things the personal pronouns. It seems a little funny to me that personal pronouns end in i and not o. Personal pronouns are nouns, so it would seem to me to be conistent they should end in o. Although, I feel it would be better for the o to be added onto the i rather than replace the i, because that would keep the pronouns more familiar with speakers of English and other European languages. Mio/ I Mion/me, With adjectival form add an "a" instead mia/ my/mine. I also feel like it could be easier to teach people the grammar and how it relates to one another by making the pluarl form take the -j ending of the singular form. Mioj, vioj, lioj, sxio, gxio, onioj, sioj As a native English speaker, I may be a little biased, but I feel that leaving out the formal "you" was a good idea for the language. However, keeping the singular the same for the plural seems like a silly idea.Because this the pluarl you is present in several European languages. Another benefit I could see from using this system is that one could preserve the cultural gender-codings present in other languages. In Spanish, for example , ellas exclusive a group females, where ellos could mean a mixed group or exculsive male. However, in English, ellas and ellos would just get translated "they". Esperanto could easily avoid this lexical gap in translation and keep the language more regular. Is there a historic reason you know of why Zamenhof decided to not end personal pronouns in o and why he decided to not have a plural you? Despite inheriting the "generic male" nouns from the 19th century, I feel Esperanto could equalized people. I see a lot of nationalism in the form of language where people will say things such as "This is America ; speak English!" I really appericate the idea of nationless language. If L. L. Zamenhof was alive today I feel he would very much appericate the idea of bitcoin and other cyrptocurrencies to make international nationless currencies.One I learned of recently is called monero has it focuses more on anomnity than bitcoin. Where there any old attempts to have an international currency?
Thank you for your comment. You've obviously given it a lot of thought. Firstly, pronouns are not nouns: they stand in for nouns, mainly to avoid unnecessary repetition. They are a closed system, and therefore it's perfectly logical for them to have a different ending from that of nouns. You're correct, by the way, in assuming that the adjectival form is mia, via, etc. As for leaving out the "plural" of you, I'm afraid you've got that wrong. "Vi" was originally the plural (and therefore polite) version, with the singular (familiar) being "ci". However, users of Esperanto didn't find "ci" particularly useful, and it has more or less disappeared from the language - in much the same way as "thou" has in English (other than dialectal). If you read the comments on this video, you'll see there's quite a bit of emotional unrest about the 3rd person pronouns being sexist. You'll also read my own thoughts there. Your final question about an international currency is easy to answer. Back in the 70s (I think) there was a suggestion that we could have the "stelo" (no prizes for guessing why) but it didn't take off. It's interesting now to see the "monero" project, especially as that's the Esperanto word for "coin". My advice to you would be to drop any idea of reforming what is not a project, but a perfectly well functioning language (I take it you wouldn't dream of telling the Italians how to improve their language ... or would you?)
***** Thank you for your response. It was quite informative. Thanks for your thoughts. As for reforming the language, I wouldn't really be in favor of pushing a new Esperanto, as you say it has a dedicated community, and even if you convenience enough "authorities" on Esperanto to make any change it will probably do more harm to the language than good . As far as I understand the major Spanish of Spain and Latin America institutions came together for spelling reform, a few years ago, but a sizable portion is ignoring the reforms.Just find some features odd. With its considerably smaller number of Esperanto speakers you'll still see people for one reason or another disagree and the community will splinter even for just not knowing. From what I know of Volpuk, despite being somewhat convoluted (basing this on commentary, not a first hand look at the language) people liked the idea of a universal language, but had disagreements about the language's structure and people didn't know what the standard version was. It was probably be the same with Esperanto, if such changes were attempted. So as far as pointing out weird things of Italian if I felt something was odd, I would have no problems saying it. Would I expect people to change? No. There are plenty of things I find odd about English. For example, a lot of English relies on context. Just seeing the word "rose" it could mean that it's used as the verb or the flower. If gender or grammatical reform was to happen, it would more or less have to be done through creating a whole new language rather than changing from within.You would have different camps of Esperanto like "Standard Esperanto","Gender-Neutral Esperanto" "Logical Esperanto" and that kind of defeats the point of forming a universal language. Then you would have probably have more splits on those. Esperanto as international businesses language could be very useful. I mean, yes, many people speak some English, but not all, and not all as well.Esperanto even disregarding the egalitarian idealism, makes a lot of sense to study. I understand some basics in just a few minutes of studying. (I hope to learn much more.) That's less time someone has to spend learning language to speak to someone, or less money used hiring someone to translate when more complicated issues are brought up. I never understood why I had to spend 12 years of schooling taking classes that is my native language, but if I think about it there was/is still probably elements I didn't understand fully. I feel that people are a bit unfair to Esperanto and it's development. Esperanto didn't grow on the back of Imperialist empires. Esperanto never its version of the "welsh knot". Many countries only speak English or French because they had people enforcing their languages. How far would English or French spread if their armies didn't follow?People make a distinction between languages such as English and French as "natural", but how organic was the spread of English in India? People treat AAVE simply another form of English, and use to justify racism against blacks in America n some cases.General American is no more correct, and yet because it has more less the dialect of the rulers, that is the one that is taught. The growth of English only stands to speak of its perspective countries spheres of influence and domains. Thanks again for your response.
Can't help you there, I'm afraid. It was just something that flitted across the working surface of the cortex and promptly disappeared as soon as uttered. That's just the way my mind works, sometimes. I only wish I understood it! (I often feel the same about song writing. I have absolutely no idea where the lyrics come from, and as for the melody ... your guess is as good as mine!) Sorry to be so useless.
This is fascinating, but if there aren't enough people who know Esperanto then what is the point of learning it? Duolingo now offers Klingon too, but I doubt I would spend time on that either.
How many is enough? Have you heard of the "Pasporta Servo"? The idea is that, before you set off on your trip somewhere, you make contact with Esperanto speakers in or near your destination. That way, you're not venturing into such unknown territory. BTW, have you also heard of the "Amikumu" app? Definitely worth checking out.
Why is it any more a waste of time than, say, stamp collecting? If you identify a liking for something that leaves others cold, why shouldn't you take it up? Or conversely. As you say, to each his/her own.
If learning Klingon in order to communicate with fellow sci-fi enthusiasts at the conventions that Ms. Kistler mentioned is part of the entertainment value that those sort of endeavors provide to certain individuals, then fine. But learning Klingon has absolutely no intrinsic value. It is a "play" language. Stamp collecting, on the other hand, has been practiced around the world by millions of people. It's a learning experience that teaches the philatelist about other cultures, political figures, monetary exchange, indigenous wildlife, historical landmarks etc...I, myself collected stamps for a time when I was a kid. There's just no comparison. I would also like to add, Mr. Carter, that I do believe there is SOME value (albeit small) in what I call "wasting time" as long as it is not excessive. Unfortunately, there's too much attention paid to silly, pointless past-times: Astrology instead of astronomy, pulp novels over non-fiction or classics, ghost stories over the study of religions, video games over sports to name a few. We all want to be entertained and titillated with the absolute minimum of intellectual thought or exertion involved. It's fast food for our minds and souls. So my point is, why not use your free time to indulge in an activity that is rooted in reality instead of fantasy. It's just as enjoyable and you'll learn something, too!
What's really interesting about your recent comment is that the benefits you ascribe to philately can also be shown in connection with Esperanto (which has featured on numerous stamps over the past century - usually, but not exclusively, featuring the initiator, Dr Zamenhof). Your point about "fast food" is not lost on me: I gave up watching television about 5 years ago, and really don't miss it. I take time to learn things thoroughly - particularly software, but also foreign languages - and can assure you that my activities are all "rooted in reality instead of fantasy". I would respectfully suggest that you check out the video about native speakers of Esperanto - ua-cam.com/video/UzDS2WyemBI/v-deo.html - and then reconsider your evaluation of the language. It is not a project, but a fully functioning language, and whether you accept that or reject it makes absolutely no difference to the fact.
Tf was not 'several years' used by 'a Jewish eye doctor' but at least a dozen, spent by a polyglot schoolchild, a virtuoso of Pig Latin,, in the borderline of Europe, dreaming of mutual understanding of people. By the way, why could not the interviewee a bit of a poem - Esperanto poetry started before the this language genome was launched and has hundreds of poets...t Valdas Banaitis from Lithua, the motherland of d-ro Esperanto, a heathen country till XVII century, with unwritten language.
Are you reading "several" = "seven"? Because "a dozen" still = "several". And I think a re-reading of the known facts - even in this post-truth world - would help you get things straight in your head.
When you say "accents", what exactly are you referring to? (1) Different ways of pronouncing things? Or (2) the caps on the letters *ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ*, and *ŭ*? If it's (1), let me assure you that, even with a "tinged" pronunciation, Esperanto-users make themselves understood very easily. If it's (2), have you counted how many accents are used in French, German, Spanish ... (I could go on)? Which would you prefer - using digraphs such as "ch" and "sh" or single letters - e.g. *ĉ* and *ŝ*? The same digraph represents different sounds in different languages, whereas Esperanto has a basic rule that there's a one-to-one correspondence between a sound and its representation - i.e. one sound, one letter.
Digramoj perfortas la koncepton "unu sono, unu litero; unu litero, unu sono". En la Zamenhofa epoko, presejoj plej ofte ne posedis tiparojn kiuj enhavas la ĉapelitajn literojn, do la iniciatinto sugestis ke oni uzu h-digramojn. Sed tiuj kombinaĵoj ne estas la vera Esperanto. Nuntempe, oni ofte trovas x-digramojn, kiuj eble preferindas ĉar oni tuj vidas, ke tio ne estas la vera literumo (pro tio, ke ne estas x-literon en Esperanto). Digraphs violate the concept of "one sound, one letter; one letter, one sound". In Zamenhof's time, printing presses most often did not have typefaces and fonts which included the capped letters, and so the initiator suggested that h-digraphs could be used. But those combinations are not the real Esperanto. Nowadays, x-digraphs can often be found, which are possibly preferable because we can immediately see that that's not the true spelling (because there isn't an x in Esperanto).
I tried to learn Esperanto but quickly found that there is a fundamental flaw of sexism in it: in that third person personal pronouns are mandatory male or female and there is a debate about a common one but no consensus on that. Also, there is fundamental gender asymmetry: there is a feminine suffix but not masculine one and masculine is the neuter default. What is more disappointing is that when I point out these issues no one in the community wants to fix them. Some even deny this is a problem. I would rather go with Interlingua or some other language. Esperanto is doomed to fail if it will be based only on perspectives of sexist men.
You may see "a fundamental flaw of sexism" in Esperanto which, in everyday usage, doesn't actually get in the way of communication. Did you not discover the neuter 3rd person singular pronoun - *ĝi*? You may not be aware that, although it's quite easy to fiddle about with the "bricks" of a language - the vocabulary - it's nowhere near as easy to mess around with the "mortar" that holds those "bricks" together - the grammar. And that goes for English as much as for Esperanto. Witness the many futile attempts to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun in English (well documented by, among many, David Crystal), leading us to begrudgingly accept the use of "they" with singular verbs, etc. Not grammatically perfect but workable. Quite rightly, Zamenhof put the principle of simplicity over any notion of symmetry. Your suggestion (and not only yours) that there should be a masculine suffix is totally missing the point. As is your allegation that some Esperanto-users "deny this is a problem". Rather than being a problem, it's simply an issue, one which has been raised scores of times since 1887, and those of us who have been using Esperanto quite satisfactorily for many years do not let it hinder communication. "No one in the community wants to fix them" also ignores the fact that Esperantists voted a long long time ago to accept the "Foundation" as an untouchable document that would guarantee uniformity across all speakers of the language, and which has prevented its breaking up into dialects - even given the Ido schism of the early 20th century. As for Esperanto being "doomed to fail", it's survived so far and looks set to become even more popular over the coming years. Nevertheless, if you think you'll have more success in the Interlingua camp, by all means try it. I certainly wouldn't stand in your way.
just a clarification that I am not in any sense saying that gender asymmetry and consequent inappropriate treatment of gender is a problem unique to Esperanto. Languages with grammatical gender are much worse on this. However, I do not agree that this can be overlooked in Esperanto just like it is in many natural languages. The reason is that natural languages were never designed to be fair and just. I like the fundamental idea about Esperanto, to come up with a language that is easy to learn and culture neutral. There is a criticism that Esperanto is easier to learn for users of Romance language but then even for a user of a non-Romance language, Esperanto should be easier to learn that any other language. Nevertheless when it comes to an universal auxiliary language, it is not just practical need but also the ideology that motivates us to promote one. I really don't see how it is fair and just that any universal auxiliary language can be created by one man and that version be considered final, and maintained by a male-dominated academy and community be even considered a candidate for universal auxiliary language. I am for universal auxiliary language. I am not against Esperanto either, but my argument is that if Esperanto has for its ideal the establishment of an universal auxiliary language, that cannot and should not happen without considering all perspectives of gender. If established usage is a criteria, Basic English is a much better candidate for international auxiliary language. The only serious argument you can make against it is its association with Western imperialism. To me, male dominance in the design and development of a language is also a major problem. Further gender asymmetry is not only discriminatory against women but it is a bad design idea as well. Ido has to a great extent fixed it. If the aim of the Esperanto community is to maintain it as a hobby language that is faithful to the original version, I wish you all good luck. It is just a hobby that does not specifically interest me, but I have nothing against it. With Internet and growing niche cultures, it will surely have a thriving community for a long time into the future. However, if you make a claim that Esperanto is best suited to be the international auxiliary language, please fix gender asymmetry or give us a logical and rational explanation of why gender asymmetry is required in the deign of an international auxiliary language. Even conceding that there are differences of opinion: some feel it is harmless and others feel it is discriminatory, the solution that is fair to all insofar as the design of international auxiliary language is concerned is to not have gender asymmetry unless there is compelling evidence that this feature makes the language better, which I am sure we don't have.
I think part of the problem is confusing linguistic gender with biological gender. There is a fundamental disconnect there. Perhaps your arguments would be better answered by a female Esperanto-user? I'll ask around.
I have a suggestion for all of you who think gender asymmetry is not a problem at all and that the fundamental design of the language should not be changed. It is only feminists who find this an issue and maybe we are just mistaken, but why don't we agree to compromise? Anti-feminists think gender asymmetry is a great idea or at least they don't see anything wrong in it. This should logically apply both ways. Since it is only grammatical gender, you should not have a problem if the neutral default is masculine or feminine. Feminists think it is a problem because using a diminutive suffix makes feminine gender secondary and masculine gender being the default is also a problem. Ideally we would want the default to be common gender, which means we would have to change the fundamental design of the language - a proposal not acceptable to the Esperanto community and academy - even if it means just adding or removing a suffix as this will go against the foundation document of the language. So, I propose that you keep the language as it is, don't change a single feature, don't change a single word - just change the usage. Pass a resolution that henceforth the masculine grammatical gender will be used to refer to women and grammatical feminine gender will be used to refer to men. So, patro is mother and patrino is father and so on. It might also give us an opportunity to test Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the field of feminist linguistics (no one took Laadan seriously anyway). My argument is you men designed and developed the language and you argue it is perfect, but some feminists, mostly women, have a problem with it. Now the argument you make is this is a living language, the fundamentals are already decided and you can't change it. My suggestion is don't touch the language, but just change the usage: make grammatical masculine refer to female sex in the real world and grammatical feminine refer to male sex in the real world. This is what we generally do: if two people need to share a cake, we can ask one person to cut it into halves and the other person to choose one of the two pieces. This is fair and just. You men decided the design: "zero" suffix and "-in" suffix. Now, we women would like to pick the "zero" suffix for ourselves and you keep the "-in" suffix for yourselves. If you still object to it, it only shows that you have vested interests in maintaining Esperanto as a sexist language.
I think your suggestion is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen. What do you think gives you the right to use emotional blackmail to try and get things your way? You have obviously done a certain amount of research into the history of the language, but still you keep insisting that it's unsatisfactory the way it is at the moment. You must be aware that reformists have been a feature of the Esperanto world since the very beginning. Their suggestions were considered, and rejected, by the users - not necessarily by the Academy, which exists seemingly only to ratify decisions reached by the user-base. Esperanto has existed publicly for 129 years and will go on existing as long as its users find it useful. If you remain adamant that change is necessary, then I would suggest that you yourself should change, leave Esperanto to its fate, and move on to a different project which might need and welcome your input.
Saluton Ian kai Jonathon.
Dankon por vi interese mesago.
Mi estas komensanto. Mi lernas Esperanto en Toowoomba, Qld. Australia. Ni havas multajn Esperantistojn en Australia. En Jan. 2017 mi visitas mi unuan Esperanton congreson en Brisbano. Vi havas una semanojn lescionojn- Bone! Duolingo kaj Amikumu estas mirinda.
Gis revido! Claire.
Saluton al vi, Claire. Mi ĝojas, ke vi uzas Esperanton post tiom mallonga studado. Estas kelkaj eraroj, kompreneble, sed mi bone komprenas tion, kion vi diris al mi, kaj mi volas gratuli vin pro via progreso.
Se vi volas, ke mi kontrolu tion, kion vi skribis, bonvolu sciigi al mi kaj mi tre ĝojos helpi vin.
Ĝis baldaŭ!
Jano
l love Esperanto
Same here. (But then, I suppose you've already guessed that!
What a brilliant interviewer, pure radio talent. (Based on this one video, admittedly)
I'm starting to learn and understand it quite quickly. I think it's because Spanish is my second language and a lot of Esperanto has resemblance to Spanish
You're right that there is a superficial resemblance towards Spanish, but once you really get into word building, you'll find it quite a different beast. Being able to construct words from the building blocks of the language gives you such a sense of control and achievement, instead of the usual insecurity that comes with post-beginners' efforts (e.g. the worrying thought: "is that how they say it in X?")
Dankon pro via tre interesa programo. Mi estas nuntempe lerni Esperanton kaj ĝi konsoladas min ke aliaj homoj parolas pri la lingvon.
Mi dankas vin, Jim, pro via komento. Notu, ke vi ne bezonas "estas" kun "lerni", ĉar "lernas" egalas al la simpla nun-tempo (angle: "learn/s") *kaj* al la daŭra nun-tempo ("am/is/are learning".)
Kaj sufiĉe multaj personoj parolas kaj skribas en Esperanto, tiel ke vi mem povos trovi korespondanton kun kiu vi povos interŝanĝi retmesaĝojn, ktp.
That's a fabulous interview, Ian. Warm, witty and factual. You're the master :)
+Meddysong - Thanks, Tim. Next time I'll think of something brilliant in response to the request for a spoken sample! Any suggestions, anyone?
La intervuo estis brila. Nur la historio pri apero de Esperanto estas erariga. Sian lingvokrean modelon Zamenhof havis jam preta en 1885, kiam li ankorau ne estis okulisto. Kaj la ideon li havis jam en 1869, kiam li, dekjara knabo, estis verkanta 5-aktan tragedion pri Belostoka turo Babela. Le estis denaska poligloto kaj virtuozo de verlano - infana luda sekretlingvo, kiun li serendipe invertis al klarlingvo.
Given that Esperanto is coming up to its 130th birthday (next year), and that reforms have been suggested and ignored over much of that time, one would think people would have got the message by now. Why has Ido not had the same success as Esperanto?
The reality is that the foundation stone of Esperanto absolutely can NOT be touched or changed - even when mistakes have been noticed in it. One can only add to it, provided that any new additions are found necessary by the entire Esperanto community. The whim of a handful of participants has never dictated the way the language has developed.
Zamenhof himself wisely handed over all responsibility and authority to the community.
This is interesting because there are 3 camps in the Esperanto movement: Fundamentalists, innovators for the sake of innovation and those who are practical. I fall in the practical camp, and do not have any emotional attachment to "canon" as it were, especially if it stifles either communication or the dissemination of Esperanto.
The main feature that I love about Esperanto is that it is a practical second language - I do not see it anything more than a means of bridging the language gap. The fact that the proposals have been ignored is probably not that they are not necessary, but because there is no real authority and no real resources to do the work required.
There are many words that may be considered contrary to the "Fundamento" that are not necessary that have entered general use. There is nothing wrong with that. It would be naive to think that the language can be changed if the entire community agrees - how is it possible to do so? It is not, so proposals are most probably thrown out for the sake of ease.
The fact that it could not be changed even if mistakes are noticed is quite narrow-minded IMO. I somehow do not think that Zamanhof gave authority over to the community as much as the leaders either passed away or defected from the movement.
I'm afraid that what stifles communication (in any language) is when learners have to stop and think about the grammar. When people just talk and *use* what they've learned, communication tends to flow. (I say this with some authority, having conducted intermediate/advanced conversational English classes in Yangon, Myanmar, for 10 years).
Bonege! Love the part where you discuss it's lack of progress and how there is no money behind it, hopefully years down the line it moves toward that! Won't make any realistic progress until major European legislation gets put in.
I love how I said these phrases like "years down the line" and "gets put in". There's hundreds of those little phrases like that, like "ends up" as in "He ended up choosing the red pill" or "at all" as in "I don't want that at all!". They don't make any sense or relate to the actual definition of each word alone, but we just know them because we learned it out of birth and lifetime immersion. That's why we need EO, just so we can understand a damn sentence without troubles even after hundreds of hours.
Thanks for this talk though, great job!
+Nick Johnson - My pleasure. Such idioms as those you quote are part and parcel of what makes English the language it is. Unfortunately, many people try to translate such phrases word for word, which is very confusing for non-native speakers (imagine what a Chinese person makes of "it's raining cats and dogs") and sometimes even for native speakers!
The first Esperanto speaker was no young eye-doctor when he conceived this language game. He was not yet 13 years old (the age when the natural infantlle linguistc creatvity disappears, when he, a native polyglot and a virtuoso of Pig Latm„ turned the language mechanism inside-out, replacing the concealing syllables by revealing. syllables. SO it was fhat Zamenhof serendipously discoverd ththat reciprocally language-creative toy, model with the totally strange code, still unexplained by the conventional grammarians.
Valdas Banaitis from Lithua, the motherland of Zamenhof
I think you should take more care when you're copying someone else's ideas. There are so many typos in here - and none of them look like mere slips of the fingers ("infantlle linguistc creatvity", "Latm", "fhat", "serendipously discoverd", "ththat", "Lithua").
If you have something genuine to add to the conversation, all well and good. Otherwise, I'll have to block your input in future.
Tre bona intervjuo :-)
Multajn dankojn.
These are the most british people ive ever bloody seen. Im american. this is why i consider british, australian and north american english different dialects of english
I'm struggling to understand what your comment relates to (with its near-total disregard for punctuation). You're right about the different dialects of English, but don't forget Indian English, Singaporean English, Philippine English and so on. By the way, have you ever noticed a connection between "English" and "England"? (Might be something in that!)
No hate ok I was just pointing out something interesting to me at least ok. And I was to lazy to type all the englishes. Reading my comment now I know it had a hateful tone I didn't mean it to sound like that. Also the american accent was actualy the origional accent.
No worries. I'll accept that American spelling is in many cases older than British spelling - that's because some stupid "clever" people here (c. 17th century) decided to show our debt to French, and stuck unwanted U's all over the place (color --> colour), as well as rearranging -ER to give -RE (theatre, centre, ...)
When it comes to accents, though, it depends which American accent you're thinking of. It's true that the United States has such a wide range of regional accents that they outnumber even the many that we have here in the UK. But where did the Pilgrims' accents originate? And the Boston accent, which reminds many people of a British accent (but I'm not talking about RP or "Received Pronunciation" like the Queen's.
It's a fascinating subject, and I would heartily recommend anything by *David Crystal* - particularly his _Encyclopedia of the English Language_.
ian i want to learn esperanto im 16 i already speak english and spanish do u think i can learn it in a year??
ian quiero aprender el esperanto tengo 16 años y ya se hablar ingles ademas del español.. crees q sera posible q lo aprenda en un año¿?
I should think, with some serious study, you could learn Esperanto to an acceptable level in much less than one year. I reckon that, when I was your age, it took me only 3 months to secure an intermediate command. I gained a diploma after only 2 years of study.
Entonces, ¡creo que sí!
***** thats great but im not that good with languages im just lucky im half spanish but i'll give it a try.. i'm on duolingo right now. thanks for the reply. un saludo
It's a proven fact that bilingual (or multilingual) people are more flexible thinkers than monolinguals. So that kind of gives me the confidence to predict that you can do it! Don't doubt your own abilities. Go for it!
If you want to try studying with me as your tutor, try this free email course: esperanto.org.uk/fpc.
I bought a copy of Teach yourself Esperanto, still have it but as I was learning on my own never kept it up.
It does take an awful lot of self-discipline and motivation to keep going when you're learning a language on your own. On top of that, TYE is getting a bit long in the tooth, isn't it? Have you checked out lernu.net? It's just had a huge makeover.
TYE was and still is a good book, I got up to chapter 5 and had a basic knowledge of the language but have forgotten most of it now but if I hear it spoken I can still make out the odd word.
That's great. It's a bit like riding a bike, I suppose.
There are plans afoot to revive TYE, by the way. Watch this space! (or some other probably more appropriate space)
Haven't been on lernu in a while. Clicking that link _actually_ startled me o_O
Gratulon por la amuza elsendo!
Dankon. Tamen, ŝajnas ke al iuj ĝi tute ne plaĉas!
Ian Carter how do you start to learn Esperanto?
I picked up "Teach Yourself Esperanto" in Chesterfield Library, back in about 1966. The language fascinated me then and it still does.
thank you i myself am trying to learn Esperanto
Duolingo (phone app) is an excellent introduction to the language. If you'd like to study with perhaps a bit more structure, why not try the free taster course from EAB? I'm a study guide on that course, and would be delighted to help you with your studies.
good interview
+damnnothingworks - Thank you.
jen tre bona intervjuo! Gratulon, Ian
+José Antonio Vergara - Koran dankon pro via komento.
+Ian Carter I think the comment made by the interviewer was rather mean "You must be the only person to ever have taken one of those Teach Yourself books off the shelf". Like: What did he mean with that?
I don't like the general attitude he has to the language. I've met another journalist with a similar approach. Although you did a great job responding!
Antonia Montaro Thanks for your comments. In general I found Jonathan more receptive than some. And he certainly was quite generous with his time.
Okay :) Well that's great!
DILEMMA(di-two) means an argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavorable alternatives, not a simple problem.
Absolutely right, etymologically, but don't forget that, over time, meanings of words can change. Sometimes the change is quite subtle, but at other times it can be quite drastic (cf. "gay").
Etymologically and till nowadays DI means TWO, TWICE, DOUBLE, TWOFOLD. Meanings can change in the street slangs or jargons, not in normative language. Thanks.
"Normative" = "prescriptive"?
Mi kamas al cxi tiu videon post kompletante esperantan lecionon sur Duolingo!
Good try, +Sean. I hope you don't mind if I tweak it a bit to make it more appropriate?
"Mi venis al ĉi tiu filmeto post mi finis esperantan lecionon ĉe Duolingo."
Mi esperas ke vi studos eĉ plu! (= "I hope that you will study even further")
***** Not at all, after rereading my post, I'm laughing at how I took "I came from..." into "mi kamas..."
Still a lot to learn it seems, thanks!
It just makes me sad that I always get to know about those kind of opportunities when it's too late. Seems like I'm always too old and too late. :(
What kind of opportunities are they, then? (You're never too old, whatever it is ...)
+Ian Carter woah I thought nobody ever answered to UA-cam comments. Congratulations on your show... I was talking about traveling kind of "for free" by using Esperanto. Thanks anyway!
Even if it's "too late" for the travel grants from NOJEF for under-25-year-olds, there are still lots of opportunities to travel and meet new people. You could start by taking part in a FREE chatty two-day course called "Lernu" (or the higher level "Lernu Plu") held at Esperanto House in Barlaston, Staffordshire, UK. Check out this page: esperanto.org.uk/eab/eab_events.htm
dankon por akcepti min, mi esperas ke vi havas paciencon , mi estas komencanto al lingvo , brakumoj
+Justino Mendonça - Bonvenon al la esperanta mondo.
2:40 What do you call a helicopter in Latin? Well, coin a word. Helicopterus will do fine.
I've been so curious if an Esperantistoj are accepting to LGBTQ people? I'm transsexual by the way.
In general, I would say that Esperanto-users show considerably more acceptance of all types of people. There are LGBTQ adherents of the language, just the same as with any other medium of communication.
Oh I get the logic. I appreciate your comment.
I would think that it would depend on the individual Esperantist, actually. We (esperantistoj) would be the first to say that it is unhealthy to focus on one aspect of one's own life and derive our identity from it, as many in the movement have done to their detriment. For me it is a tool to get to know others from other backgrounds so that I can become a better person. The world has just got that much smaller. Things are constantly changing and the movement is growing even here in South Africa. It is quite exciting!
Tre bona intervjuo! Vi nur forgesis diri, ke George Soros ne estas kutima Esperantisto, sed li estas denaska parolanto de Esperanto. Lia patro instruis Esperanton al li en lia infanaĝo.
+Robin van der Vliet - Fakte, tion mi tute ne sciis. Mi sincere dankas vin pro la sciigo.
Lerni Esperanton junaĝe kaj denaske ne estas same. Tivadar ja instruis Esperanton al la filo, sed ĝi ne estis denaska lingvo por Georgo. Ja dum jaroj oni parolas pri la denaska Georgo, sed Humphrey Tonkin, la biografisto de Tivadar, substrekis, ke Esperanto estas lingvo kiun Tivadar lernigis al la filo kiel plian lingvon en la junaĝo.
What's your opinion of Lojban?
I haven't had time to delve into Lojban in any great detail, but what worries me about it is that it may be too clinical, too logical to suit the human brain, which uses fuzzy logic and lateral thinking and the like. Given more time to study it (unlikely) I would probably come to understand what it's all about much more than I do now, so please don't take this as my definitive answer.
Mr. Carter, I was wondering something a few things the personal pronouns. It seems a little funny to me that personal pronouns end in i and not o. Personal pronouns are nouns, so it would seem to me to be conistent they should end in o. Although, I feel it would be better for the o to be added onto the i rather than replace the i, because that would keep the pronouns more familiar with speakers of English and other European languages. Mio/ I Mion/me, With adjectival form add an "a" instead mia/ my/mine.
I also feel like it could be easier to teach people the grammar and how it relates to one another by making the pluarl form take the -j ending of the singular form. Mioj, vioj, lioj, sxio, gxio, onioj, sioj
As a native English speaker, I may be a little biased, but I feel that leaving out the formal "you" was a good idea for the language. However, keeping the singular the same for the plural seems like a silly idea.Because this the pluarl you is present in several European languages. Another benefit I could see from using this system is that one could preserve the cultural gender-codings present in other languages. In Spanish, for example , ellas exclusive a group females, where ellos could mean a mixed group or exculsive male. However, in English, ellas and ellos would just get translated "they". Esperanto could easily avoid this lexical gap in translation and keep the language more regular.
Is there a historic reason you know of why Zamenhof decided to not end personal pronouns in o and why he decided to not have a plural you?
Despite inheriting the "generic male" nouns from the 19th century, I feel Esperanto could equalized people. I see a lot of nationalism in the form of language where people will say things such as "This is America ; speak English!" I really appericate the idea of nationless language. If L. L. Zamenhof was alive today I feel he would very much appericate the idea of bitcoin and other cyrptocurrencies to make international nationless currencies.One I learned of recently is called monero has it focuses more on anomnity than bitcoin.
Where there any old attempts to have an international currency?
Thank you for your comment. You've obviously given it a lot of thought.
Firstly, pronouns are not nouns: they stand in for nouns, mainly to avoid unnecessary repetition. They are a closed system, and therefore it's perfectly logical for them to have a different ending from that of nouns. You're correct, by the way, in assuming that the adjectival form is mia, via, etc.
As for leaving out the "plural" of you, I'm afraid you've got that wrong. "Vi" was originally the plural (and therefore polite) version, with the singular (familiar) being "ci". However, users of Esperanto didn't find "ci" particularly useful, and it has more or less disappeared from the language - in much the same way as "thou" has in English (other than dialectal).
If you read the comments on this video, you'll see there's quite a bit of emotional unrest about the 3rd person pronouns being sexist. You'll also read my own thoughts there.
Your final question about an international currency is easy to answer. Back in the 70s (I think) there was a suggestion that we could have the "stelo" (no prizes for guessing why) but it didn't take off. It's interesting now to see the "monero" project, especially as that's the Esperanto word for "coin".
My advice to you would be to drop any idea of reforming what is not a project, but a perfectly well functioning language (I take it you wouldn't dream of telling the Italians how to improve their language ... or would you?)
*****
Thank you for your response. It was quite informative. Thanks for your thoughts.
As for reforming the language, I wouldn't really be in favor of pushing a new Esperanto, as you say it has a dedicated community, and even if you convenience enough "authorities" on Esperanto to make any change it will probably do more harm to the language than good . As far as I understand the major Spanish of Spain and Latin America institutions came together for spelling reform, a few years ago, but a sizable portion is ignoring the reforms.Just find some features odd.
With its considerably smaller number of Esperanto speakers you'll still see people for one reason or another disagree and the community will splinter even for just not knowing. From what I know of Volpuk, despite being somewhat convoluted (basing this on commentary, not a first hand look at the language) people liked the idea of a universal language, but had disagreements about the language's structure and people didn't know what the standard version was. It was probably be the same with Esperanto, if such changes were attempted.
So as far as pointing out weird things of Italian if I felt something was odd, I would have no problems saying it. Would I expect people to change? No. There are plenty of things I find odd about English. For example, a lot of English relies on context. Just seeing the word "rose" it could mean that it's used as the verb or the flower.
If gender or grammatical reform was to happen, it would more or less have to be done through creating a whole new language rather than changing from within.You would have different camps of Esperanto like "Standard Esperanto","Gender-Neutral Esperanto" "Logical Esperanto" and that kind of defeats the point of forming a universal language. Then you would have probably have more splits on those.
Esperanto as international businesses language could be very useful. I mean, yes, many people speak some English, but not all, and not all as well.Esperanto even disregarding the egalitarian idealism, makes a lot of sense to study. I understand some basics in just a few minutes of studying. (I hope to learn much more.) That's less time someone has to spend learning language to speak to someone, or less money used hiring someone to translate when more complicated issues are brought up. I never understood why I had to spend 12 years of schooling taking classes that is my native language, but if I think about it there was/is still probably elements I didn't understand fully.
I feel that people are a bit unfair to Esperanto and it's development. Esperanto didn't grow on the back of Imperialist empires. Esperanto never its version of the "welsh knot". Many countries only speak English or French because they had people enforcing their languages. How far would English or French spread if their armies didn't follow?People make a distinction between languages such as English and French as "natural", but how organic was the spread of English in India? People treat AAVE simply another form of English, and use to justify racism against blacks in America n some cases.General American is no more correct, and yet because it has more less the dialect of the rulers, that is the one that is taught. The growth of English only stands to speak of its perspective countries spheres of influence and domains.
Thanks again for your response.
"Somebody's guide dog" at 5:52. What?
+s ewind - What can I say? First thing that popped into my head. No offence meant.
I'm never offended, so don't worry, but could you please explain this possibly offensive comment? I just want to get it:)
Can't help you there, I'm afraid. It was just something that flitted across the working surface of the cortex and promptly disappeared as soon as uttered. That's just the way my mind works, sometimes. I only wish I understood it!
(I often feel the same about song writing. I have absolutely no idea where the lyrics come from, and as for the melody ... your guess is as good as mine!)
Sorry to be so useless.
Mojosa!! :D mi parolas gxi :D
+kenny Dhal - (Ne forgesu meti la */N* fine de la gramatika rekta objekto - do "Mi parolas ĝin"),
Kaj jes - ĝi estas mojosa!
This is fascinating, but if there aren't enough people who know Esperanto then what is the point of learning it? Duolingo now offers Klingon too, but I doubt I would spend time on that either.
How many is enough? Have you heard of the "Pasporta Servo"? The idea is that, before you set off on your trip somewhere, you make contact with Esperanto speakers in or near your destination. That way, you're not venturing into such unknown territory.
BTW, have you also heard of the "Amikumu" app? Definitely worth checking out.
Such a waste of time......but, to each his own I guess.
Why is it any more a waste of time than, say, stamp collecting? If you identify a liking for something that leaves others cold, why shouldn't you take it up? Or conversely. As you say, to each his/her own.
If learning Klingon in order to communicate with fellow sci-fi enthusiasts at the conventions that Ms. Kistler mentioned is part of the entertainment value that those sort of endeavors provide to certain individuals, then fine. But learning Klingon has absolutely no intrinsic value. It is a "play" language. Stamp collecting, on the other hand, has been practiced around the world by millions of people. It's a learning experience that teaches the philatelist about other cultures, political figures, monetary exchange, indigenous wildlife, historical landmarks etc...I, myself collected stamps for a time when I was a kid.
There's just no comparison.
I would also like to add, Mr. Carter, that I do believe there is SOME value (albeit small) in what I call "wasting time" as long as it is not excessive. Unfortunately, there's too much attention paid to silly, pointless past-times: Astrology instead of astronomy, pulp novels over non-fiction or classics, ghost stories over the study of religions, video games over sports to name a few. We all want to be entertained and titillated with the absolute minimum of intellectual thought or exertion involved. It's fast food for our minds and souls.
So my point is, why not use your free time to indulge in an activity that is rooted in reality instead of fantasy. It's just as enjoyable and you'll learn something, too!
What's really interesting about your recent comment is that the benefits you ascribe to philately can also be shown in connection with Esperanto (which has featured on numerous stamps over the past century - usually, but not exclusively, featuring the initiator, Dr Zamenhof).
Your point about "fast food" is not lost on me: I gave up watching television about 5 years ago, and really don't miss it. I take time to learn things thoroughly - particularly software, but also foreign languages - and can assure you that my activities are all "rooted in reality instead of fantasy".
I would respectfully suggest that you check out the video about native speakers of Esperanto - ua-cam.com/video/UzDS2WyemBI/v-deo.html - and then reconsider your evaluation of the language. It is not a project, but a fully functioning language, and whether you accept that or reject it makes absolutely no difference to the fact.
Tf was not 'several years' used by 'a Jewish eye doctor' but at least a dozen, spent by a polyglot schoolchild, a virtuoso of Pig Latin,, in the borderline of Europe, dreaming of mutual understanding of people. By the way, why could not the interviewee a bit of a poem - Esperanto poetry started before the this language genome was launched and has hundreds of poets...t
Valdas Banaitis
from Lithua, the motherland of d-ro Esperanto, a heathen country till XVII century, with unwritten language.
Are you reading "several" = "seven"? Because "a dozen" still = "several". And I think a re-reading of the known facts - even in this post-truth world - would help you get things straight in your head.
10,000th view
Excellent. Thank you.
Ni renkontighu dum UK en Seulo en koreio kaj Pjonjango en norda koreio
Verŝajne mi ne povos ĉeesti la UK-on en Seulo.
100th comment
ike the idea, but too many accents.
When you say "accents", what exactly are you referring to? (1) Different ways of pronouncing things? Or (2) the caps on the letters *ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ*, and *ŭ*?
If it's (1), let me assure you that, even with a "tinged" pronunciation, Esperanto-users make themselves understood very easily.
If it's (2), have you counted how many accents are used in French, German, Spanish ... (I could go on)? Which would you prefer - using digraphs such as "ch" and "sh" or single letters - e.g. *ĉ* and *ŝ*? The same digraph represents different sounds in different languages, whereas Esperanto has a basic rule that there's a one-to-one correspondence between a sound and its representation - i.e. one sound, one letter.
Mi preferas la digramojn. Zamenhof mem sugestis la uzon de 'h' se la diakritaj signoj estus maloportunaj.
Digramoj perfortas la koncepton "unu sono, unu litero; unu litero, unu sono". En la Zamenhofa epoko, presejoj plej ofte ne posedis tiparojn kiuj enhavas la ĉapelitajn literojn, do la iniciatinto sugestis ke oni uzu h-digramojn. Sed tiuj kombinaĵoj ne estas la vera Esperanto. Nuntempe, oni ofte trovas x-digramojn, kiuj eble preferindas ĉar oni tuj vidas, ke tio ne estas la vera literumo (pro tio, ke ne estas x-literon en Esperanto).
Digraphs violate the concept of "one sound, one letter; one letter, one sound". In Zamenhof's time, printing presses most often did not have typefaces and fonts which included the capped letters, and so the initiator suggested that h-digraphs could be used. But those combinations are not the real Esperanto. Nowadays, x-digraphs can often be found, which are possibly preferable because we can immediately see that that's not the true spelling (because there isn't an x in Esperanto).
Digramoj estis nur provizora anstatauo de diakritaj signoj. La sola vera diagramo estis dz, kiun ne evitis eĉ IPA
I tried to learn Esperanto but quickly found that there is a fundamental flaw of sexism in it: in that third person personal pronouns are mandatory male or female and there is a debate about a common one but no consensus on that. Also, there is fundamental gender asymmetry: there is a feminine suffix but not masculine one and masculine is the neuter default. What is more disappointing is that when I point out these issues no one in the community wants to fix them. Some even deny this is a problem. I would rather go with Interlingua or some other language. Esperanto is doomed to fail if it will be based only on perspectives of sexist men.
You may see "a fundamental flaw of sexism" in Esperanto which, in everyday usage, doesn't actually get in the way of communication. Did you not discover the neuter 3rd person singular pronoun - *ĝi*?
You may not be aware that, although it's quite easy to fiddle about with the "bricks" of a language - the vocabulary - it's nowhere near as easy to mess around with the "mortar" that holds those "bricks" together - the grammar. And that goes for English as much as for Esperanto. Witness the many futile attempts to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun in English (well documented by, among many, David Crystal), leading us to begrudgingly accept the use of "they" with singular verbs, etc. Not grammatically perfect but workable.
Quite rightly, Zamenhof put the principle of simplicity over any notion of symmetry. Your suggestion (and not only yours) that there should be a masculine suffix is totally missing the point. As is your allegation that some Esperanto-users "deny this is a problem". Rather than being a problem, it's simply an issue, one which has been raised scores of times since 1887, and those of us who have been using Esperanto quite satisfactorily for many years do not let it hinder communication.
"No one in the community wants to fix them" also ignores the fact that Esperantists voted a long long time ago to accept the "Foundation" as an untouchable document that would guarantee uniformity across all speakers of the language, and which has prevented its breaking up into dialects - even given the Ido schism of the early 20th century.
As for Esperanto being "doomed to fail", it's survived so far and looks set to become even more popular over the coming years.
Nevertheless, if you think you'll have more success in the Interlingua camp, by all means try it. I certainly wouldn't stand in your way.
just a clarification that I am not in any sense saying that gender asymmetry and consequent inappropriate treatment of gender is a problem unique to Esperanto. Languages with grammatical gender are much worse on this. However, I do not agree that this can be overlooked in Esperanto just like it is in many natural languages. The reason is that natural languages were never designed to be fair and just.
I like the fundamental idea about Esperanto, to come up with a language that is easy to learn and culture neutral. There is a criticism that Esperanto is easier to learn for users of Romance language but then even for a user of a non-Romance language, Esperanto should be easier to learn that any other language. Nevertheless when it comes to an universal auxiliary language, it is not just practical need but also the ideology that motivates us to promote one. I really don't see how it is fair and just that any universal auxiliary language can be created by one man and that version be considered final, and maintained by a male-dominated academy and community be even considered a candidate for universal auxiliary language.
I am for universal auxiliary language. I am not against Esperanto either, but my argument is that if Esperanto has for its ideal the establishment of an universal auxiliary language, that cannot and should not happen without considering all perspectives of gender. If established usage is a criteria, Basic English is a much better candidate for international auxiliary language. The only serious argument you can make against it is its association with Western imperialism. To me, male dominance in the design and development of a language is also a major problem.
Further gender asymmetry is not only discriminatory against women but it is a bad design idea as well. Ido has to a great extent fixed it. If the aim of the Esperanto community is to maintain it as a hobby language that is faithful to the original version, I wish you all good luck. It is just a hobby that does not specifically interest me, but I have nothing against it. With Internet and growing niche cultures, it will surely have a thriving community for a long time into the future. However, if you make a claim that Esperanto is best suited to be the international auxiliary language, please fix gender asymmetry or give us a logical and rational explanation of why gender asymmetry is required in the deign of an international auxiliary language. Even conceding that there are differences of opinion: some feel it is harmless and others feel it is discriminatory, the solution that is fair to all insofar as the design of international auxiliary language is concerned is to not have gender asymmetry unless there is compelling evidence that this feature makes the language better, which I am sure we don't have.
I think part of the problem is confusing linguistic gender with biological gender. There is a fundamental disconnect there.
Perhaps your arguments would be better answered by a female Esperanto-user? I'll ask around.
I have a suggestion for all of you who think gender asymmetry is not a problem at all and that the fundamental design of the language should not be changed. It is only feminists who find this an issue and maybe we are just mistaken, but why don't we agree to compromise? Anti-feminists think gender asymmetry is a great idea or at least they don't see anything wrong in it. This should logically apply both ways. Since it is only grammatical gender, you should not have a problem if the neutral default is masculine or feminine. Feminists think it is a problem because using a diminutive suffix makes feminine gender secondary and masculine gender being the default is also a problem. Ideally we would want the default to be common gender, which means we would have to change the fundamental design of the language - a proposal not acceptable to the Esperanto community and academy - even if it means just adding or removing a suffix as this will go against the foundation document of the language. So, I propose that you keep the language as it is, don't change a single feature, don't change a single word - just change the usage. Pass a resolution that henceforth the masculine grammatical gender will be used to refer to women and grammatical feminine gender will be used to refer to men. So, patro is mother and patrino is father and so on.
It might also give us an opportunity to test Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the field of feminist linguistics (no one took Laadan seriously anyway). My argument is you men designed and developed the language and you argue it is perfect, but some feminists, mostly women, have a problem with it. Now the argument you make is this is a living language, the fundamentals are already decided and you can't change it. My suggestion is don't touch the language, but just change the usage: make grammatical masculine refer to female sex in the real world and grammatical feminine refer to male sex in the real world. This is what we generally do: if two people need to share a cake, we can ask one person to cut it into halves and the other person to choose one of the two pieces. This is fair and just. You men decided the design: "zero" suffix and "-in" suffix. Now, we women would like to pick the "zero" suffix for ourselves and you keep the "-in" suffix for yourselves. If you still object to it, it only shows that you have vested interests in maintaining Esperanto as a sexist language.
I think your suggestion is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen. What do you think gives you the right to use emotional blackmail to try and get things your way? You have obviously done a certain amount of research into the history of the language, but still you keep insisting that it's unsatisfactory the way it is at the moment. You must be aware that reformists have been a feature of the Esperanto world since the very beginning. Their suggestions were considered, and rejected, by the users - not necessarily by the Academy, which exists seemingly only to ratify decisions reached by the user-base.
Esperanto has existed publicly for 129 years and will go on existing as long as its users find it useful. If you remain adamant that change is necessary, then I would suggest that you yourself should change, leave Esperanto to its fate, and move on to a different project which might need and welcome your input.