UNO Languages

English a "Half-Romance" Language? lol, now everyone wants their language to be romantic... anyways, you're just saying that because, you speak English natively and you have no intention on learning a new language, to me that's kinda selfish.

As for English being the world’s most learned foreign language, that is true indeed, but it’s a pity that English is such a “bad-designed” language, with so many mistakes that takes people seven years to learn it, compared to Esperanto that only takes seven months, or Spanish that takes only a year, and tell me what’s gonna happen when the United States falls down, and English is not that important anymore? When your grandchildren have to learn Spanish, or Portuguese or Chinese to be prepared for the world’s new language? The thing is that we can’t be changing the world’s language every time a new country rises; therefore we need to start thinking about an international language that will suit everyone despites of what country is in power at the time.

No Esperanto...

I do not know much about it, but I do not think it is fair to call Esperanto a "linguistic gimmick without any practical value."

If you honestly believe that then you have call every known language in the world a "linguistic gimmick" because they all started out just a construction that was allowed to evolve with time.

Do you think English has little value? You called English a "Half-Romance language." This suggests that English is in fact a constructed language. And for that matter it is. Ask the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman-French who gave birth to the first English and they will tell you that it was a construction that allowed for the Italic speaking rulers to communicate with the Germanic speaking public. The point is that the first English was a construction just like Esperanto for social regulation.

Just as the monarchy needed a common language with which to do business in, so too does the United Nations.

Now if you honestly feel that Esperanto is not the answer I can respect that, maybe it is not. However, can you offer a neutral answer to this problem with any of the pre-existing languages? You can not tell a person of one language that their language is not good enough...

Now I understand that Esperanto and many well known constructed languages are flawed, but that is because they have not been taken very seriously. I we could develop a very effective constructed language if we wanted to. Remember, while it would be nice to develop a completely new language...we do not have to. We only need to create a universal language that can meet the demands the United Nations requires of it.

As I said earlier, this is being done in the real world by international construction, mining, and off-shore drilling. If they can do it, so can the UN.

I am not an Esperantist, and I do think the language has many imperfections... nevertheless, I must come to its defense here.

<< There already is a well-established international auxiliary language: English. There is no need for another one. >>

English isn't a neutral language. People who speak English natively have an advantage over those who don't. In a way, this is unfair. Also, just because English is the lingua franca now doesn't mean it always will be. It would be easier to maintain Esperanto as an international language, because that's the very purpose of Esperanto.

<< It has a laughable low number of speakers, only about 1000 native speakers and 10000 fluent speakers - all over the world! >>

For one, 10,000 is probably an underestimate. Just because we don't precisely know the number of speakers doesn't mean you can use the lowest figure just to support your point, any more than the pro-Esperantists can use the highest figure just to support theirs.

Also, you fail to take into account that a language has to start somewhere. Do you expect everybody in the world to start learning Esperanto at once? No, it has to start small and work its way up. You wish to suppress Esperanto, which would reduce its number of speakers, which you would then use in turn to condemn Esperanto... how could a language break out of a vicious circle like that? If you'd just let it grow, then that "problem" would go away. It's only a problem if you make it one.

<< As a constructed language, it will never have the linguistic richness of a natural grown language >>

That's just baseless nonsense. How do you define "linguistic richness"?

<< Some people here say it's a neutral language, but that's not true. Esperanto is mostly based on Romance languages. So it's not a bit easier for a Chinese, Russian or whatever to learn Esperanto than learning English, Spanish or French. >>

You're right about the non-neutrality, but it would certainly be easier for a Chinese or Russian to learn Esperanto than those other languages. Why? Because Esperanto has a simpler and more flexible morphology and fewer irregularities. It just wouldn't be as easy for a Chinese or Russian to learn Esperanto as it would for, say, a Spanish speaker.

<< And why learning an artifical Romance language, when there are already 1 international "Half-Romance" (English) and 2 Romance languages (French and Spanish) with far more speakers? >>

I think my response to your first point adequately covers this.

- Kef

<<English isn't a neutral language. People who speak English natively have an advantage over those who don't.>>

I don't agree. Provided English is dominated, the non-native speaker is bi/multilingual. Most English natives are monilingual.

So, a fluent non-native has the advantage. A native will read better classic texts and prose, of course, but this is not the reason why employers see English knowledge to be necessary. For practical purposes in the commerce and science etc, understanding of Shakespeare is not necessary.

Also, most non-natives have more difficulties to understand native speakers, compared with other non-natives.

<< I don't agree. Provided English is dominated, the non-native speaker is bi/multilingual. Most English natives are monilingual.

So, a fluent non-native has the advantage. >>

This doesn't make sense to me. First, the non-native has to become fluent. That's a burden that the native doesn't have to deal with. A native speaker doesn't have to DO anything to get the opportunities that a non-native speaker gets by learning English. In addition, a native English speaker still has the opportunity to learn other foreign languages. If a native Spanish speaker learns English, and a native English speaker learns Spanish to the same degree, then the English speaker again has the advantage.

You don't get an advantage by being obligated to do something... the advantage is in *not* being obligated to do something that others are obligated to do. In this case, native English speakers have the freedom to do other things that the other people can't do while they're spending time learning English.

- Kef

Did anyone read my message?

"English a "Half-Romance" Language? lol, now everyone wants their language to be romantic... anyways, you're just saying that because, you speak English natively and you have no intention on learning a new language, to me that's kinda selfish.

As for English being the world’s most learned foreign language, that is true indeed, but it’s a pity that English is such a “bad-designed” language, with so many mistakes that takes people seven years to learn it, compared to Esperanto that only takes seven months, or Spanish that takes only a year, and tell me what’s gonna happen when the United States falls down, and English is not that important anymore? When your grandchildren have to learn Spanish, or Portuguese or Chinese to be prepared for the world’s new language? The thing is that we can’t be changing the world’s language every time a new country rises; therefore we need to start thinking about an international language that will suit everyone despites of what country is in power at the time."

"And why learning an artifical Romance language, when there are already 1 international "Half-Romance" (English) and 2 Romance languages (French and Spanish) with far more speakers? "

English is not an "half romance" language. it is a germanic language, point. there is not such a thing as "half-romance".

It's Germanic with a lot of Romance influences

And why would you feel the need to point out that English has Romance influences?.. Oh I know, cuz we all know that having a Romance language as your mother tongue is a reason to be proud of, and knowing that your idiom comes from Latin itself is something wonderful, but fortunately for you, English does not.

sry, I meant to say "unfortunately" for you.

" It's Germanic with a lot of Romance influences "

it is also the case in other germanic languages...

@Guest No. 1

You're wrong. I don't have English or any Romance language as mother tongue.

@the other Guest

Maybe, but German for example has far less Romance influences and is more "pure" Germanic

<"pure" Germanic>

That is a stupid statement, whilst English may have more vocabulary influences from other languages (not just romance i.e. greek, Arabic etc). Nevertheless, its grammar and pronunciation is fairly Germanic. Therefore, the "genes" of English are still Germanic

In fact English has retained some proto-german features in its grammar and pronunciation that other Germanic languages have lost (i.e. standard German and High German consonant shift).

People need to except that English is the current international language now. It seem some people from Romaces speaking countries cannot accept this. Maybe the do agree with a germanic langauge being more spoken then there.

English will lose it's "crown" to another language, it maybe Spanish, Arabic etc. Who knows.

should have said accept instead of except.


Also I have a particular dislike for Esperanto, not just the fact that it is artificial and euro-centric but be the fact it has no culture, in the sense there are no group of native speakers and thus once you learn it you do not have the excitement of understanding a culture that was alien to you before.

In addition, I find it kind of stale, by the simply fact it not evolving as a normal language would and if a new word is introduced it would not be due to the speakers but down to the academy that invented it.