Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: antony@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Antony Rawlinson")
Subject: Re: Esperanto (was: Languages in the EC)
Message-ID: <D4z37t.5pF@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: ABC                           
References: <D4DEC8.G4I@spss.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:04:41 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol
Lines: 102

In reply to Message-ID: <D4DEC8.G4I@spss.com> (16889 in sci.lang),
from: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder):

> The current debate over Esperanto is at root a religious controversy.

I was intrigued by this contribution, partly because I received it out of 
sequence, and had already read some of the replies by that time, but 
really because it is well-considered and respectful of towards Esperanto, 
which certainly isn't true of many (even most) of the sceptics' postings. 
 It contains much with which I agree, as an Esperantist.

However, if this is a religious controversy, the proponents of Esperanto 
are more in the role of heretics than that of true believers.  As I see 
it, there is a great deal of suspicion of Esperanto, which appears to be 
founded on the fact that Esperanto does not conform to many people's 
ideas of what a language has to be.  So we hear, for example, that 
Esperanto has no literature, has no culture, can't be used to express 
subtleties and complexities, that no-one speaks it, etc; and the 
deficiencies of "natural" languages are presented as virtues.  It is 
these preconceptions about language that are really the "religious 
articles of faith".

When people who have experience of Esperanto literature and culture 
report the facts, the response is to belittle them ("no-one *important* 
speaks it", "only useful for attending Esperanto conventions"), or to 
resort to subjective attacks ("(written) Esperanto is so ugly, I wouldn't 
want to *hear* it"), or simply to ignore them, and repeat the same 
falsehoods.
 
> And as in most religious controversies, the believers fail to
> convince most of the onlookers; partly because their arguments are
> too tied to the acceptance of their beliefs, and appeal only to the
> converted; and partly because they cannot hold themselves back from
> insulting their opponents, which leaves a bad impression.

It certainly does, but where have the insults been coming from ... ?

> ...

> >People have to have a reason for learning a language; in the case
> >of English, it's traditionally because non-English-speakers want
> >American dollars.

> >Part of the advantage of Esperanto is that there is an established
> >community of speakers who use it not out of necessity, but because
> >they WANT to establish international relationships, and are
> >therefore willing to take a step to meet others halfway, by
> >learning Esperanto.
> 
> And here's where we get into the insults.  People who learn
> Esperanto are altruistic internationalists; while all you people
> who've learned English are just a bunch of greedheads.

I really think this is stretching a point too far.  I can't see that it's 
really imputing the motives of learning a language to suggest that one 
reason is because of American dollars.  The insults, actual as well as 
implied, in my view, have come overwhelmingly from the sceptics and not 
the proponents of Esperanto.

> >My impression from watching debate over Esperanto has been this:
> >if people spent as much time learning some Esperanto as they do
> >arguing against it, they would see the advantage immediately.  Why
> >are people so afraid of trying it?  It's not difficult; it's fun!
> >You can always give it up and try something else later if you want.
> >It can't hurt, and it certainly CAN help.  It also just might make
> >you realize how tightly you tend to grip your mother tongue.
>
> And the final religious appeal: you'd stop criticizing us if only
> you'd come join us.  Join us... join us...

Again, it's hardly evidence of religious fanaticism for an enthusiast of 
a particular activity to try to get the interest of new people.  Are we 
really not to show enthusiasm for something that we find rewarding, for 
fear of being confused with a religious cult?

And, slightly chopping the sequence of your contribution:

> If Esperantists really wanted success, they should admit to
> themselves that the movement has been a failure, and seriously ask
> themselves why.  
> 
> "Failure" may seem too strong; but I'm only applying the
> Esperantists' own standards.  They want to convert the world, and
> they haven't.

I don't believe you are "applying the Esperantists' own standards".  I 
have heard far more sceptics of Esperanto, than proponents, talking in 
terms of "converting the world", and claiming to know the objectives of 
the Esperanto movement better than I do.  This has been mainly from 
conversations outside this newsgroup, over the years, so the disparaging 
comments seen in other contributions here are nothing new to me.

> If their goals were instead simply to promote international study,
> travel, and communication among those interested-- kind of like the
> youth hostel movement-- then Esperanto is a resounding success.

Thank you.  And I am sorry if I have concentrated on points of 
disagreement.  As I said I have found your contribution very interesting 
and a refreshing change from the finger-pointing that has been the mark 
of many of the postings here.

Antony Rawlinson.
