Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Re: Difficulties of Esperanto
Message-ID: <elnaDxAC1J.E3@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <4v08hq$9ss@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> <7fd904p026.fsf@wisdom.cs.hku.hk> <elnaDx8EuB.6JD@netcom.com> <rte-0509961400560001@135.25.40.118>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 00:29:43 GMT
Lines: 59
Sender: elna@netcom15.netcom.com

rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards) writes in a recent posting (reference <rte-0509961400560001@135.25.40.118>):
>In article <elnaDx8EuB.6JD@netcom.com>, elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League
>N America) wrote:
>
>> Do you really mean to suggest that the distinction between "horse" and 
>> "horses" can be ignored in a useful language? Or between "he" and "they"?
>> Is not the distinction of singular/plural a universal?
>> >
>
>The ability to indicate that there are one, or more than one is required,

I had suspected this... 

>but in many languages it is optional, it is only marked if deemed
>important.  

As in English with fish, deer, sheep...? 

>Read a book on linguistics.  

Maybe after I get through my comix collection... thanx for the tip!

>> Can you suggest a more suitable IAL? If people do not accept a planned
>> language in this context, it is likely that English will continue to 
>> expand into that role. Is English "international enough"?  You have
>> obviously already mastered the language; but what about your fellow
>> countrymen who have not? Do you think it fair that they must master
>> such a difficult language and then compete with others for whom it is
>> a native tongue?
>> 
>> You also miss one of the biggest advantages of Esperanto: introduction
>> to the Latin alphabet and European languages in general. If Esperanto
>> were more of an international hodge-podge, with wordstock lifted from
>> Chinese, Algonquin, Quechua, Telugu, etc it would not serve well as a
>> propaedeutic for the eventual scholar of French, German, English etc.
>
>I'd like to make two suggestions.  Advocacy of a language belongs in some
>other hierarchy. 

We have been through this before, Ralph. Discussion of solutions to problems
might be offensive to you, but this kind of "advocacy" abounds in the sci.*
hierarchy. Science is more than analysis of hard data....


>         For discussion of the technical aspects of artificial
>languages, how about creating sci.lang.artificial?
>
How about creating sci.lang.topics-which-interest-ralph-edwards?
Again I suggest that you peruse the faq for this newsgroup, and 
browse through the sections on conlangs and sociolinguistics. If
the mention of Esperanto makes your blood boil, avoid those discussions.
You *did* read the E-word in the subject-line of the offending article,
didn't you?
