Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Re: Languages in the EC
Message-ID: <elnaD3s2s7.D8L@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <3h5dv3$8sv@solar.sky.net> <elnaD3LH82.77v@netcom.com> <D3n6uL.78A@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <x297j+2.padrote@delphi.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:38:31 GMT
Lines: 56
Sender: elna@netcom8.netcom.com

John <padrote@delphi.com> writes in a recent posting (reference <x297j+2.padrote@delphi.com>):
>Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>>I can't speak for Coby Lubliner, but at least in some polyglots' eyes
>>adding that abomination to a list of languages such as his would make
>>it less impressive.  It's like extending a collection of works by
>><insert the name of your favourite artist here> by including
>>a fake one or a parody.
> 
>   In the past it was common for people to believe that their own particular
>language was the richest, most expressive, and most perfect tongue known
>to man, and all other forms of speech were horrible and barbaric. I've seen
>such paeans written to English, Greek, and Spanish, and I'm sure they exist
>for most of the other languages of the world. Nowadays, knowing what we
>know about language, we can laugh at things like that. No one seriously
>believes their language is inherently "better" than any other, except for
>extreme bigots and Esperantists.
>
John has constructed a "straw man" argument here. That is, he has given
a false "re-statement" of his opponent's argument, and then attacked that
as if it were the statement at hand. What Esperanto speaker would claim
that this language is "richest, most expressive and most perfect" or that
it is "better than any other"? I have never heard nor seen that claimed; it
is obviously incorrect. I have claimed (and most persons who have taken the
time to study Esperanto would likely agree) that it is *as good as* any
other language, and can function *as well as* any national language in
virtually any situation. 

Given a certain task or context, it is not unreasonable to claim that this
or that particular language is better suited. Most opera-style singers will 
agree that Italian and Latin are better for singing than English or Dutch.
Most engineers will agree that German is better suited for technical
documentation than Hopi or Urdu. It is in fact quite reasonable to analyze
a task to see what characteristics the proper tool should have, and then to
seek out that tool which best fits the job.

I suggest that the problem at hand is that persons travelling out of their 
linguistic sphere cannot communicate with persons whom they encounter; and 
that politicians, businessmen, artists, and others who conduct affairs
across linguistic borders need to expend too much time and resources in 
translating.

I suggest that the solution lies in an agreed standard second language,
which should be easy to learn, supple enough to fit many kinds of task,
non-national. Esperanto fits these characteristics.

I welcome your criticism and comments, but must confess that I have been
sorely disappointed by previous posts of name-calling, propaganda and
unfounded claims. After all, we are in the "sci." hierarchy!   

Miko.


At least this is less crass than Ivan's childish use of name-calling.
Really, Ivan, "abomination", "fake", "parody"... are words which express
your bitter anger, but have nothing to do with the tool in question.   
