Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.politics.ec
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!CC.UMontreal.CA!news.Umontreal.CA!hinsenk
From: hinsenk@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Hinsen Konrad)
Subject: Re: Esperanto (was: Languages in the EC)
In-Reply-To: markrose@spss.com's message of Tue, 21 Feb 1995 21:57:44 GMT
Message-ID: <HINSENK.95Feb24172521@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Sender: news@cc.umontreal.ca (Administration de Cnews)
Organization: Universite de Montreal
References: <3h3ci5$qc8@agate.berkeley.edu> <D3o19C.Hvr@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<3hbcl6$qhl@blackrabbit.cs.uoregon.edu> <D403LK.8r8@news.cis.umn.edu>
	<D4DEC8.G4I@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 22:25:21 GMT
Lines: 157

In article <D4DEC8.G4I@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

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

It has some similarities. However, there is also a fundamental difference.
Religious debates are about topics that are inherently inaccessible
to objective examination. In contrary, the majority of facts brought
up in this debate can be examined by everyone willing to invest some
time.

   In the case of Esperanto, the basic problem is that the language has been
   around for a century, hasn't achieved even 1% of its goal, and cannot show
   that it ever will.  An Esperantist cannot admit this, even to himself... 
   without ceasing to be an Esperantist.  

Esperanto does not have a goal. Its speakers have goals, which are
widely varying. For some of them, the goal is to make Esperanto
the universal second language for all human beings, and I suppose
it is this goal that you referred to when claiming that not even 1%
of it was achieved. But some Esperantists even have a contradictory
goal (maintaining the community in its current state), and others
(probably most), although working on increasing the use of Esperanto,
do not see the above-mentioned goal as an immediate one.

   Esperanto movement has to change.  If Esperantists really wanted success,
   they should admit to themselves that the movement has been a failure, and
   seriously ask themselves why.  

I don't think you can get a group of five Esperantists to agree on what
to call "success". Most (myself included) are quite happy with the
current state of the movement. It could be better, but it is by
no means bad.

   "Failure" may seem too strong; but I'm only applying the Esperantists' own
   standards.  They want to convert the world, and they haven't.  If their

You must have studied a very small sample of Esperanto speakers
to come to that conclusion.

   Really?  In fact, aren't people pretty good at knowing what's in their own
   economic interest?  If learning another language is necessary to get a job

In general, no. They are pretty good at knowing what is in their
immediate and personal interest. Which is why considerations
such as ecology have to be imposed by law.

   As for travel, according to all the evidence, people travel when they have
   the money to do so, not when they know other languages.  And if enough of

This seems to be true for Americans, but not necessarily for Europeans.
I know countless Germans who told me that would love to visit Paris,
but don't dare because they don't speak French. In a city like Aachen,
which is withing walking distance of two neighbouring countries,
you can find surprisingly many people who visit their neighbours only
in organised bus tours (with an interpreter, of course).

   This is sacred Zamenhofiana and unlikely to be touched-- but it doesn't
   stand up to a moment's examination.  It's easy to see how Zamenhof, a Polish
   Jew, could have felt this way.  But many Russian Jews speak perfect Russian,
   and still face persecution.  Common languages never prevented competing 

From all we know, that was also valid for Zamenhof. In some letters
he stated that he considered Russian to be his native language. And
he was also quite aware that language differences were not the cause of
the problems, but an obstacle in solving them.

   In fact I think the argument should be reversed: notions that a common
   language are needed for a "sense of shared identity" *are* nationalism.

I am not aware that any Esperantist ever wanted to create a
"sense of shared identity".

   answer for it.  Folks, you've been in the same boat for a hundred years.
   Why is 1995 different from 1965, and 1945, and 1925, and 1905?

The need for international communication has increased enormously
during the last decade.

   >The announcement of Esperanto's selection as an officially supported,
   >neutral European language would cause that market to mushroom.

   This is nothing more than a statement of faith.  Symbolic gestures are nice,
   but don't in themselves accomplish much.  A few years ago, Quechua was made

True. A mere announcement would change little.

   Instead of relying on acts of God or the EU, Esperantists would do better
   to study the economic, political, and sociolinguistic reasons why languages
   grow and decay-- and apply them objectively to their own language, not 
   just everybody else's.

They have done so. And indeed it is clear that Esperanto will never become
widespread in the same way that other languages become popular. A very
important prerequisite for a wider use of Esperanto is an appreciation
by the large public that the current state of linguistic affairs is
not desirable (for various reasons). The logical consequence is to
try to create that appreciation, which is what many of us are working
on, for example in this discussion.

   >Although I'm not a EU citizen, I think it's important to pick a
   >language that people can all learn to speak equally well.  

   This is called "stacking the deck".  Esperanto is certainly easy to learn;
   naturally an Esperantist will push ease of learning as the chief criterion
   for an interlanguage.  Esperanto has very few speakers; naturally an
   Esperantist will pooh-pooh the advantages (number of speakers, number of
   teachers, rich lexicon, rich culture) of any widely spoken language.

True. But does that make these arguments invalid?

   A similar tactic is to point out that Esperanto does not give any national
   group an "unfair advantage", as English is said to do.  Does anyone besides
   the Esperantists really believe that it would be a disadvantage, rather than
   an advantage, for a proposed common EU language to have a lot of speakers
   already?  

This is not what has been claimed. A large number of speakers is not a
disadvantage, but the concentration of these speakers in one or a few
countries is.

   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.  

Many Esperanto speakers have also learned English. They do not at all
oppose learning English, they oppose *forcing* (by law or economic
power) others to learn it.

   And the final religious appeal: you'd stop criticizing us if only you'd
   come join us.  Join us... join us...

This does indeed look like a religious appeal, unless you distinguish
between *learning* Esperanto and *promoting* Esperanto. There are people
who know Esperanto but do not promote it (as you seem to be). There
are also people who promote Esperanto without speaking it. If some
people have provably wrong ideas about Esperanto (such as "it can't
work"), it makes sense to invite them to learn enought about it that
they can see for themselves. This does not imply that everyone is
then expected to promote Esperanto. There are perfectly valid reasons
for not being interested in Esperanto and for considering it pointless,
but there is also a large number of simply wrong prejudices around.

   To the Esperantists: I'm sorry if my arguments have been annoying.
   I have high respect for some of you, particularly Don Harlow, and I
   hope you continue doing your thing.  

Your arguments are not at all annoying, but they are directed against
only a small subset of Esperantists.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                     | E-Mail: hinsenk@ere.umontreal.ca
Departement de Chimie             | Tel.: +1-514-343-6111 ext. 3953
Universite de Montreal            | Fax:  +1-514-343-7586
C.P. 6128, succ. A                | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/Nederlands/
Montreal (QC) H3C 3J7             | Francais (phase experimentale)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
