Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Re: What is "international"?
Message-ID: <elnaE4qx5B.KBK@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <01bbf5d5$21448b40$9f5f47cc@jhoward.vvm.com> <7fzpy2c923.fsf_-_@phoenix.cs.hku.hk> <elnaE4HMvF.1nD@netcom.com> <7fvi8nvjl6.fsf_-_@phoenix.cs.hku.hk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:22:23 GMT
Lines: 63
Sender: elna@netcom6.netcom.com

sdlee@cs.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}) writes in a recent posting (reference <7fvi8nvjl6.fsf_-_@phoenix.cs.hku.hk>):
>>>>>> "Esperanto" == Esperanto League N America <elna@netcom.com> writes:
>
>    Esperanto> The specialness lies primarily in its neutrality *in
>    Esperanto> regards to its having no nation behind it*. You often
>    Esperanto> rail against the claim of neutrality based on a skewed
>    Esperanto> interpretation of the word "neutral". 
>
>Why is my interpretation of "neutral" skewed while yours isn't?
>
Yours is skewed in that you accept only one meaning, which is *not*
the one intended by the writer of the sentence you are refuting. This
makes your usage slanted, imbalanced, distorted.   When  
I or another writer claim that Esperanto is neutral with regard to
its political affiliation, you often respond that it is not neutral in
regard to its wordstock. I am willing to concede that it is not in *all*
respects neutral, but you seem unwilling to recognise its neutrality in
*any* aspect!
Rather than admitting that the glass is three-quarters full, you insist
on repeating that it is one-quarter empty. 
>
>    Esperanto> Esperanto's roots
>    Esperanto> are decidedly European, and therefore not
>    Esperanto> linguistically neutral. 
>
>This decision is itself culturally Eurocentric!
>
Word-stock must come from somewhere. Should there be one or two 
words from each of the world's 5000 languages? Or do you favour
a perfectly a posteriori language?

>Moreover, I'm not only talking about  Esperanto's word roots, but also
>**GRAMMAR**.    Esperanto's is  clearly   favours native   speakers of
>European langauges than those of non-European languages.
>
This is only true if you focus on Hungary, Estonia & Finnland, which
have highly agglutinative languages. You also insist on using
Chinese as a model of "non-European". Are there not agglutinativei
languages in abundance in Africa and the Pacific Islands?.

At the end of America's war against Vietnam, representatives of the
two nations agreed to meet in a *neutral* place. They agreed on
Switzerland. Based on your logic, Vietnam ought to have complained
that Geneva was nearer to Washington than to Ho Chi Minh City.

If representatives of China & France talk in Esperanto, it is still
neutral insofar as both had to learn the language as a non-native
tongue, even if it might have been easier for the Frenchman. And it
is (I believe self-evidently) fairer than to establish either French 
or Chinese as the diplomatic language, for that would give one side a
huge advantage.


You seem to insist on perfection: if a solution is not perfectly
fair, it is not fair; if a language is not perfectly neutral, it
is not neutral.


-- 
Miko SLOPER              elna@netcom.com              USA  (510) 653 0998
Direktoro de la          ftp.netcom.com:/pub/el/elna   fax (510) 653 1468 
Centra Oficejo de la     Learn Esperanto! Free lessons: e-mail/snail-mail
Esperanto-Ligo de N.A.   Write to above address or call:  1-800-ESPERANTO
