NationStates Jolt Archive

Righty-ro, my fellow NationStates humanoids, it is I, your friendly neighborhood Kapsilan. This fall, I shall be taking Esperanto 101. Esperanto, for those who are not aware, is a constructed language. It was invented by linguist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887. He designed it to be a language free of any incongruities. For example, there are only six conjugations for all verbs, which correspond to tense. All subjects use the same congugation. Also, the vocabulary is based on a root system. For example, "kant-" is the root for "sing", "kanti" is "to sing", "kanto" is "song", "kantoj" is "songs", 'kanta" is "song-like", et cetera.

You're probably thinking, "That's super. What the hell does it have to do with anything?"

Well, this is where the discussion begins.

L. L. Zamenhof designed Esperanto so it would be very easy to learn and use. All letters correspond to one sound, sentence order is free, root-based vocabulary, simple conjugation structure, et cetera. The purpose for this was to create an international language, so that everyone could share a common tongue free from the linguistic problems with all other languages.

As has been shown with the International System of Units, a common measurement system found across borders eases trade. I believe that a common language found across borders would enable global discussion in a way that has never existed before. I think that eventually, we should all share a language. But what do you think?

Disagree. If you limit the way people speak, you limit the way people think. The worst thing in the world would be for everyone to be equal.

Esperanto doubleplus ungood.

Disagree. If you limit the way people speak, you limit the way people think. The worst thing in the world would be for everyone to be equal.
Not really. I don't think it should replace native languages, just that we should have a language that we all can use.

Ni!

Mu!

Disagree. If you limit the way people speak, you limit the way people think. The worst thing in the world would be for everyone to be equal.
Tolkien agrees with you, therefore I agree with you. He said that one world language would be the worst thing that could happen to culture and literature.

Not really. I don't think it should replace native languages, just that we should have a language that we all can use.

Why not opt for a controlled language then instead of a constructed language? Where's the advantage? At least with a controlled language people can communicate, but they also have the option of upgrading easily if they want to put the time and effort in. And there will be a wealth of literature and other media available if they choose to do so.

Righty-ro, my fellow NationStates humanoids, it is I, your friendly neighborhood Kapsilan. This fall, I shall be taking Esperanto 101. Esperanto, for those who are not aware, is a constructed language. It was invented by linguist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887. He designed it to be a language free of any incongruities. For example, there are only six conjugations for all verbs, which correspond to tense. All subjects use the same congugation. Also, the vocabulary is based on a root system. For example, "kant-" is the root for "sing", "kanti" is "to sing", "kanto" is "song", "kantoj" is "songs", 'kanta" is "song-like", et cetera.

You're probably thinking, "That's super. What the hell does it have to do with anything?"

Well, this is where the discussion begins.

L. L. Zamenhof designed Esperanto so it would be very easy to learn and use. All letters correspond to one sound, sentence order is free, root-based vocabulary, simple conjugation structure, et cetera. The purpose for this was to create an international language, so that everyone could share a common tongue free from the linguistic problems with all other languages.

As has been shown with the International System of Units, a common measurement system found across borders eases trade. I believe that a common language found across borders would enable global discussion in a way that has never existed before. I think that eventually, we should all share a language. But what do you think?
No. International language that all use for general communication should be English. American English at that. End of story.

[/Ameri-centric]

Language helps to define culture & vice-versa.

It would be a shame to lose the individuality & differences of the various nations & cultures.

Also, the various cultures would "deform" the language, so that it would end up evolving away from its pure form anyway.

Righty-ro, my fellow NationStates humanoids, it is I, your friendly neighborhood Kapsilan. This fall, I shall be taking Esperanto 101. Esperanto, for those who are not aware, is a constructed language. It was invented by linguist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887. He designed it to be a language free of any incongruities. For example, there are only six conjugations for all verbs, which correspond to tense. All subjects use the same congugation. Also, the vocabulary is based on a root system. For example, "kant-" is the root for "sing", "kanti" is "to sing", "kanto" is "song", "kantoj" is "songs", 'kanta" is "song-like", et cetera.

You're probably thinking, "That's super. What the hell does it have to do with anything?"

Well, this is where the discussion begins.

L. L. Zamenhof designed Esperanto so it would be very easy to learn and use. All letters correspond to one sound, sentence order is free, root-based vocabulary, simple conjugation structure, et cetera. The purpose for this was to create an international language, so that everyone could share a common tongue free from the linguistic problems with all other languages.

As has been shown with the International System of Units, a common measurement system found across borders eases trade. I believe that a common language found across borders would enable global discussion in a way that has never existed before. I think that eventually, we should all share a language. But what do you think?
Last I checked, this forum hates Esperanto. Too authorative for our tastes or something.

Tolkien agrees with you, therefore I agree with you. He said that one world language would be the worst thing that could happen to culture and literature.
JRR Tolkein spoke Esperanto. And he had this to say about it:
I have sympathy in particular for the assertions of Esperanto… but the principal reason to support it seems to me to rest in the fact that it has already acquired the first place and has received the largest welcome.But hey, don't be boggled down by facts. Especially all of you who've been acting as though, despite my assertions to the contrary, I said I think Esperanto should replace any language. It shouldn't. Have any of you read or watched any science fiction or fantasy? Have you ever heard of people speaking "common"? I think it'd be good to have a common tongue so that if I want to talk to someone from Mongolia, I don't have to find a Mongolian to English Interpreter, I can just walk up to them and say, "Saluton!" and then conversation ensues. He still speaks Mongolian, I still speak English, but we both can speak Esperanto.

I was hoping that people would be able to figure that out when I posted:
"I don't think it should replace native languages, just that we should have a language that we all can use."
But I clearly underestimated human stupidity.

Why not opt for a controlled language then instead of a constructed language? Where's the advantage? At least with a controlled language people can communicate, but they also have the option of upgrading easily if they want to put the time and effort in. And there will be a wealth of literature and other media available if they choose to do so.
Okay, I'll bite. What is a "controlled language"?