Talk:Esperanto

Useful Phrases

The name of the useful phrases section should definitely be changed because it doesn't seem very wikipedia like. I am sure you'll find something in WP:NOT. Jbhf1 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably direct the reader to Wiki Books or s.t. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"constructed language" vs "constructed international auxiliary language"

The article begins with the indisputable claim that Esparanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language. Lower down, however, there is the claim to be the most widely spoken constructed language which is more disputable, as this includes "constructed" national languages like New Norwegian, largely the creation of Ivar Aasen and spoken by about half a million Norwegians according to the Wikipedia article on it. I would suggest correcting or qualifying this. Geoff Bache (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen New Norwegian considered a constructed language, though. It is a a standardized Norwegian dialect. There are a couple languages out there that are sometimes tossed around as constructed languages, Hebrew language and Filipino language, but they're not normally so classified.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think language planning counts as construction. Definitely not Filipino, which is a political fiction. Hebrew is a more interesting case, but it's reconstructed, and not intended to be a new language. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Other interesting cases in point are Rumantsch Grischun and Bahasa Indonesia. In my opinion, what matters is that these standardised languages were actually constructed: the material they were based on is of secondary importance. As such they can at least in part be categorised as constructed languages. The same goes for reconstructed languages, too: Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic themselves were of course no constructed languages (if we assume they existed at all), but contemporary reconstructions no doubt are. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Rumantsch, but Indonesian is just Malay. Standardization of an existing language is hardly the same thing as inventing a new one. If you tell Indonesians they speak an artificial language, I'm sure they would disagree. As for pIE, there actually is a conlang based on that. Otherwise, no-one uses these reconstructions, so they aren't languages today. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I know about Modern PIE, but here I was rather referring to scientific reconstructions (which can differ greatly, see f.ex. Schleicher's fable). In my opinion, the whole difference between artificial and natural languages is artificial in itself. Instead, you can say there is a scale between those two extremes. A standardised language for a group of existing dialects is closer to the constructed end of the scale than those dialects themselves (although even they will undoubtedly contain "created" elements), but less close than for example an umbrella language like Folkspraak or my own Slovianski, while the latter are closer to natural languages than, say, Esperanto, which in turn is closer to the natural languages than Klingon. The question at which point of the scale natural languages end and constructed languages begin is subjective, and whatever solution you pick, there will always be a huge gray area. Therefore, the only criterium that can be evaluated objectively is: "how, where and when did this particular form of the language come about?" As for the how: in how far was it based on actual usage? As for the where: was it created behind a desk or in a conference room? As for when: the most current opinion AFAIK is that if a constructed language has second-generation native speakers, it ceases to be artificial and start to be natural. This last thing disqualifies most of the examples (except Rumantsch), because even if they started off as constructed languages, they can no longer be considered as such. Nevertheless, I think Geoffbache has made a good point, and IMO there would be no harm in adjusting the text accordingly. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We could then say that all languages are constructed, and for that matter also artificial, and on the other hand that Esperanto is natural. But no-one uses the terms that way. No-one thinks of Spanish or Italian as being constructed; words and phrases mean what they're used to mean, not what they could be argued to mean given literal interpretations of their components. If they were, you could argue that the southernmost point of Europe is Tierra del Fuego, since Europe is a "continent", a "continent" is a continuous landmass, and South America is part of the same continuous landmass as Greece. That's just not how the word is used. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "this particular form of the language" isn't the right tool; a constructed language should be distinct enough from any other to be its own language. As long as New Norwegian or Rumantsch Grischun are dialects of Norwegian and Rumantsch, they aren't constructed languages. Hebrew really is the exception, but whatever modifications were made, it's certainly treated as the natural continuation of Biblical Hebrew and not as a constructed language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That is beside the point. Whether a language is constructed or not does not depend on the material it is based on, but on the way it came into being. Basic English is considered a constructed language as well (a subset language, to be precise). What really distinguishes constructed languages from natural languages is that they have an author (or a group of authors) and a purpose (which may well be serving as a Dachsprache for speakers of several dialects), while natural languages by definition do not (or at best, a codifyer and/or a regulating body). But like I said, it's a more like a scale with a huge gray area, and while I'm not saying that Nynorsk is artificial, it surely is more artificial than for example Finnish. In other words, every natural language has artificial elements and every artificial language has natural elements. However, it is impossible to tell at which point one group ends and the other one begins. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Most categories are fuzzy. By that token, it's impossible to day from night, but we still use the words relatively unambiguously. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on categorisations of language, but if words whose meaning isn't self-evident are to be used on Wikipedia, then I think some sort of attempt at a definition should be made. I don't think distinguishing between a "planned language" and a "constructed language" is like distinguishing night and day, and while "constructed auxiliary international language" is a bit of a mouthful, it is at least clear what is meant. I also don't really buy the "different enough to be a language in its own right" thing. As as Swedish speaker I can say that they're sufficiently different that I can understand standard Norwegian pretty easily but New Norwegian is mostly a closed book to me. As I'm sure you know, a language is just what you get when you combine a dialect with an army and a navy :) Geoff Bache (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But isn't Basic English a "constructed auxiliary international language" by the argument being used here? For that matter, isn't regular English?

I agree that we need to define our terms, but that's why we link constructed language. In any case, once we introduce the full concept in the lede, we really don't need to repeat the whole thing with every mention. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Basic English is most definitely a constructed auxiliary international language. That's how it is usually classified, anyway. But well, as far as there is any doubt, let's take another example: Latino Sine Flexione, a.k.a. Interlingua de Peano. Like Basic English, it doesn't have a word of its own (which was quite a clever move if you ask me, since everybody can buy the dictionary around the corner), just a grammar that's about as simplified as Interlingua's. Nevertheless, LSF is always classified under the constructed languages. And why? Because it has an author (Giuseppe Peano) and a purpose international auxiliary language).

Obviously, Nynorsk, Modern Hebrew, Rumantsch Grischun and the like are no international auxiliary languages. But like the latter, they do have an author and a purpose, the difference is only that the purpose is different. They form a separate subcategory of the constructed languages, namely those that were intended to become the umbrella language of a nation. And unlike auxlangs, they tend to grow into natural languages fairly quickly.

All in all, I agree that it would be foolish to write "constructed auxiliary international language" all the time when we mean Esperanto etc. and not Nynorsk etc. But in this particular sentence it wouldn't hurt to add the word "auxiliary". After all, night is night and day is day, but for some the night ends at sunrise, for others at 6 AM. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked 'constructed language', which should make it obvious what we mean. Adding "auxiliary international" won't solve the problem if s.o. wants to insist that English and French fit the bill, and aren't necessary for anyone using a little common sense. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of speakers

Participants in this WikiProject might be interested in http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/esperanto-parolantoj-en-la-mondo/ (blacklisted), whose results might be later reported in reliable sources. (This talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there a criticism section within the Esperanto page? No other language contains a criticism section, you don't see English, French, or even Cherokee with paragraphs devoted to criticisms. People seem to forget that this is a living language like any other, and a lot of modern speakers such as myself don't learn the language for its passed ideals - we learnt it because a) Our parents spoke it, or b) I just love the language, and love being able talk with anyone from any country. I think if its necessary to have a criticisms then it should be a separate page criticising the underpinning ideals of the 'movement' behind the language - because the movement and the language are not always necessarily the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.141.187.161 (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is central to Esperanto. It is a language project as well as a language, and you can hardly bring it up without a discussion over whether something could be improved. That rarely happens with English or French. There is prescriptive grammar and spelling reform where they are treated as language projects, but nothing like what goes on with Esperanto. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think Esperanto is still a language project? Anyone who’s actually learnt the language and regularly uses it would know that it’s impossible to get any new sweeping changes used within the language, and it has been this was since before World War 1. The only people who try reforming the language are those who've learnt it for a week - assume they know a better way to do something - ask the community on general learning websites such as like lernu - get shot down - then either give up on Esperanto or learn it the way everyone else has for the past 100 years. As a fluent Esperantist I can tell you for a fact the you can pick up any Esperanto book from any period over the plus 100+ years and be able to read it like it was written five minutes ago, the only thing that has changed with the language is the size of its vocabulary. It is no longer a language project, and to think otherwise is naive. Another thing; Esperanto is a much more complete language then most other 'natural' languages of the world, you can find books in Esperanto on such subjects as Korean butterflies but good luck finding the same material written in Cherokee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's still a language project. The fact that it's not an ongoing project is a tribute to its success, but it is a language project nonetheless. It's quite common to critique it, say it should have been done better (generally meaning more like my native language), whereas although people may grumble about German gender, they don't normally engage in debates on what to do about it. You're right that fluent speakers generally leave off such things, but we're not writing this article for fluent Espists. For the general public, it's a novel language project, and they may debate whether it's better to learn Eo or something like ILL; some Espists move on to Ido because of these ideas. Since only a minuscule number of speakers are native, that's all relevant to our article. Sociolinguistically, Eo is not a normal language.

I find it odd that you would say Eo is "complete" because it has a reasonably sized lit. Cherokee isn't "complete"? You sound like those critics who claim Eo isn't a "real" language because it's artificial, dismissive of anything you don't feel ownership of. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is I'm not insisting Cherokee is a language project, and if you search around on the web you will find plenty of instances in which people discuss reforming English or German - German even went under a mini reform, however only partially worked. Yes Esperanto was a language project, however it isn't any longer - it couldn't work as a language project amongst its 10,000 - 2 mil speakers if people took all these reformers as serious. Anyways I made my objection for all to see, so I'll end this discussion now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about with German is standardization, which is an artificial process. However, there's a huge difference between a project to tweak an existing language (often just orthography, and not the language itself), and a project to create a new language. We wouldn't call a dog an artificial life form just because it's been artificially bred. There are criticisms of language reform movements, and we cover those. There are criticisms of prescriptive grammar, and we cover those. There are likewise criticisms of breeding hip dysplasia into dogs and genetically modifying maize, and we cover those. I don't see why Eo should be given a free pass just because the criticisms potentially deal with the entire language. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as I read the section cold, there seems to be more than enough reliable sources supporting the material to justify its presence. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)