Talk:Esperanto

Scientific studies about the fact that Esperanto is easy-to-learn

Everyone knows it - but are there scientific studies? Shouldn't the article quote them? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Esperanto and Criticism

Hello, i'm the author of this edit User:Prosfilaes has undone: here Undid revision 698119454 by 62.37.217.199 (talk); He said the reason was "too argumentative in a section about criticism". Here's what two Esperanto learners from Duolingo commented on my fb post about this: "I like your version a LOT better. The version on the page now seems irrational, just another way for skeptics to insult Esperanto." and "Too argumentative in a section about criticism, it's a bit ironic... Is it better to criticise without arguments?". If there's a criticism section I believe, in order to be serious and objective, that there should be both points of view (separated or every critic followed with an objective countercritic as I think I did for example).

The French article about Esperanto does not show any criticism section but they do have a separated article only about it (with counterarguments to see both views and let the reader know and maybe even choose). The Spanish and English wikipedias show that section in the main article about esperanto, and they also have separated articles for further (almost repeated) criticism.

Well, that said, as I posted on fb too, I do not understand why there is not a criticism section for the main articles about English, Spanish, French, etc., big ethnic languages that are playing a role they weren't born for... a role as international (or interpeoples/interethnic) communication tool. There's a lot writen about inequalities in so many fields caused by this role playing, even university lectures. Do you think the Spanish Wikipedia editors would accept that section for every article about those three languages? One year ago i saw this article, for me very interesting when i read it for the first time 4 years ago, being speedy deleted. The reason was "not relevant because I can't find any thesis or many articles about this report on the internet" (so articles are relevant only if you find thesis about it? why not adding a button "you've reached the end of the article, do you think this was relevant to you?" and let readers decide?). I guess they didn't quite like the conclusion from that economist and the wanted it out of view. --Alekso92 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The point of a criticism section is not to argue; it's to present neutrally the criticisms that others have made. There's other ways to handle it, but the correct way to handle it is not to add uncited personal opinion to the matter. English, Spanish, French, etc., don't have criticism sections because that would be undue weight on a tiny part of the discussion about a subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, 8 days later, only as i reverted what you undid, you write finally your reply. I think this isn't serious.

That's said, you are right, it is not to argue, of course not, but this criticism shows only the destructive arguments, many times from sources that are just pointing out criticism from the general IGNORANT people who just heard of Esperanto and then they refuted them completely or partly. Tell me, is this a neutral criticism? As in a debate, real criticism should show different points of view (at least those from detractors and those from speakers), it should be based on knowledge and facts (not on general ignorance or feelings) in a specific context (English perspective). Don't you think so?

Now you revert my edit saying it is "ungrammatical, argumentative, uncited" and refusing it all. I can give in it's ungrammatical (that can be corrected), I give in it's argumentative (but again, why is that a reason to revert it? should criticism have 0 arguments?) and uncited (yes, i give in that too. But you don't revert for example "The vocabulary, diacritic letters,[119] and grammar are too dissimilar from the major European languages,[citation needed]", and I point you out the actual references for criticism, if you check them out, don't seem very serious or are taken out of context from favoring articles).

If as here editors criticized something comparing it to other languages, if you really want to give a serious criticism, compare it always with other languages, not only when it backs your criticism. For example "The vocabulary is too large" compared to what? to English? Do you give me the permission to change it to this? "The available vocabulary is too large but 95% of everyday Esperanto consists of 500 regular roots", i can cite it. As I read in my Spanish encyclopedia at home "It's vocabulary is very reduced", i suppose because the authors ESPASA CALPE compared it (9.000 official words) with other languages... English has an estimate of 1,025,109 words! If you say "too large" at least tell the reader compared to what. How should people criticize and what would be good, in my opinion, for wikipedia? Read this. The current one is just what a Duolingo learner also thinks "The version on the page now seems irrational, just another way for skeptics to insult Esperanto."

You can also check out this Wikipedia section and the Neutrality and verifiability part too --Alekso92 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have things to do other then edit here.

Wikipedia articles are not argumentative. They reference notable arguments. In a section about criticism, you modified clear presentations of criticism to be not so clear, not so sharp. You did not reply to them. "perfection could hardly be reached" is purely defensive stuff that only a partisan says, and tends to get that partisan dismissed. Everyone knows that. "Esperanto has not yet achieved the hopes of its founder to become a universal second language." is perfectly clear; "a massively used universal second language" adds unnecessary verbiage. "give an advantage to speakers of European languages" is what the argument is; "give a slight advantage to speakers of European languages" is not.

"The vocabulary is too large" is an argument that can be cited from purely Esperanto sources. Should Esperanto adopt international words or build from within? That is, "hospitalo" or "malsanulejo"? "komputero" or "komputilo"? Unfortunately, Esperantists sometimes end up using both. At a certain point, as the only well-known IAL, Esperanto is going to get criticisms that aren't comparisons to other languages, but instead to an "ideal" IAL.

There are improvements that can be done to the criticism section. But that does not include obfuscating the criticisms or adding uncited responses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure this is being compared to an "ideal" IAL? Why nobody has first listed what an "ideal" IAL would look like and has just added his own stupid criticism taking characteristics and sources out of context? Can you find in references any notes from professionals in linguistics talking about Esperanto? I can't. Do you want some professionals? What about Umberto Eco who said in Italian that Esperanto was admirable in linguistic characteristic, both efficiency and economy? ANYTHING can be criticized if you want to and you find any point of view to attack it.

"Perfection could hardly be reached" is NOT purely defensive stuff that only a partisan says. Please, if you believe that, just list me the characteristics of an ideal IAL, I will find criticism for every point you'll say. And see, nobody with some logic mind can take this section seriously, it's completely subjective, first it is said it is too different from European languages, and then it is not European enough. And why do you let that "citation needed" there and you didn't delete that part from the very beginning? "too dissimilar from the major European languages,[citation needed] [...] Attempts to address the "not European enough" criticism include the younger planned languages Ido and Interlingua.[122]

"The vocabulary is too large" is taken from and Esperanto source. Great. But there's no context now. In the source it is not mentioned the daily use, just the number of roots you can find in a dictionary. Are you suggesting Toki Pona? Why don't you want me to mention 95% of Esperanto is said with 500 roots? You can only say in a "the vocabulary might be too large if you compare it with minimalist languages as Toki Pona which in the other hand has longer sentences and can't be used for scientific purposes. I guess you learned just a bit of Esperanto in 2005 as you just said Esperantists use "komputero", no, not anymore. And i don't agree it failed and that's clear. Umberto Eco, who knew about this semiotic, said [just translated] "all movements in favor of international languages have failed, except Esperanto, which is constantly growing in number of speakers...". He, a professional, mentioned Esperanto in Eco, Umberto, [tra. James Fentress], The Search for the Perfect Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. [In Spanish http://www.uruguaypiensa.org.uy/imgnoticias/959.pdf ] It is now a universal second language but not massive compared to English now (English is in proportion less universal than Esperanto as there are natives who contribute way more than people who learned it at school, just check the Wikipedia stats, you'll see the most international wikipedia is the Esperanto one. The second the arabic one (although 40% of its contribution come from just 2 arab countries). If you want to call English a universal language, I could say it is not, because there's still more than 75% of the world who doesn't know any English, even using so many resources/reasons to force people to learn it.

How come someone who just knows/knew the basics of Esperanto is acting in my opinion like the master of this article's section? Who would know more what to give in and what not... someone who knows the language from inside or someone who just knows the surface of something. That's why I'm complaining here. Many points have been made from people that have not learned Esperanto (it has been taken even Esperanto sources were it is listed all criticism ignorant people say and then answered... you can add then also "it has no native speakers", "nobody speaks it", but of course, do not add the answers). And that's why a medium level learner of Esperanto pointed out my contribution made things clearer, less childish. Can't you really see this section is just worth deleting till we get something serious from scratch? Anyone taking these points would fail in a debate against an average Esperanto fluent speaker, it's just stupid. I warn you I will eventually get a good English translation from the French page (that one is serious for an encyclopedia) and replace everything here, with references taken from the French one. Alekso92 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Esperanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for %68ttp://www.education.monash.edu.au/projects/esperanto/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131026115307/http://www.uea.org:80/info/angle/an_ghisdatigo.html to http://www.uea.org/info/angle/an_ghisdatigo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The attempt “to fix sourcing for %68ttp://www.education.monash.edu.au/projects/esperanto/” was unsurprisingly unsuccessful—it’s a malformed URL. I found a functional copy of the resource,^[1] but it did not support the claims it was being used for, so the reference in that place is gone. The other resource is still live, but with a different address, so that change is supplanted too.^[2] Thank you —LLarson (said & done) 15:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Peace!"

In the "Simple Phrases" section the phrase "Peace!" is translated as "Pacon!". I don't see why the accusative is being used here. You're not wishing that someone have peace, or giving someone peace, you're wishing that there should be peace: "Estu paco!" or "Paco!" for short. In Latin, you say "Pax" (or the schoolboy alternative "Paxies!") and not "Pacem". Gingekerr (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)