That doesn't do anything to affect the power of it. Artifical languages lack the number and power to gain any serious backing- they have always been fringe things. Where's the artificial language lobby.
Originally Posted by nw2394
In fact there are quite a few folks who speak Esperanto.
Wikipedia estimates the numbers as betweeon 100,000 and two million, which is scarcely an impressive result in well over a hundred years.
Originally Posted by nw2394
That is just plain ignorance. Esperanto is used by people to talk about any and all types of subject. It has some rich literature, both translated and original.
You missed my point- I was talking about law, not transaltions of literature. Esperanto has not gone through the process of being interpreted by courts and would, therefore, be extremely difficult to use in things like contracts because of this. People are therefore more likely to stick to languages that have been through this process. You say this is chicken and eggs, but I say it's strangling at birth, or maybe stillborn would be a more appropriate term. Unless backers like the UN or other mutlinational bodies start backing artificial languages, they will always be pushed to the outer fringes.
That's probably wishful thinking. The Chinese are gearing up for a huge internmational event in the Beijing Olympics. Have they decided to plug Mondlango for the event? Are we being informed that a smattering of Mondlango will help us get around the city?
I've traveled a lot and I've, practically everywhere, been able to make myself understood in English. Even with the little knowledge that I, or the people I spoke to, possessed of this language.
So, for me they can make English the universal language.
The theory behind articifal languages is nice, but they run up against several thousand years of human culture and history and have no serious backers. There is tendency among those promoting them to regard 'wouldn't it be nice?' as a serious policy. The greatest irony of all is that there are dozens of universal artificial languages doing the rounds.
Your Mondlango idea is indeed very naive:
1. Langauge follows democratic principles. It cannot be imposed by dictators. Can you then order people to speak the way you want them?
2. Language is organic - living- (dynamic) subject to change and evolution. Even if you impose an artificial language it will soon evolve and change ie become as varied as English or other languages. Soon new dialects, varieties and phonetic systems emerge. In the end you will find yourself experience the same linguistic situation you are experiencing now.
Babylon will never stop changing. Even if English replaces other languages it will soon give birth to more than what Latin gave birth to. Mothers hopefully stay capable of childbearing as long as they are in childbearing age.
3. Language is what makes us human. In addition it is an emotional issue. It is your culture and identity. But I do believe identity based on language leads to conflicts and human suffering. Still language is the medium which makes culture and thought possible. Do you think your artificial language can lead to a new way of thinking? The fact that Esperanto failed proves the absurdity of such ideas even if they are based on living languages.
4. Natural languages defy any thing which is precise. They allow ambiguity and make literature, metaphor and pragmatics possible. They are always superior in their power. There is no match.
Last edited by Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim; 23-Feb-2007 at 16:14.
Can you then order people to speak they way you want them?
Hmm. An oral language examination and a job interview are just two that come to mind. I guess teachers, descriptive or prescriptive in their approach, and even though they might not be aware of it impose such an ideal.
hi well english nowadays is a lingua franca so every one should learn it and in general i dont think it is intricate language .for me it's easy to learn people should read a lot .however i cant give any comment about Esperanto because i dont now any imformation about it.