Would you like the whole world to speak Esperanto?

Scanlas The 2nd

If a decision was made now that every country would speak Esperanto as their mother tongue would you be happy about it. Each country could still teach whatever languages they wanted but Esperanto would be the official language.

I think I would like it.

El Weirdo

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If a decision was made now that every country would speak Esperanto as their mother tongue would you be happy about it. Each country could still teach whatever languages they wanted but Esperanto would be the official language.

I think I would like it.

William?

squod

Ah héjore

CreepingDeath

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If a decision was made now that every country would speak Esperanto as their mother tongue would you be happy about it. Each country could still teach whatever languages they wanted but Esperanto would be the official language.

I think I would like it.

No.

Everyone should learn English, as most of the worlds good movies are in English.

RichT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0JDfaT4_w

Death and Taxes

No!
/Thread

OneArt

I think a universal language is a good idea. But why the f*ck should it be Esperanto?

English, Spanish, Russian and Mandarin are the biggest languages at the moment. Let it be one of them.

Seaneh

OneArt wrote: »

I think a universal language is a good idea. But why the f*ck should it be Esperanto?

Because it's the easiest language to learn for the vast majority of people in thw world.

notnumber

Ah = ha
here = here
leave = foriri, lasi
it = gxi
out = out

squod

The sooner they have hot naked women teaching that langauge the sooner I'll start paying attention.

Zer0

no

Wibbs

OneArt wrote: »

English, Spanish, Russian and Mandarin are the biggest languages at the moment. Let it be one of them.

Anything but Mandarin. Overly complex, plus a tonal language so easy to make mistakes in meaning with slight changes of accent. The written word is overly complex and longwinded too. I'd say Spanish. It's much more phonetic than English which is a very messy language.

pickarooney

Seaneh wrote: »

Because it's the easiest language to learn for the vast majority of people in thw world.

Hardly. As nobody speaks it, there's no way to pick it up by immersion.

vektarman

Wibbs wrote: »

Anything but Mandarin. Overly complex, plus a tonal language so easy to make mistakes in meaning with slight changes of accent. The written word is overly complex and longwinded too. I'd say Spanish. It's much more phonetic than English which is a very messy language.

+1 on the Spanish, I found it much easier to learn than English.

--Kaiser--

No I wouldn't be happy. Esperanto is like New speak from Nineteen Eighty Four.
You'd be missing all the rich history and poetry of a proper language

An Coilean

OneArt wrote: »

I think a universal language is a good idea. But why the f*ck should it be Esperanto?

English, Spanish, Russian and Mandarin are the biggest languages at the moment. Let it be one of them.

It meight sound like a good idea, but it is impossible in practice. Even if everyone spoke English now, it would split up into different languages within a few hundred years, this is already happening as it is.

Wibbs

True, though you could argue that because of far greater wolrdwide communication these days and with that likely to increase, languages will have fewer opportunities to become distinct isolates.

Captain Chaos

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No.

Everyone should learn English, as most of the worlds good movies are in English.

All air traffic controllers in the world must have basic English to get their job done. It's the common aviation language.

Seaneh

pickarooney wrote: »

Hardly. As nobody speaks it, there's no way to pick it up by immersion.

Immersion only works by sending eveyone from outside the native region to the native region to learn the language, which is obviously impossible.

The easiest language for anyone to learn in a classroom or by their self, is esperanto.

That is a fact.


I don't particularly like Esperanto, but the facts is the facts.

Yo hablar en espanol, aprendo en tres meses en Sudamerica. No fluidez, pero lo suficiente.

SEPT 23 1989

The world should speak the language of love

Fromthetrees

I struggle enough with English as it is.

Seaneh

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I struggle enough with English as it is.

Give Spanish a lash, tis queer easy.

TPD

Technology is rapidly reaching the point that we don't need to learn new languages anyway.

Matt_Trakker

TPD wrote: »

Technology is rapidly reaching the point that we don't need to learn new languages anyway.

It would be cool to have a wee microchip over your voicebox that translated everything.

pickarooney wrote: »

Hardly. As nobody speaks it, there's no way to pick it up by immersion.

People do speak it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Esperanto_speakers

I'm met a few recently. Pretty cool idea imo, but when you consider we're too feckin lazy to learn our own language d'ya honestly think we'd learn this.....even though it'd be far simpler than Irish...English too.

gobnaitolunacy

Seaneh wrote: »

Give Spanish a lash, tis queer easy.

Yeah just watch a few Speedy Gonzales cartoons and you're sorted.

9959

TPD wrote: »

Technology is rapidly reaching the point that we don't need to learn new languages anyway.

<%]¥?_}#

Remush

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

No I wouldn't be happy. Esperanto is like New speak from Nineteen Eighty Four.
You'd be missing all the rich history and poetry of a proper language

1) New Speak has nothing in common with Esperanto

2) The volume of poems in Esperanto is greater than any other type of literature.

3) "Esperantists" propose that Esperanto is taught as second language after the cultural language of the country, but if you prefer to learn any other language as well, there is no objection.

dollypet

If we had to pick a language I vote for Italian. All other languages evolved from the capital out. There was no common Italian language until they decided there should be and their went off to pick one. Their criteria? The most beautiful they could find.

--Kaiser--

Remush wrote: »

1) New Speak has nothing in common with Esperanto

2) The volume of poems in Esperanto is greater than any other type of literature.

3) "Esperantists" propose that Esperanto is taught as second language after the cultural language of the country, but if you prefer to learn any other language as well, there is no objection.

1) Wrong. See the formation of the Esperanto word 'malbona', from mal (bad) and bona (good), just like the Newspeak word 'ungood'.

2) Irrelevant. I'm speaking of the poetry of the language itself.

3) The OP asked if we would like Esperanto as a first language. My answer is no

Remush

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

1) Wrong. See the formation of the Esperanto word 'malbona', from mal (bad) and bona (good), just like the Newspeak word 'ungood'.

2) Irrelevant. I'm speaking of the poetry of the language itself.

3) The OP asked if we would like Esperanto as a first language. My answer is no

1. so English is a worse variation of newspeak because words like "unpleasant", "impossible", "incorrect", "misfortune", "nobody", "nonsense". Newspeak, in the novel, is created to forbid the people to express politically unacceptable ideas, because there are no words for them. Esperanto is the contrary.
2. Any language has its own poetry, that only speakers of that language can appreciate.
3. Esperanto as the first language would be a bad idea, but less than English, because it would give people more time to study their preferred language. I am for Esperanto as second language for all.

Remuŝ

DEFTLEFTHAND

I've heard German is a good language for a native English speaker to quickly learn and become fluent in. Did anybody find this to be true? I never studied it in any depth and didn't do it in school.