Bonan matenon! Havu tason da kafo. Ni dancu!
“United in Diversity” is the official motto of the European Union. Despite being translated into all 23 official European languages (plus Latin), the official version of the motto is still in… English.
Increasingly (especially after the enlargement of the EU to include the former-Soviet countries of Eastern Europe), English is dominating the EU. The International Francophony Organisation has even warned that “the future of French will be decided in Brussels”, and fears that English might one day become the “single working language” of Europe.
Language has always been an intensely political issue. Dr L.L. Zamenhof knew this in the late 19th Century when he founded “Esperanto“, a constructed language that he hoped would act as a politically neutral lingua franca for the world. The number of speakers of Esperanto today is contested, but estimates vary from as few as 10,000 to up to 2 million globally. One 2001 estimate put the total number of active / fluent speakers at approximately 130,000 to 300,000 – with up to 150,000 of these being in the EU.
Last week, Debating Europe mentioned that the Financial Times was being very rude about Esperanto’s prospects in a world where English is so widely spoken. We received a couple of comments defending the language, and pointing out some problems with the FT’s argument.
Defending Esperanto, Bill argued that:
Of course there is widespread teaching of English throughout Europe, but the results of that investment of time and money are poor, in my view. I´ve lost count of the number of times [people] have told me something like “I learn English since nione years” but are unable to direct me to the station!
Teaching Europe’s 500 million citizens Esperanto would, so runs the logic, be more cost-effective and a better investment of time and money. Another Esperanto speaker, Brian, also defends Dr L.L. Zamenhof’s creation:
Obviously neither English nor Esperanto have reached a critical mass either in terms of competent fluency or in terms of universal acceptance.
There are two urban myths however which need to be exploded. Firstly that “everyone speaks English” and secondly “no-one speaks Esperanto” . Neither of these are true but need to be challenged.
The trouble is, however, that whilst it’s certainly not true that “everyone speaks English”, English is nevertheless understood by a larger chunk of the European population than any other language. Likewise, whilst it’s false to claim “no-one speaks Esperanto”, estimates of the number of speakers in the EU make for a sobering comparison.
Of course, perhaps Bill is right to argue that proper investment in the teaching of Esperanto and an agreement at the EU level for it to become “Europe’s language” would see the number of speakers shoot up (rising much faster than an equivalent effort spent on promoting English). The problem, of course, is that English has reached its current level of prominence without much need for “investment” or “agreement at EU level”. Citizens choose to learn English themselves, and national governments choose to invest in it without any need for a coordinated approach.
Earlier, we looked at the possibility of the EU forming its own “research academies” and making Erasmus compulsory for students. The EU, however, does not have competence in the field of education. This is an area of national competence (and will probably remain so). Coordinated investment in Esperanto is, therefore, unlikely to be forthcoming. The teaching and adoption of English, however, looks set to continue naturally.
This is, doubtless, a topic we will revisit. Language has always been an intensely political issue, and it would be good to bring policy-makers into this debate to hear their thoughts.
The principal error in this reasoning is to suppose that time investments in language learning by the currently powerful members are somehow all that counts.
What about those who are not visible as active participants in international affairs because they have not had sufficient years of education in English?
And what about the convenience of generations of people who have not yet invested in either choice? If they can spend 100 hours in learning Esperanto instead of many hundreds of hours EACH learning English, doesn’t that count for a great deal?
After 50 years of learning and using English, an Italian is still not on a truly equal linguistic footing with an English person.
In Esperanto, they are equal from the outset.
Hi Penelope,
This may be true – but the practical barriers to Esperanto are larger than the theoretical barriers. Over 250 million people in Europe speak English to a greater or lesser extent – and governments and individuals choose to invest in English on their own. In the “free market” of languages, the most attractive languages are not always the easiest (English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, etc.) but those that the languages that will enable you to communicate with the largest number of people.
Those, who are powerful, always argue for the “free market”. There they are able to oppress the smaller ones. So, for instance, the German Contest in Foreign Languages does not allow Esperanto, because it is a planned language. This discrimination of Esperanto lasts already for 30 years. And the German government still subsidizes that contest…
This certainly is not the first discrimination of Esperanto. There is a long row of repression and persecution from the French government prohibiting it in schools in the 1920′s to the Romanian government dissolving Esperanto groups in the 1980′s going through more than a dozen countries, most of them from Europe. How about compensation? Promoting for instance that every child gets one lesson in school about Esperanto and its use today? So that the children know enough about Esperanto to make their own decision.
You are right, about 250 million people in Europe speak English at least a little bit. This is just a wonderful basis for them to learn Esperanto; they don’t know it, but they already understand most of its words and they need only a minor effort to learn Esperanto. Three weekend courses will be enough in nearly every case for students to be able to participate in Esperanto conversations. (If you don’t believe that, just test it, at least for one hour!)
It is normal that governments subsidize new inventions in an early phase to reach a better development. No one argues against the subsidies for solar power maintaining that individuals choose energy from oil “on their own”. So why do you argue against Esperanto that way?
Lord Reith founder of the BBC also attempted to ban any mention of Esperanto on the BBC.
Happily he did not succeed as you can see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INCr1bV8kGk
EUROPEAN IDENTITY, BRIEFLY
1. A human being is a social being (a society is 2 people minimum, if they develop mutual trust and a common belief system)
2. A human being satisfies his or her social desire in many societies simultaneously (groups), like families , circles of friends, interest associations, local communities, the village or town, the region, the nation, religion etc.
Each of the groups develops a social (group) identity (shared purposes, elements of typical behaviour, shared ceremonies, artifacts from folklore and culture, komunajn celojn, elementojn de samtipa konduto, komunajn ceremoniojn, folkloraĵojn kaj kulturon, they elect their leaders…)
3. An individual in his or her life leaves old groups and joins new ones (people leave the family they were born into and forms their own or several of their own, people leave one town and move to another and they change the locality to which they belong, or even their religion or country – sometimes because we move, sometimes because it is taken from us (for example after wars …)
4. People don’t lose the characteristics of the group which they left (after founding one’s own family one doesn’t lose membership of the family of one’s birth, after leaving one’s homeland and a gradual acceptance of the new country one doesn’t forget the old country…) although the degree of belonging gets somewhat weaker.
5. From this it follows that it is normal to add new identities to those already existing, as is for example European identity. When one takes a new identity one doesn’t wipe out the old ones (e.g. The identity of one’s homeland, or region, or religion etc)
6. The main sign of one’s identity is language (if we accept that each variation of a language or dialect is a separate linguistic system). For example in a public place we would speak the national language, in our village we speak the regional or local dialect, in a street gang we speak the gang’s slang, in the family we speak the family’s variety of the local dialect, with a small child we speak a variety of a child’s language, with a handicapped child we speak a language adapted to the child’s ability to understand etc)
7. A language has two equally important basic roles: that of communication and that of giving identity. When these two functions are in conflict, the role of identity is the more important (we often intentionally speak our minority language, even though we know that we are not understood, because the aim isn’t to communicate but to display our alligiance.
8. A new identity inevitably makes an identifying language necessary, a language which is different from all other languages because it must be neutral. This language is the sign of belonging to the new (European) identity. This language must accept emotionally (not only rationally) those who belong to the new community as its own; they must have and emotional relationship with it. And that is possible only if for all members of the new community it is the same, but different from all other communities. In regard to the European langugage English cannot become the language of identity, even though works as a language of communication, and it cannot contribute to the development of a European identity, because the European identity language must be neutral in relation to all members (the English AND THE SCOTS AND THE WELSH and the Irish have no right of priviledge) and it must necessarily be different from the indentifying language of the USA, so that Europeans may be proud of their values, and that they can show their pride in their membership by speaking their own and not an American language. Of course, the language of identity will take on the job of the communication language.
9. A neutral language can be acquired in three possible ways:
a) choosing a national language which belongs to none of the peoples who have joined the new community, e.g. Arabic. This solution was chosen in ex-colonial countries, like English in India or Nigeria, French in some African countries etc.
b) choosing one of the dead languages, which could be revived and on whose base European culture grew historically, like Latin or Ancient Greek. This solution was chosen by the Israelis when they renewed and “revived” the dead Hebrew language.
c) choosing one of the new romance languages which were initiated by linguists or by Movements like Esperanto, (which has developed a unique culture and linguistic treasury during its history of over 120 years). This type of solution was chosen in Indonesia and in several other polynesian countries (Bahasa Indonesian is a language based on a Malaysian langiage whose grammar linguists developed in the middle of the 1950’s in a regular and planned way, and is now used by more than 200 million people ).
The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were unaware of the role of language in identity, and they tried to develop a Soviet Yugoslavian language using the language of the largest population; it did work as a language of communication but could not be accepted as a language of communal identity, because it wasn’t neutral. For this reason they failed to develop a communal identity. In a time of crisis this was decisive and fundamentally influenced the collapse of these multi-ethnic states. Without a solution to this problem the European Union will fall apart whenever the first large scale economic or political crisis occurs.
Zlatko Tišljar
Association for European Consciousness Maribor
About soviet case, I give a compendium of «Cacophonies d’empire» CNRS Éditions ISBN : 978-2-271-070031-9
I’ve been able to read your english and hope that reading my french is easier for you than translating to english would be for me. To help I give first an esperanto version.
La necesa progresigo de lokaj ĉiutagaj lingvoj videble efikis je la enanigo de la ne-Rusoj al la soveta sistemo. Tiujn lingvojn helpantajn decidojn ene de la Ŝtato, pere de rimedoj tiel dungitoj, sed ĉefe pere de amasaj edukaj programoj cele al instrui loĝantarojn per la lokaj lingvoj ebligis iom-post-ioman emerĝon de abocigata socio en tiuj Respublikoj laŭ loke tre malsimilaj formoj. Certe ĉiam la centraj institucioj malemis, ke la Respublikoj petu subtenon de siaj naciaj lingvoj, tamen ili submetiĝis al la necesoj de la nacieca politiko dum la jaroj 1920. La rusa lingvo, ĉieestanta je la interstata komuniko, kunekzistis lokajn lingvojn, kiuj superregis en certaj Respublikoj. Prioritatis la konstruo de dulingva elito, kiu eblas ruse servi la novan Ŝtaton, komuniki kun nerusparolantoj, kaj ne ofendeti la dum tiaj revoluciaj jaroj sentojn.
Je la fino de la jaroj 1930 jam ŝanĝis la problemo de la inkludo de la ne-Rusoj. La ekzemplo de la armeo tipas pri la evoluo de la inkludformoj : la progresigo de lokaj lingvoj kaj la nacia teritoriigo antaŭiĝis la formado de space kuniĝita Stato. El tia referenco en 1938 decidis Staline, ke nepre lernejoj instruu la rusan. Armeo, denove, iĝis la loko, kie oni kreu la novan sovetan naci-Ŝtaton, reganto spacon, kie ĉiu, movante, eblus paroli al siaj kunŝtatanoj. La rusa lingvo relokiĝis centren de la ŝtata konstruo, kvankam dulingveco postekzistis en naciaj teritorioj, USSR nepris konstitigi space kaj lingve unuigitan spacon, multlingvan sed unulingvan ene de la kerna funkciado.
L’impératif de promotion des langues vernaculaires eut des effets tangibles sur l’intégration des non-Russes au système soviétique. Des mesures soutenant ces langues dans la propagande d’État, par des ressources en termes de postes, mais surtout par des programmes éducatifs massifs pour instruire des populations dans les vernaculaires a permis l’émergence progressive d’une société alphabétisée dans ces Républiques selon des formes très différenciées géographiquement. Face aux demandes des Républiques de soutien des langues nationales, les institutions centrales furent certes toujours réticentes, mais elles furent néanmoins soumises aux impératifs de la politique des nationalités tout au cours des années 1920. Le russe omniprésent dans la communication interétatique coexistait avec les langues nationles dominantes dans certaines Républiques. L’édification d’une élite bilingue capable de servir le nouvel État en russe, de communiquer avec les populations non russophones et de ne pas froisser les sentiments nationaux exprimés dans les années révolutionnaires constituait une priorité.
A la fin des années 1930, la problématique de l’inclusion des non-Russes s’était déplacée.L’exemple de l’armée est symptomatique de l’évolution des formes prises par leur intégration : la promotion des langues vernaculaires et la territorialisation nationale précédant la formation d’un État spatialement intégré. Ce fut en faisant référence à cette question que Staline décida en 1938 de rendre obligatoire le russe comme matière d’études à l’école. L’armée redevint le lieu de fabrication du nouvel Etat-nation soviétique, gouvernant un espace où chacun pouvait en se déplaçant parler à ses concitoyens. Le russe fut replacé au centre de l’édification étatique, si le bilinguisme subsista dans les territoires nationaux, l’URSS se devait de constituer un espace intégré spatialement et linguistiquement, multilingue mais monolingue dans son fonctionnement central.
Alongside the two points that Brian mentions, I think that there’s a third misapprehension associated with Esperanto. If somebody called himself a Lojban-speaker, Klingon-speaker, Glosa-speaker and so on, my instant reaction would be that this individual could not possibly speak fluently in his language. This being the case, why should we expect people to think differently of Esperanto?
The fact is that Esperanto is spoken fluently by tens of thousands of people, and not simply limited to those countries whose languages are closer to Zamenhof’s European reference languages. This is a message that we need to convey. Esperanto is not simply theoretical, a nice idea but unworkable in practice; I speak it fluently. So do Bill and Brian. So do hundreds of people that I’ve met. It works. And it’s not even unknown to use it in cross-national situations, such as the one we’re discussing; Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia and President Jonas of Austria, both supporters of the language, used it to talk to each other.
Even if we were not to aim so high as asking the EU to adopt it, there would still be, in my opinion, a clear use for Esperanto-teaching in schools. The language is a wonderful introduction into language-learning. Because it’s relatively easy the learning reinforces itself, giving children a real sense of progress. No longer (in the UK, at any rate) would a child’s initial thoughts about learning languages be that it’s improbably difficult. And once the child has learnt how to learn a language it becomes easier to learn more. I’m a good case in point. My fiancée and I were recently on holiday in Kiev, a city where nearly everyone is bilingual in Russian and Ukrainian … and where there was scarcely a word of English understood. We were wholly reliant on our very limited Russian, which we learnt with relatively little effort because we’re both schooled mentally in how to learn a language. How commendable to give children such a start, so that they too can go on to learn other languages without the countless challenges that language-learning throws at them when they start with a national one! I remember (and I’m relatively gifted for languages) struggling with the concept of grammatical gender, and our lessons on individual French verbs taking 50 minutes each. It’s no wonder that most of my contemporaries will be monolingual now.
Should it be the language of Europe? I think that anybody with a sense of fairness would have to acknowledge that using principally a single nation’s language is not ideal and runs counter to the EU’s egalitarian motives regarding, for example, funds for redevelopment. I’d certainly like to see Esperanto introduced to more schools (it’s already taught in several primary schools in the UK) for the benefits that I outlined above; and then, who knows, at a time when some schooling in Esperanto is the norm we can look at the descendants of Tito and Jonas following in their footsteps, using Esperanto according to its purpose; as a neutral common tongue. There’s already a common currency and harmonisation in legislation, so it’s really not such an outlandish aspiration after all.
Hi Tim,
Many thanks for a thoughtful comment!
Whether or not one can speak a language fluently after only a short period of instruction is not a good test of “workability”. The best test is always to see how many people currently speak a given language and, on that basis, Esperanto falls short. Perhaps after a sustained and coordinated campaign of state-sponsored education this might change (as happened to promote the “French language” in 19th Century France) but this would not be politically possible (nor, arguably, even desirable).
It’s true that having English as the “common language” of Europe might not be politically neutral – but does English as a language really belong to the English as a nation? Just as Latin survived the fall of the Roman Empire, English has survived the fall of the British Empire and lives on as common property.
Thank you for your response, moderator.
I wanted to challenge the (perfectly natural, in my opinion) reaction of the uninitiated to Esperanto that it isn’t a language which people could actually speak. A language which can’t actually be spoken is, of course, unworkable. My point is that Esperanto is fully workable, contingent on the conversation taking place between people who have actually learnt it.
I think we share the same opinion about the current situation (where employees and officers of the EU overwhelmingly don’t speak the language), that implementing Esperanto tomorrow as the sole working language demonstrably won’t work anymore than would choosing Polish or Maltese on a whim. (Although the carnage would be quicker to dissipate, since functional Esperanto could be taught appropriately in a fraction of the time that the other two would require.)
This is why I’m looking forward and wrote about schooling and the benefits that a short course of Esperanto could bring. A bi-product of using it in schools as a learning tool for developing skills in language-acquisition would be that a generation of people with some degree of familiarity happened to be the norm. In that future Esperanto becomes viable and, in my opinion, desirable because on top of its relative ease of learning and inherent neutrality there would also be the fact that there are swathes of people who could speak it (after a small bit of top-up studying).
So my line of thought runs something like this: I’m aware that Esperanto works wonderfully for developing language-acquisition skills and so opine that a short course in it would be beneficial and ought to find itself on the teaching programmes at schools on that basis. That should be a goal in and of itself, so that pupils are given a chance of being able to learn other languages better.
If that happens and the future sees people with a basic grounding in Esperanto as the norm, then it makes sense to me to adopt it as a working language over a national language. But I think that it becomes evident that step two won’t work without step one first.
I think it’s possible to answer that in either way quite justifiably! As much as I agree with you on common-sense grounds, I hold my hands up and admit that there’s a certain protectionism that arises in me when I occasionally here something like “How do you say X in American?” It’s daft, but there you go
Thank you for the polite answer and opportunity to debate.
You wrote that the time needed for learning to speak fluently…
Why do you think so? Are electric cars not “workable” because there are not many people using them now?
To understand the perspectives of Esperanto, I think we should look at the way Esperanto already took since 1887 when the first textbook was published. At that time there were only about five people speaking the language and so Esperanto had one of the smallest language communities in the world, out of about 7000 languages. Now the Chinese governement publishes news in Esperanto every day, together with only nine other languages. Esperanto has become one out of the fifty languages that are most used in international communication. There are over 150 000 articles in the Esperanto Wikipedia. It seems that no other language ever made a similar progress in only one century.
Esperanto is attractive for itself, for the ideas of international understanding it conveys and because it is relatively easy to learn. I admit the Esperanto organizations are not very powerful at the moment and they did not succeed up to now to inform many people. Most people just don’t know a lot about Esperanto or even nothing – how can they decide to learn it? The question of Esperanto is mainly a question of marketing.
Bearing in mind that Esperanto already enjoys consultative relations both with the Council of Europe and with the United Nations – see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR7vD9kChBA&feature=related – it cannot be doubted that Esperanto has long-term potential.
In the short-term the way forward should be for one Government to vote for Esperanto as a co-official language of the European Parliament and for the European national Esperanto Associations to pay for the translation costs. Co-official status would then put Esperanto on a par with Welsh which already enjoys that status.
Not too far-fetched as the Sejm of the Polish Parliament has previously voted unanimously in favour of Esperanto and I see no reason why such support should not be repeated with regard to the European Union.
It’s up to the Esperanto people now to make it happen.
A very common mistake is to compare Esperanto with English as an international language for all. English at present is favoured by those employed in international commerce, industry or politics, and students make tremendous efforts to learn it, if it is not their native language. Those fields of activity are not yet ready for Esperanto, but when it is widely taught the situation could radically change. As many more students would be able to speak it, Esperanto would gradually become more useful in commerce, industry and politics. In the meantime, great efforts should be made by governments to have Esperanto taught in schools as an introduction to the learning of national languages. This is vital, as the language has no country and will not be learnt naturally, except in the small number of cases in which parents teach their children Esperanto from birth. Once it has been generally established in the education systems of member-states, its advantage over English will be obvious. Available to all, at low cost.
Thanks for your comment, David!
This, however, is exactly the problem. Governments and individuals choose freely to promote and learn English. Is there any way for Esperanto to become widespread without coordinated government intervention? If not, then how viable is it as an international language? Governments don’t seem likely to choose Esperanto of their own volition. Forcing governments at the EU level to educate their citizens in Esperanto is unworkable as it would be completely undemocratic.
Some governments and parliaments already promote Esperanto or at least give it an equal treatment – even without an international coordination:
- In Hungary you can choose Esperanto as one of the foreign languages needed to finish university studies, see [origo] and EsperantoLand; last year 2310 hungarian students succeeded in their Esperanto examination.
- In China there are Esperanto courses in about 20 universities and they maintain some sites in Esperanto, as Ĉina Radio Internacia and the news site “El Popola Ĉinio”.
- In the Brazilian Parliament there is a law project for Esperanto as an optional subject in schools; it has already been voted by the Brazilian Senate.
While it is certainly unworkable to force “governments at the EU level to educate their citizens in Esperanto” – I agree – maybe some more governments will give Esperanto an equal treatment with other languages in the future. Currently there is an initiative in France to admit Esperanto in the french baccalauréat (A levels). Vive l’égalité (avec les autres langues)!
Esperanto became much more visible in the last decade because of the internet. Lots of popular programmes (Firefox) and sites (Google) exist in Esperanto, so people just get aware of the language. There are special sites to learn Esperanto on the internet as Lernu.net, so it is much easier than before to study it.
Probably all that will help Esperanto to become more widespread in the future.
On the subject of “everyone speaks English anyway”, I can say my experience is that may be true in the tourist areas, but not so much outside of them. My wife and I recently visited Belgium, and as is our habit we avoided the big, touristy urban center of Brussels and stayed in a smaller city, and spent time in the stores, restaurants, and attractions where the locals go. I was very glad I speak decent French (we were in Wallonia, not Flanders), as most people in those areas knew only a smattering of English, if any. Personally I have no problem with this, as I see no reason to require others to learn my language when I am, after all, visiting their country. But if we all learned a shared, neutral, easy-to-learn language like Esperanto, it would certainly make such communication easier, and allow my wife (who doesn’t have the language-learning skills that I do) to also participate.
Having a single natural language is not good. A non natural speaker of English is at a disadvantage within English speakers, but a natural speaker of English is at a disadvantage within other languages. Using a language like English as a universal language will create even bigger barriers. One culture is forced to learn it, while another is not.
If everyone is to learn another language, that in itself is equality.
Esperanto is a great idea in principle. However, it might be worth linking to an excellent resource on why NOT to speak Esperanto: http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/
Even on its own merits, as an artificial language, it has flaws.
Esperanto would need to be a more popular language before it was ‘adopted’ as a language for Europe. You can’t expect anyone to agree to this when virtually nobody speaks it (percentage wise).
I would like to see the EU encourage the learning of the language by giving Esperanto books to every library and school in Europe (as well as internet based learning resources). Maybe then the percentage of speakers will be higher and it could be considered as the language of Europe.
Ultimately, Esperanto is a 19th Century language unsuited to the realities of the 21st Century. Like others, I agree it’s a fantastic idea in principle – but it’s simply not viable in practice. This is doubly so when we consider how the internet is changing the way we communicate.
Within a couple of decades, machine translation may very well have replaced the need for Esperanto.
“Ultimately, Esperanto is a 19th Century language unsuited to the realities of the 21st Century. Like others, I agree it’s a fantastic idea in principle – but it’s simply not viable in practice.”
I do not understand this statement. I speak Esperanto fluently and it works very well in practice, and I talk without problem in Esperanto about “realities of the 21st century”, like computer stuff.
Hi Carl,
What unsuitabilities do you speak of?
I use the language every day, professionally and personally, and have not encountered any.
Esperanto evolves and grows the same as English.
And Carl, I have a google translator on nearly every page of my Mondeto site- they are mostly useful for giving people a cause to make contact- to tell me how useless they are!!
Carl. Please check your facts before leaping into print
During a short period of 123 years and despite persecution by both Hitler and Stalin, Esperanto is now in the top 100 languages, out of 6,800 worldwide. It is the 22nd most used language in Wikipedia, ahead of Danish and Arabic. It is a language choice of Google, Skype, Firefox, Ubuntu and Facebook.
Native Esperanto speakers, (people who have used the language from birth), include financier George Soros, World Chess Champion Susan Polger, Ulrich Brandenberg the new German Ambassador to NATO and Nobel Laureate Daniel Bovet.
Esperanto not viable! Have you tried explaining that to a native Esperanto speaker?
You are what you speak: there is a cultural, human identity behind each and every natural language on earth.
There is nothing behind Esperanto, bar wishful thinking and arguably, good intentions.
IMO, Esperanto is not cultural. It is a tool. Each of us would have a native language and Esperanto would merely be a tool.
Rapella, you are so right that “You are what you speak”
That’s why I am an English-speaker (for my ancestors) and an Esperanto-speaker, for my identity as a citizen of the world.
My cultural and human identity is a combination of what I was dealt, and what I choose- to be fair, effective and efficient.
Behind my English heritage is a lot I could be ashamed of – we invaded lots of countries and took stuff that wasn’t ours.
There is nothing behind Esperanto to regret.
(I’m learning Indonesian but I’ll never be Indonesian, will I?)
Charlie,
About the “excellent resource” you are talking about:
The author of that article is well known in the Esperanto world for being the author of that article… and nothing more
A true recognized expert in Esperanto, the linguist and psychologist Claude Piron (you can google it), debunked that article years ago:
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/why.htm
I think the purpose of an international language is to enable speakers of different national language to communicate as effectively as possible. The question shouldn’t be “how widespread is this or that language today ?”, but how many people could potentially speak it thirty years down the road having learned it as a second language? This is the only question that makes any sense to me. And the answer is equally simple. I am a native speaker of both French and English. In addition I have studied Latin, Greek, Russian and I have dealt with serious business matters in Spanish, Italian and German. Today I teach English in a middle school in semi-rural France and I chanced to learn Esperanto starting five years ago.
Foreign language teaching often seems a farce. The average individual whose native language has an important number of features different from those of English has next to no chance of really learning our language given the time allotted to instruction in school. Transforming English into an international tool of mass communication would require an enormous change of scale in the exposure to English. While this may sound like a good business proposition in a country which is running out of oil and hasn’t got much of anything else to sell, as a French taxpayer I find the prospect less than totally attractive.
So as far as I am concerned a re-engineered language like Esperanto, which is significantly easier to learn, may not be the solution but it will give us a far better run for the money than our wonderfully pleasant and baroque native tongue.
Leon, Esperanto IS cultural. It is about reaching out to other cultures through a shared medium.
Best
Istvan Ertl
editor of Beletra Almanako
Pingback: Should Esperanto be the language of Europe? | Debating Europe | Learn Esperanto | Scoop.it
Hi Debating Europe
Your concern about “barriers” tempts us off topic to some extent. The question is “Should Esperanto…..?” not
“Will Esperanto….(with no act of leadership).”
So, should babies be fed? Yes. And no talk of inconveniences changes the answer. Ethical questions are like that.
Not that Esperanto is impractical. It only looks that way if you squint your eyes so that you only see the extreme short term, and the people currently favoured – like us
If you count the people less privileged, and those too young to have invested yet, and you will find the “practicality” of cumbersome English impossible to argue, even if it hadn’t already failed the “should” test, on other grounds.
Debating Europe,
1. There is a wonderful SBS series available on video, Melvyn Bragg’s “The Adventure of English”. It is fascinating stuff, and provides some very valuable perspective on what doldrums can come before apparent linguistic victory.
2. Can you see that statements like:
“The best test is always to see how many people currently speak a given language” and “English …. as common property” are more convenient status quo holders, than true-from-any-point-of-view?
Italians would probably generously let you share their language, and we could do everything in Italian, but would you want to?
That’s interesting about the “United in Diversity” motto of the EU! It’s almost identical to the Republic of Indonesia’s motto, in Old Javanese “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika”, translated to English it means “Unity in Diversity”! Indonesia is an archipelago with hundreds of languages, but the native languages of most of the people of Indonesia are from the island of Java; Javanese and Sundanese! Yet, when the independence movement began the Indonesians decided on an interlanguage that could unite all of the people of the soon to be Indonesia, then the Dutch East Indies. It was the trade language of Malay, which they established in a standardised form, with regular spelling and a relatively simple grammar and called the Indonesian language. Many people call it “Bahasa” these days, but every language is a bahasa, because that is just the part of the name that means “language”!
I am writing in Bahasa Inggris right now, but sometimes I write in Bahasa Esperanto. It should not be too surprising that some people in Indonesia see the sense in learning Esperanto as the world interlanguage, but certainly it makes sense for it to be one for the European Union.
I am coming to this argument as a one-time teacher of English as a Foreign Language to Adults and also as a polyglot and linguist and I would like to add my opinions to the argument.
Promoting English (or indeed any National Language) puts its native speakers at an incredible advantage over those who learn it as their second language. The effort and time (not to mention money) needed to learn and teach English at an acceptable (not to mention proficient/competent) level is astronomical and in a sensible world should be considered economically and temporally non-viable, especially compared to promoting Esperanto, the mastery of which would take a fraction of the time it would take to learn English to the equivalent level and would lessen financial burdens. Would not the promotion of Esperanto be a more effective and practical solution to second language acquisition?
But this is not a sensible world and at present, the English speaking nations are continuing to invest vast amounts of money propping up the Anglo-American culture and language across the globe and they are probably (and rightly) reluctant to see their investment go down the pan. I know that in some countries, for instance the Nordic Countries, many people have an excellent command of English and no doubt this gives the impression that these are English speaking nations and that there are probably equally competent English speakers in every other country on the planet; but the reality is otherwise. I have travelled the world quite extensively and I have lived in various far flung reaches of the world, such as France, the Philippines and China and know that it is actually quite rare to find competent English speakers in quite a number of places of the globe – sure, some people have enough English for tourists’ needs, but when you see the English language being murdered with invitations such as “Come for walk on water with us” (Lithuania) instead of “Come for a boat trip with us” (which was presumably the intended meaning) you have to wonder about what kind of (non?)success people are achieving in learning and teaching English. And there are numerous examples I can quote of strange English idioms. Despite English being quoted as having an easier grammar, especially in comparison to other languages, such as French, German or Russian, it is by no means an easy language to learn and some would say it is actually quite tough to learn English. Some would say that the Chinese continuum of languages have an even simpler grammar and language structure, but you could hardly say that they are easy languages to learn either! So easy grammar does not equate ease of acquisition. In my experience, Esperanto has a sufficiently uncomplicated grammar and the time for proficient acquisition is speedy. That to me is a double plus.
But it should be said, that in these aforementioned Nordic countries, the exposure to English in media (such as films and television programmes being subtitled rather than dubbed) begins at an early age and no doubt this helps to its acquisition and assimilation, but that does not mean that it a fair system by any means, especially since the English Speaking world rarely watches foreign language films, although dubbed films sometimes do pop up in cinemas and on TV, but rarely if ever are subtitled programs seen (although there are notable exceptions). Is the English Speaking world totally disinterested in what is happening in other countries? Or do these countries have to become English speaking nations first for us to take note?
Despite the relatively low numbers of Esperanto speakers in comparison with English, nevertheless, it is a language where you can find speakers in just about every nation on the Earth and it has been shown to function admirably at international conventions and it does promote international understanding of different cultures…
We are all in favour of “Fair Trade”, “Equality of the Sexes” “Basic Human Rights for All” and so forth, right? What happened to “Linguistic Equality” and “Language Rights”? Or did we trample on those rights with our own particular brands English imperialism already?
Esperanto could become a language spoken in Europe if people could consider it as a convenient way to speak with people whose mother tongues are different without preponderance of any ethnical language like English, French (my language), German, Russian, Spanish e.g.
I very much admire nearly all of the contributors to this debate, and have made up my mind to get on with campaigning for the teaching of Esperanto in as many primary schools as possible, for that is the solution to the problem of a truly neutral language for Europe.
Mi admiregas preskaux cxiujn kontribuintojn al cxi-tiu debato, kaj decidis kampanjadi por Esperanto-instruado en tiom multe da elementaj lernejoj kiom eble, cxar tio estas la solvo de la problemo de vere neuxtrala lingvo por Euxropo.
Esperanto is a very useful language after a few months study. Since the a large part of the world is delusional, in thinking that English is a long-term solution beneficial for all, I will present my argument that history repeats itself, that every 50 or hundred years a preferred dominant culture comes along, only to be pushed aside immediately after the dominant nation loses war. In my article called Lost German Culture I argue that few people, even Esperantists, remember how German as a Second Language dominated American and European cultural and scientific circles until the loss of World War II by Germany. An individual above says English spreads with “no investment”. War, colonization and military investment (by English speaking countries) is huge and beyond most people’s imagination. Sadly it determines the winds of change and cultural preferances and final domination. We, Esperantists, will fight better for Esperanto when we can show how much of humanity is making poor choices in second language study, that are part of a problem, not the solution. To be continued.
Continuation:
http://esperantofriends.blogspot.com/2009/03/forgotten-world-german-culture.html
Particularly, younger people have no idea how prevalent German was in the United States prior to World War II.
As a life-long advocate of Esperanto and a retired English teacher, I note that even many English teachers (EFL, ESL/ESOL), UN and diplomatic translaters speak in and advocate for Esperanto.
http://www.EnglishTeachersforEsperanto.blogspot.com
No doubt this group will grow.
It seems to me that we are in a kind of “Prisoner’s Dilemma” situation. If all or most governments set aside their own natural languages as candidates, we all win. If a government goes it alone, they look foolish – and in addition to international leg-pulling, a government is comprised of elected individuals, who, as a rule, hope to be re-elected, so there are voters to take into account as well. I think we can rule out any action by the “big players”: Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain. What we need at the most basic level is a reciprocal relationship between two countries with minority languages to come to an educational agreement and get the ball rolling.
On the subject of the suitability of Esperanto, as an Esperanto speaker, I can honestly say that it isn’t perfect (name a language which is – after linguistic perfection has been defined, that is) but that it definitely works. Only someone who has never been at an international gathering of Esperantists could doubt its efffectivity.
I have my own fears and concerns about the changes to the world that having a widespread international language would have, but that would go for any language so adopted.
All of those are excellent points that I fully agree with, Seán. There must be countries out there that resent the imposition of somebody else’s languages for international affairs; I personally know of several hundred individuals, and their solution was to learn Esperanto. If some forward-thinking small states were to undertake measures to give themselves the means of using Esperanto then they would not only avoid submitting to the status quo, which elevates the language of a minority above all others, but also make that important first step that demonstrates that Esperanto is fully functional and fit for the task and which will make it easier for others to follow suit.
As with so many things, you need someone to make the first step. Small states who must use someone else’s language for international dealings are in the best position to be able to do so.
It seems that there are already several states which make the first steps: Hungary with its official examinations in Esperanto and 2310 students taking this exam last year. China with three big websites and some 20 universities where Esperanto is taught. Brazil where there is a law project for Esperanto as an optional subject in schools; this has already been accepted by the Brazilian Senate.
And we should not forget the small german town Herzberg am Harz which decided to call itself “Esperanto town” (la Esperanto-urbo).
So I can’t see the prisoner’s dilemma – every country and every town is free to support Esperanto just a little bit. Maybe this would look a bit strange when they would support Esperanto as the only foreign language – but together with some twenty other foreign languages this is a rather natural step to do, just the way to give equal rights to Esperanto and its speakers. (If they don’t want to discriminate Esperanto actively.)
We do not know how many people actually speak our language; as far as I know, there has never been any kind of reliable survey.
Nowadays many people seem to learn and use the language on-line without joining any Esperanto organisations. As an active user of Facebook, Twitter and Skype I find the language extremely useful in discussing all kinds of topics, both serious and trivial, without any trouble whatsoever with people from all over the world. When in need of information we consult the Esperanto Vikepedia.
My fellow esperantists have already provided excellent reasons for taking the language seriously, so I will conclude my contribution by simply saying: it works and it could also work as the language for Europe.
If all contributors to this debate would visit their local schools and advocate Esperanto-teaching to the staff, backing up their argument with information about Springboard to Languages (which is on the web), or Esperanto-en-lernejojn (also on the web) that would start a process which could eventually affect language strategy in secondary schools and universities. I respect debaters, but practical action brings quicker results than endless discussion, in this case. One must expect to be ignored, for there is a taboo, particularly in Britain, where even educated people assume that the world would be a better place if only everyone would speak English.
I don’t want to urge people to learn Esperanto. I just would like they took two hours to get information about Esperanto. And I would like every school to give their pupils just two hours of instruction _about_ Esperanto. After that they could decide, if they wanted to learn it. About 0,1 to 1 % would probably do so.
A language for Europe should clearly be Esperanto, not a national language; in fact, Esperanto should be the second language of every country in the world. Australia, as an English-speaking nation, is as misguided as Britain in assuming that there is no need for it to have a second language. Just as Springboard to Languages has been produced by the Esperanto Association of Britain, and Esperanto-en-lernejojn (Esperanto into schools) has been produced by the Budapest-based International Working Group for the Promotion of Esperanto Teaching in Schools, consisting of teachers throughout Europe, there is in Australia a project based on a resource-book, “Talking to the Whole Wide World” (on the web), which has been brilliantly devised to enable the generalist primary-school teacher to provide pupils with a second language, Esperanto, without prior training.
Throughout the world, the provision of a second, national, language is made unsustainably expensive to the tax payer by the cost of training a primary-school teacher to attain the necessary level of fluency in the chosen national language. Like “Springboard to Languages” and “Esperanto-into-Schools”, “Talking to the Whole Wide World” solves this problem. The primary-school teacher learns Esperanto in his or her own classroom while teaching it in brief lessons during the school day. The language is so well-designed for easy learning that the teacher soon becomes an expert Esperanto-teacher who is still an expert primary-school teacher, with all the skills that that implies.
On top of this page we can read:
“Discuss YOUR ideas with Europe’s leaders.”
Is there anyone of Europe’s leaders who discusses on this page with the Esperanto speakers who informed about Esperanto? Or someone from “Debating Europe”? Does “Debating Europe” intend to accept the ideas of those who speak Esperanto for decades? Or does “Debating Europe” think they know everything better than those who actually speak the language?
Hi Lu!
Just to reassure you – we are indeed getting in touch with experts and policy-makers in the field of languages to hear their reactions. We hope to publish a follow-up article with the viewpoints of several people. We’ll let you know when it’s published!
Eeerrrmmm…no!! Just bury this language…!! Why do we have to debate on such stupid issues like that? Who speaks esperanto anyway..?? is there anywhere i could go and learn it..?? Give it up..!!
English..that is the emerging language of Europe, either some like it or not…We should be having English as a second official language in Europe, or if the Brits leave the EU and give us some peace, then German or French..
A second official language for Europe, that all will speak apart from their native..The national language will be the first official language, and citizens that speak it will have more opportunities in the state..For example if i as a Greek want to move to Hungary, and I do not speak Hungarian, i could move there by just speaking English and get a job anywhere..Apart from Government or Public Sector Jobs, Army/Defense or Police forces…Perhaps customer service jobs as well…
In that way, native Hungarians or Hungarian speakers have an advantage, until i learn their language and get the same opportunities as them..That will give me the initiative to learn the language, in order to have more career opportunities..People will be able to move freely and get a job or settle anywhere, without the language restrictions..Fair?
Could we decide on this and go ahead with it..?? Most of us speak English anyway..So where is the problem?
Christos, the question is what SHOULD be…
SHOULD is about what is “best”. What do you think “best” means in this case?
How about “The best solution is the one that enables the most people to participate for the least effort and expense”?
Is that a reasonable interpretation of “best”?
If so, no other language will allow everyone to participate for an investment of just 100 hours, as Esperanto does.
Penelope can you support your idea with some facts please..How did you come to this conclusion..? How can you say that no other language than Esperanto will allow everyone to participate..(blah blah blah…)…Isn’t Esperanto a language that i will have to learn? What makes you think that i will learn it easier than english? Please elaborate?
Sorry to ruin your fantasies my dear Esperantists…But I do not see how a language spoken only by a few, can have any advantages …especially when some people in Europe are not even aware of it…!!
Hi Christos,
Good questions.
You can get a really thorough answer with good illustrations from this site http://www.sendspace.com/file/lvdedm for a day or two.
Otherwise, a shorter answer to part of your question is that different languages vary enormously in difficulty and Esperanto is unlike any other language in being designed to be user-friendly, easy to learn.
This table gives you an idea of relative times for English-speakers:
Chinese or Japanese in 2200 hours,
Arabic in 1500 hours,
Russian in 1100 hours,
Greek in 800 hours,
French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese,
Dutch, German or Scandinavian in 600 hours
or
Esperanto in 100 hours
The main thing is that for most Europeans, most of the choices take 600 hours, but Esperanto takes 100.
Some of the design features of Esperanto which account for this are described in the presentation to which I gave you the link.
Has anyone put this to practice…?? How do we know these things for sure..? Perhaps we should experimentally teach this “Language” in voluntary classes, in schools or institutions, see how a group of young kids will cope with it, and then see and study the results…see if there is a real benefit at all..
and of course i will remind you that we will have to put such thing in a referendum, if we either want to have a second official language (as i suggested) or the use of esperanto (as you suggest) to the people and let them decide…i do not think that people will just accept it…most people that i know are not even aware that this language even exists, never mind that is being discussed by a few to have it as their official or second official language…!! how do you think they will react if they suddenly have to learn it?
I do wish people would check their facts out
Several British schools have already introduced Esperanto in order to test its propaedeutic value.
You can see details on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INCr1bV8kGk
Interestingly, on the occasion of the European Day of Languages on the 26th September, the Council of Europe has also provided some phrases and expressions in Esperanto, which you can see here http://www.goethe.de/ins/se/prj/ets/mlg/gep/enindex.htm
Hi Christos,
As Brian says, it has been well studied in the past. You can find a well-referenced paper summarizing some of the findings here:
http://apprenticeshiplanguagelearning.weebly.com/index.html
At present, I am aware of 55 primary schools, 64 middle schools and 46 high schools and universities currently teaching Esperanto successfully and effectively.
I have, myself, taught Esperanto to children for 9 years, in three different schools, as a normal part of the schol curriculum, plus summer schools and specialist classes.
As I said before, it is a great deal easier for young kids, teenagers and adults of all ages to “cope with” than any other language because other languages were not designed to be easy to learn, they were not designed at all.
I’m sure that people would be dismayed to “suddenly” learn that they “had to” learn any language. If there is any way that this could happen (which I rather doubt) I imagine that they would be relieved if the language chosen was the world’s easiest, rather than another that is 6-22 times more burdensome, don’t you?
And what do you suggest we do with our national languages then Penelope..?? Just ditch them? Because I am not willing to..If Esperanto becomes what English is now for most of us, then I do not have a problem..If we are talking about replacing our own national languages with this new fabricated language, then I am for sure out..Each language represents the soul of each nation, and it also enriches the World heritage..The more languages, the richer Europe is..Greek is being spoken for milenia, do you think we should just forget about it?
But we need to be starting teaching esperanto soon, if we want people to get to know it and use it…If we want it as a second official language then start teaching it soon, and give initiatives for people to get to know it and learn it..But as I said, only if Esperanto becomes the common tool for communication, not the only one..
Brian, as i mentioned, most people are unaware of this “language”..Just because a few fanatics are so keen to push it and promote in on all of us, for God knows what reason, it does not mean that their cause is justified and right…I only found out about esperanto a couple of years ago, while blogging…I haven’t read it anywhere, i do not know anyone who speaks it, i do not know any schools or people who are keen to teach it, in fact most people i know do not even know it exists…If we tell them that they are gonna have to start learning some new fabricated language from scrap, you know what reception it will have, don’t you..?? Instead of snubbing anyone who disagrees with you, try to understand where they are coming from..Ok? Not all of us are passionate about this language, or see its use…If you want to win the argument over, then try to understand where the doubts are coming from…
I am only one of the sceptics..There are millions out there too..How are you gonna deal with them..By just shoving a link into their face and say “i wish some people were more knowledgeable”? It ain’t gonna work…Not all of us are weird academics,obsessed with creating a new language and pushing it onto everyone in this life you know..Some us have a life and a different opinion…
Hi again Christos,
What I suggest we do with our national languages is keep learning them well and use them every day, except for those times when you want to include foreigners in the conversation, in which case you can shift to Esperanto.
Thee would actually be more time for Greek if Greek children learned Esperanto, rather than English. I’m sure that you are very well aware that learning English took you a lot longer than 100 hours!
I agree with you that each language is special and valuable and I know a lot of people who are sad that their languages are not getting taught as well as they were because of pressure to learn English or French. I’d like to help by letting people know that Esperanto is less of a time hog!
I also agree do that “we need to be starting teaching Esperanto soon, if we want people to get to know it and use it…If we want it as a second official language then start teaching it soon”.
It’s a good idea to “give initiatives for people to get to know it and learn it” Who do you think can do this?
“..But as I said, only if Esperanto becomes the common tool for communication, not the only one..”- absolutely!
Certainly the insult “fanatics” is a curious way of ignoring the arguments of those who want to give facts about the need for an international language.
This insult however cannot apply to current study by Manchester University.
Five British schools have introduced Esperanto in order to test its propaedeutic values. The pilot project is being monitored by the University of Manchester and the initial encouraging results can be seen at http://www.springboard2languages.org/Summary%20of%20evaluation,%20S2L%20Phase%201.pdf
Dear all,
We’re following the continuing debate with great interest, and have some really interesting interviews lined up (including with the education minister of a European member-state). We’ll be asking for their reaction on all the comments in this thread, and will post an update soon.
In the meantime, however, I want to remind everybody to keep the discussion civil. Please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks and keep the debate focused on the ideas.
Then Penelope and Brian, under those conditions I agree to have Esperanto as second official language of Europe, the lingua franca, to replace English…But you got to understand your selling point has a flaw…The argument that “it takes less to learn Esperanto than English”, I do not think it will sell to the ordinary citizen (aka me, my friends and family)..
Think for example, in the current crisis, that we will decide to start teaching esperanto into our schools..My poor sister in Greece, that sees her salary being cut and is gonna face a harsh winter , even perhaps will have to stop my niece’s dance classes because she won’t be able to afford them anymore- though my niece loves dancing….they are going to see their taxes being spent in order to print books, hire teachers to teach this new language, train them, educate them…Millions or billions of euros will be spent in order to establish this new language lesson in our schools…How do you convince the people that this is something necessary and good for them and their kids..??
Because it takes less hours to learn esperanto…? Do you think that this will convince them? Will they care , while we have other more dire issues to solve? Will a new fabricated language make their lives and the lives of their children better? Think how are you going to sell your idea to the ordinary citizens…I am one of them..And right now, I am not 100% convinced…
Yes i totally agree that we need a second official language in Europe, but instead of spending millions to establish it in our education systems in all countries, we could do it with less by using an existing language that is being taught…Your idea sounds brilliant, but will appeal to the voters…?? I am just one of them..You have almost another 500 million to convince..You got to try harder…Sorry…
From a financial point, I think it would cost more money to teach English and yield worse results. English does have an advantage that it has been kind of adopted as the lingua franca of Europe and pretty much most of the world, but even though it has been given full financial opportunities, the results for that effort have been kind of “meh”.
Are we happy at the number and level/ability of these foreign English speakers and do we still want to inject time, money and effort into this venture?
Hi Christos,
It’s true that any change to something entrenched, no matter how desirable, can have impact on those currently employed- outdated power-stations, whaling ships and unsustainable forestry come to mind.
Fortunately, people like your sister (is she an English teacher?) would do fine if Esperanto was adopted as the common language of Europe because:
1. She could use her language learning and teaching skills to teach Esperanto instead of English (She’d learn it quicker than 100 hours because of her experience).
2. She would get a lot more job satisfaction out of teaching Esperanto because she would see her students actually finish mastering the language she taught them from scratch.
3. Mastery of Esperanto early in life increases capacity and motivation to learn other languages later. This is a surprise to many people but it is true. Benny the Irish Polyglot explains it here http://www.fluentin3months.com/2-weeks-of-esperanto/
4. Your sister could actually start teaching Esperanto effectively tomorrow using the resources I made, based on my own experience. It is designed to teach the teacher as she teaches, saving even the trouble of investing 100 hours before starting. The resource is called “Talking to the Whole Wide World” and you can find it at http://www.mondeto.com
As for….”they are going to see their taxes being spent in order to print books, hire teachers to teach this new language, train them, educate them…”
Greece would not need to print books if it started by using English-speaking teachers to teach Esperanto, afterwards I’m sure that entrepreneurs would be glad to fill the market niche. Hiring teachers can’t be a bad thing after what you said about your sister can it? Besides, you can use the teachers you have. Training and educating-already covered too.
“Millions or billions of euros will be spent in order to establish this new language lesson in our schools”…
It will have costs- introducing any change, including the choice of an existing language as Europe’s own, will have costs. However, the on-going costs of this plan, for ever and ever, are very much lower than for any other language. And, of course, the most expensive choice is no choice- it costs the European Union billions every single year to produce all documents in so many languages.
How do you convince the people that this is something necessary and good for them and their kids..??
Good question, and it depends on the people concerned, what they find convincing. Do look at my website, it explores many more angles than I can present here for you now.
In short, it is necessary because it is fair, affordable and effective and Europe needs to be all of these things.
As for being good for them, how many Greeks spend years learning English and would still be unable to participate in this discussion, or would be embarrassed because their English was not good enough? They don’t deserve the pressure and humiliation. Any European who invests 100 hours in Esperanto learning is as at home and masterful as any other European who does the same.
It isn’t fair that Greek scientists have to publish in English- they are scientists not linguists- why should the world ignore them if they don’t do the mighty job of mastering English as well as whatever other wonders they are up to? English scientists can ignore language and focus on the job, how is that fair? Wouldn’t you want a fairer world for your children?
Thanks for the “brilliant” bit. We do our best.
Leon, look at the table above….we will need to educate only 49% of the European population in English, and 99.98% in Esperanto…Will the Europeans warm up to the Esperanto, will they like it, will they like learning it, will they like how it sounds…?? You assume that since it is easier to learn they will prefer it…Haven’t you ever met people who refuse to learn German, French or other languages simply because they do not like them? They do not like the way it sounds, or to speak it..?? There are other factors in this venture than this single argument of “being easier”……
It would be interesting to see that table over the last decade. Would we see a trend that English is becoming more, less or plateauing as a second language?
If it looks like it has plateaued, would we be satisfied with the current percentage of speakers that are happy to learn it?
For now, I am quite happy with the progress of Esperanto (growing in popularity) and have no wish for it to be pushed onto the general public — I have the same opinion for any other language.
@Leon. And the results, in terms of efficiency, in teaching English worldwide, have been useless. Consider the following for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG20YJE_ibw&feature=related
I live in London and if anyone says to me “everyone speaks English” my answer is “Listen and look around you”. If people in London do not speak English then the whole question English of a global language is completely open.
You guys, so because people do not speak perfectly English, we should replace English with Esperanto? Will they speak perfectly Esperanto straight away? In time and practice people do get the knack of any language…
Nope, I (for one) am debating whether it is a viable language for the masses to learn effectively in people’s spare time. IMO, it’s current popularity is only due to massive media influx from America and the UK — films, music, internet etc… — which has huge financial backing from those industries.
I feel sorry for my in-laws. They can hardly speak a word of English to me, even though they have been on course for over a year, paid for by their workplace. It makes me wonder what they could achieve in the same time learning Esperanto.
I think that the reason why Esperanto wins over English as an international language, especially in terms of efficiency is because Esperanto is designed to be an international language, whereas English is not.
Consider also how many people have died as a result of the use of English in air traffic control. In the following document http://miresperanto.narod.ru/en/english_as_intern/aviation_language.htm I count a total of 2,360 deaths in 14 air crashes which are directly related to the fact that English is commonly used in air traffic control.
Although English is recommended for use in air traffic control, it is not compulsory. In talking about deaths here we are not only talking about the failure of English but about a phenomenon little acknowledged and wantonly ignored.
Irresponsible also to tell pilots to be more proficient – especially as no compulsion to learn English is involved.
Dear Christos
When people say that they will not learn German because they don’t like the sound, that is usually only part of the truth. The other part is that they don’t need German. If they really did, they’d get used to the sound.
Esperanto has few sounds likely to offend. You can hear some here: http://www.festivaldelaterre.org/
Certainly I do not believe that “because people do not speak perfectly English, we should replace English with Esperanto?”
My concern is for those who do not speak English at all, including those who have tried and failed, those who refuse to try, and those who are too young (even unborn yet) for whom English should be a choice, not an imposition.
Esperanto is a small effort for everyone, whereas English is a huge effort for all Europeans except the English.
“Will they speak perfectly Esperanto straight away?”
No- but the yes/no format of the question is misleading:
Any new language will be faulty before it is perfect, but the awkward period can be six times shorter, or not.
Also, this period of “beginnerness” can be something only imposed on non-English-speakers, or it can be something experienced and accepted by all Europeans on an equal basis.
Should the difficult time be long or short?
Should it be something for everyone, or should the English keep their position of privilege?
“In time and practice people do get the knack of any language…” Yes, but is it right that some should have to learn my huge and difficult language while I make no effort at all?
And spare a thought for those less fortunate: the already elderly, the dyslexic, the overworked and exploited, those with shattered self-esteem… they don’t learn new difficult languages do they? Esperanto would lower the bar and give them a chance to be involved.
In time and practice people do get the knack of any language…
Hhhhmmmmm…Let me think…So we have an allegedly easy language to learn, that has some vision of a united world behind it, it has been trying this goal of becoming the second official language of the world for about a century, but still it hasn’t managed it.. Who are the people that promote this new language and why? Academics? Intellectuals..?? Librarians? Linguists? Leftists? Who is in your lobby exactly?
To do that, we will have to spend a lot of money, to educate teachers to speak it from scrap, so that they can teach it to our kids, print books, never mind winning the consent and support of the 99.98% of the european population..There a few thousand speakers all over the world, but the majority of the people still are either unaware of it, or have little contact with it…
The benefits? A global new language that is easy to use and learn…The benefits of this…?? Hhhhmmm…world peace..? No, don’t think so…The vision of a man, has become a cult for some..Fair enough it is a noble pursue to try to unite humanity…can humanity be united by one language? even with esperanto there will be poor countries and rich countries that will try to bully the poorer ones…using esperanto instead of english…same difference..
i am a realist…i do not think that majority of people will be interested in this..if they did, after a century the world would already have adopted esperanto..should we spend billions in promoting this new language..?? i think we have to ask the tax payers first…sit down, do the maths…how much will it cost to promote this new language, and how much to promote already existing languages like english, french or german..italian even is one of the easiest to learn..if it is financially viable or beneficial, then i say go for it..if not, then i am sorry, i prefer to spend those money in creating more dancing schools so that my niece can continue her dreams and interests (or the collective dreams and interests of all youth in my country and the whole continent of Europe), not materialize the dreams and interests of a small academic elitist club and their lobby…
Well, Penelope has pretty much said what I wanted to, but I just wanted to add…
Esperanto is a language that isn’t backed by any national populous and has had competition from similar minded constructed languages invented around the same time.
Regardless though, has done tremendously well over the last 100 years and is finding new, speedier growth thanks to the internet.
Christos,
I’m not sure you are listening any more but still…
Do you know how long it has taken English to get where it has got? About 1500 years. 100 years is not a long time for languages. It would make sense to guess that the first 100 years are the slowest, don’t you think?
The lobby is people like you and me who choose to engage in debate to shape the future for the fair welfare of all.
We’re not powerful, except that we have thought this through well, and try to “speak our truth quietly and clearly and listen to others” (I’m not sure if that quote will be familiar to you, but a lot of English speakers know those words). We have persuaded several million people that it is worth 100 hours to be part of this global movement and that is kind of impressive in the absence of an advertising budget, much less the military might that forced much of the world to speak English.
It is true that changing a language doesn’t change human nature. But nothing does. Does that mean that nothing is worth changing? It is a fact that making non-English-speakers learn English in order to compete with English people is in itself a form of bullying and it can be stopped. That is a positive thing in itself. It is as big an achievement as most goals societies strive for.
About realism, remarkable things do happen. Most of the world adopted the metric system because it is a better idea. The Israeli’s recreated Hebrew almost from scratch (not scrap) and made it the official language of an entire country just 100 years after it was nearly completely abandoned. There are others, we don’t have to take the path that the status quo favors. I’m sure that plenty of “realists” said that the consequences and costs were too huge, acceptance too unlikely, and yet here we are. This is reality and I know it so I guess I’m a realist too.
There is an excellent (but enormous!) book by the futurist Dr Peter Ellyard, called “Designing 2050″ which shows that there are clear trends in today’s reality favoring justice, democracy, globalism and tribalism (like protecting Greek language and culture). Adoption of Esperanto by Europe would fit well with this zeitgeist.
Regarding expense, I’m pretty sure that it would cost a lot more to persuade Europe to accept Italian as its language than Esperanto because 1. It requires six times the investment of time from every citizen (got 600 hours to spare? English-speakers sure don’t) and 2. It’s not fair. Why should they win? They are a minority. It isn’t a diplomatic language… I don’t even want to get into all that. The cheapest solution to promote is the fairest.
And just think, your niece, and all Europeans, could save the time and $expense of at least 500 hours of English instruction, to spend on dance, if she could achieve full international literacy in 100 hours instead of 600 or more.
Hi Leon,
Don’t you wish that they could do a course for a month, like this one: http://www.esperanto-insulo.info/ on the Chinese island of Hai Nan Dao- and then be competent in their new language?
Of course no-one needs to travel so far to learn, but it is a fun option to escape the European winter for a bit and come back bilingual, or more as the case may be:-)
The BEK course is in its third year and has been very successful.You certainly couldn’t do that with English!
Who is in the Esperanto Lobby? Many, including British politicians. See http://www.esperantolobby.net
The British Government now employs Esperanto translators. I don’t know whether is has been a result of political pressure but it confirms that there certainly is a demand for it.
Well you guys we will agree to disagree…Until there is a research not from a Esperantist lobby, but from our Governments and other NGOs, to say that to establish Esperanto as a common European/World language can be done in a beneficial way, it won’t cost or it will cover the costs in the long run..I can not say that I am convinced…I have nothing against the language of Esperanto or those who use it…But to invest so much money for something that a small group of people suggest it is for the betterment of the world..Well I do not know..
Today I got stopped by two Hare Krishna’s or whatever they were trying to convince me to join them in being vegetarian and spread loving kindness to the world, be more spiritual and stuff like that…To me the esperanto movement is something similar..It is great in theory and I admit that the idea behind it is great and has some points…But in the real lives of the real people that they care more for jobs, opportunities for growth, wealth, stability..That they have to think about a better education, health care and housing for them and the children…Well a language that might promote peace in the world and allow them to communicate with others i do not think it will catch their attention…
How do you convince somebody that has no job, having spent 5-7 years in studies, has no money so he can not travel to meet with people of other nationalities and speak this new language…That the Government will spend billions while trying to introduce it…Many people do not even feel that learning English is of any use to them, since they do not have any plans in moving, traveling or working abroad…Others will oppose any second official language that will allow more foreigners to enter and settle in their country..Not everyone has the same ideas like you and me, and you got to understand this…Your idea will pass, only if people see that is necessary, that it will better their lives…
Good luck with your efforts….
Thanks, Christos
It is certainly easier to shrug and turn away than to accept that any innovation has to be understood by a few, before it can be understood by many. I know most people don’t want to be pioneers, or advocates, or early adopters- that is life.
And Christos, maybe this is hard for you because you have already paid the price of learning English. It makes sense that many Europeans in your position will feel that:
1. a third language burden on you (no matter how light) is just too much.
2. that you would rather not know that there was an easier way available all along.
3. That if you could learn English, anyone can.
I hope that you can understand , starting from the bottom, that not everyone can do what you did. English is beyond the means of many, for one reason or another.
And that discovering Esperanto late, is better than not discovering it at all, especially when your concern extends beyond yourself to your niece and her generation and the next…
There should come a day when your niece can spend as many hours dancing as mine, because mine doesn’t have to find time to learn Greek.
The native English-speakers in favour of Esperanto for Europe are a bit like Warren Buffet protesting against a the system that advantages him unfairly, at the expense of others. Any wonder there are few of them!
Those with most to gain from the initiative are, of course, absent because this discussion is in English.
Europe cannot function efficiently as a union without a common language.
Keeping English as the dominant language makes less sense than Europe adopting imperial measures or pounds stirling, for England’s convenience.
The symbol of Europe is equal stars in a circle, equidistant from the centre. I think that it is supposed to show equal respect for all members.
Freeing them all from an obligation to spend more than 100 hours and whatever that costs, for English education, would show that the symbol means something.
True..I already speak English, Greek and German..I invested in learning those languages…I personally find English the easiest language to learn, together with Italian…And most people I know do speak English at least, some even know a third or a fourth language..I have a friend back in Greece that speaks Greek, English, French and now he is learning Spanish…The level of each language might not be the same, but he could easily travel and work in half of Europe with the languages he speaks…
It is not the fact that I do not want to discover Esperanto, but simply if i do it i will do it for my own hobby or pleasure..I won’t promote it to others…If our Governments decide to chose esperanto as our second official language, i won’t oppose it, but i would like to know how they came to this decision..i do not want them to waste my money just because some lobbyists sold them an idea…it has to be for my and my children’s benefit…it has to be viable, with potential and a decision taken seriously…
Hi Christos,
You are right that the decision should be for the benefit of the people, and demonstrably so.
By now, I think you could you list several ways that it would be to the benefit of your children (and the children of other Europeans who may or may not speak English) if European leaders did choose Esperanto. Couldn’t you?
Well I support the idea of a second official language in Europe for all anyway…My idea was this language to be English, or German or French if the British left the EU or did not want to be part of any further integration etc..
I will support esperanto only if i am presented with evidence that it will be cheaper, easier, viable, and the people will support it and accept it..
If the people do not, then there is nothing that you or I can do about it…And the evidence must come from an EU body or our Governments..Not your lobby..You made your suggestion, you did your part…Now let’s hear it from the decision makers..And wait..
http://el.lernu.net/helpo/kiel_komenci.php
and try.
Within less than 20 hours you’ll have your own first hand opinion about how easy is Esperanto.
I did in 2004.
Christos, Penelope, Brian, and Leon, and others, what a great discussion. I’ve really enjoyed reading it.
I decided to investigate esperanto a few years ago when I was ill. I couldn’t move much and couldn’t afford classes or tutors so the free esperanto courses on lernu.net seemed like a good idea to give me something to exercise my brain during recovery. It was so easy to learn and communication in esperanto started almost immediately. Now I enjoy regular conversations in esperanto with people around the world. I read books from other cultures that I would never have be able to before. My kids have picked up quite a bit and I don’t even speak esperanto to them. – All for free, in a short span of time, in the comfort of my home. What other language could give me that?
I wish I had learned esperanto in school; I firmly believe it would have increased my ability to learn other languages. I learned French for years and took an immersion course as well but I cannot speak it or write it past the basic level. Interestingly, learning Esperanto seems to have re-awaken those latent French lessons and I have noticed that my understanding of written French has improved significantly in the last year or two.
Cheers to all. Can’t wait for the continuation of the conversation.
Hi Regan,
Thanks for sharing your inspiring story.
I’d like to talk with you about telling it in another forum. If you are willing, please send me a message through the Mondeto website and we can take it from there.
Today is the European Day of Languages, so let’s remeber it here also and hope that one day it will be possible to communicate in a common neutral language in Europe, as well as outside Europe
It was good to see Stephen Fry taking Esperanto seriously on his programme “Planet Word”. Unfortunately the representative from the United Nations – who claimed she was an expert on the subject – knew absolutely nothing about the language.
Not only did she not know that Esperanto intends to be an auxiliary language for all but did not know either that the World Esperanto Association enjoys consultative relations with the United Nations and is using that position to defend the rights of all minority languages. Confirmation is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR7vD9kChBA&feature=related
Borje, to me the European Day of Languages represents the diversity and the wealth of the European linguistic heritage..It is a celebration of multilingualism..Not “monolingualism”..!!
Hi Christos,
Monolingualism is when you ONLY have one language. It’s common in English-speaking countries partly because English is such a big and complex language that we spend about 2 hours a day for the first 9 years of formal education and another hour a day for another 6, not counting the practice effect of studying all our other subjects in English, and being surrounded by it in the media and daily interaction, in order to master our own language as well as we do. It is a common belief among English-speakers that this leaves no time for other language learning.
If Europe chooses this great Hummer of a language as its common tongue, the days of other languages are numbered as more people decide to invest limited resources in English instead of in their own tongues.
If Europe chooses the light and efficient Esperanto, there will be plenty of time left to celebrate your roots and maintain your heritage- and even learn a bit of what the neighbours speak at home.
I think that earns it a place in the Day of Languages.
@Christos Yes of course, I also like the diversity of languages and it would be good if we could use all of them here too! But I think it is quite clear that we also need a common languge , why are we using English here otherwise? Really I don’t want monolingualism.
In my opinion we should have one common language that all people living in Europe should have it as an official one. Just like the United States have their American-English language.
But Esperanto… Maybe YES because it is neutral and maybe NO because it is unknown to most of us.
We, Europeans, have a challenge. We do want that our common language doesn’t harm our native ones. Every previous similar situation shows that between 2 natives the balance isn’t stable and may induce local irredentisms (a french word ? ), potentially growing to terrorism.
I have been reading “The English Language” by C.L. Wrenn, first published in 1949. The author clearly adores English and has spent a lifetime learning about other languages in order to throw more light on his subject. His scholarship is impressive.
So, I found this quote interesting:
“Two kinds of difficulty have been encountered by the advocates of English as a world language:-first its vast and complex vocabulary, and second, the lack of relationship between its spelling and pronunciation.”
It is interesting to see a different perspective on what constitutes “the problem” of English for intercultural use.
Esperanto is not his subject so it is reasonable that his judgement there is less informed. He believed that Esperanto, like other designed languages before and since, would tend to become static due to lack of “natural growth”.
Dum mi verkas kaj Esperante kaj komputilete, mi devas malkonsenti. (While I compose both in Esperanto and on my laptop I must disagree)
Pingback: What should ‘European education’ look like? | Debating Europe
This debate has been quiet for a while and I was wondering what conclusions each of you have reached.
1. Do you think that Europe *should* have a common language (as well as those existing)?
2. Do you think it *should* be Esperanto? Or English? Or something else?
3. What is your main reason for thinking that it * should* be so?
1. Yes, but they should just give support to the notion (make it official) without actually investing money into it. I don’t believe Esperanto needs any financial backing to be successful (and this makes people overly attached to money happy).
2. Yes, Esperanto (See answer 3.)
3. The only way Europe can can achieve this, is to create something that isn’t buyest ( <- spelling?) to a particular country or culture. A common second language will never be agreed upon, unless it is neutral. Esperanto wins on merit, because throughout its (for a conlang) long history it has had such a positive, accepted following without being dictating to its learners or having financial backing.
I quite like this for a slogan: "Esperanto, the unofficial second language of Europe". It suggests what it should be, but without dictating what people should do.
Leon pravas. Tamen, sen trudi ĝin, almenaŭ instruu ĝin en lernejoj.
Léon a raison. Toutefois, sans l’imposer, au moins l’enseigner à l’école.
Leon is right. However not imponing it just teach it at school.
Thanks Leon and Robert, what do the rest of you think? Christos?
Jes a common language for Europe is needed. That shows the use of English, e.g. here.
It should be a neutral language as Esperanto. I think there is no better possibility or choise .
We have to work on this goal, use the language as much as possible, without truding it to other people, anyhow telling to other people about this possibility and hope…..
One dominant language is always best. And if it is English, so be it. The EU could save an enormous amount of money not having to translate everything into all languages. I think that is a mindboggling expense that is not cost-efficient. Oh, and the french have ALWAYS been sore loosers…
Hi Talis, welcome to the discussion.
So, you are in favour of Europe having a common language, me too.
Would you be a gracious loser if the choice was French?
I would find it pretty hard, myself.
People do confuse linguistic competence with intelligence and it can be uncomfortable to be judged that way. Have you had that experience?
Pingback: Is a European identity possible? | Debating Europe
The graph equals 109.02%. How exactly did you all get these percentages?
Hi Tomias,
Because a person can speak more than one language.
The figures are taken from Eurobarometer here.