Esperanto -- Should it be considered a real language? (11)

1 Name: Zamenhoff/Hasselhoff : 2008-04-02 22:56 ID:vOXcgYuw

Other Languages: convey meaning
Esperanto: Disregard that. I suck cocks!

2 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-03 19:59 ID:5MK2pufs

>>1

Forfikigxu.

3 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-04 14:02 ID:2hseDS9L

So does Esperanto, it's just conveying meaning in a different way.

4 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-05 00:56 ID:oX6P4+PM

Esperanto is designed to be a universal second language, ∴ it has slightly different goals.

The Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that Esperanto fulfilled all requirements of a living language.[citation needed]

5 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-05 01:07 ID:Jsn7tzWh

> Esperanto is designed to be a universal second language, ∴ it has slightly different goals.

to be fair non-constructed languages don't exactly have some sort of teological aim.

also i would put forth that while esperanto does in fact convey meaning it has to date never been used to convey anything worth being communicated.

6 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-05 01:29 ID:oX6P4+PM

>>5
> also i would put forth that while esperanto does in fact convey meaning it has to date never been used to convey anything worth being communicated.
You got me there. (Although a lot of good books have been translated, I don't think that counts.)

There is one thing about Esperanto which interests me more than most other aspects, which is its effect on learning other languages afterwards:
Several studies demonstrate that studying Esperanto before another foreign language speeds and improves learning the second language, to a greater extent than other languages which have been investigated. This appears to be because learning subsequent foreign languages is easier than learning one's first, while the use of a grammatically simple and culturally flexible auxiliary language like Esperanto lessens the first-language learning hurdle. In one study,[15] a group of European secondary school students studied Esperanto for one year, then French for three years, and ended up with a significantly better command of French than a control group, who studied French for all four years. Similar results were found when the course of study was reduced to two years, of which six months was spent learning Esperanto.

7 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-06 02:32 ID:Jsn7tzWh

>>6
That's very interesting, but I'd like to see some more thorough studies, e.g. esperanto+french, someotherlanguage+french, anotherlanguage+french, french control group.

8 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-06 17:08 ID:vPM2bqt2

>>7
The source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto. I haven't had time to read it fully myself yet, so I'm not sure if it will be useful to you.

9 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-06 17:10 ID:vPM2bqt2

>>8
Another interesting passage to me:

> In summary, it was concluded that, among the less intelligent students, those who devoted a year to Esperanto succeeded better in French after four years, without additional study time for that language in the three years spent studying it.
> In any case, among the more intelligent students, the best success in French was among those who began it immediately. Those who began with Esperanto achieved a better "passive knowledge" and those who began with French acquired better "active use."

10 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-07 19:26 ID:5MK2pufs

Well, it's not like speaking it is going to hurt anyone.

11 Name: Anonymous Linguist : 2008-04-09 02:43 ID:EUu5eJWs

It's as much of a language as any other, but everyone ends up bickering about how effective it really is as a second language, and nobody confirms that little fact, sadly.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.