John Koontz <koontz@bldr.nist.gov> wondered:
> Apologies in advance, Jon, but as an Esperanto-impaired person I can't
> help asking why an immitation European language (non-native to boot) that
> no one knows would be preferable to a real one that (apparently) almost
> everyone knows already?
As Jon L. noted in his full response, there are a number of separate issues
here.
The main one, with which he dealt at length, and which seems fundamentally
intractable to me, is what real or artificial language might be a suitable
lingua franca for use among the native peoples of Canada, given a
sensibility to the irony of having to use English (or French, or any other
European language) in this capacity.
The real irony, of course, is not in use of the language of outsiders
(European invaders and immigrants) per se, but that this process of use of
the outside language as a lingua franca is part of the process that leads to
the extinction of the native languages. For example, in pre contact periods
the language of intergroup contact would have been either one of the native
languages or some native-based lingua franca, of which a number are
attested. But English and French have usurped both of these roles, and the
particular result of the use of English or French as a lingua franca within
the home, i.e., between parents in a linguistically mixed marriage, is that
the children learn the lingua franca. Use in legal systems and parliaments
doesn't seem to be as dangerous ...
Given the almost universal principle that no one will learn a new language
to either (a) save it from extinction or (b) avoid using another language
already known, there is apparently little to be done about it. It seems
that people will only learn a new language when there is a real survival or
economic advantage to it, and not always then. (The situation is somewhat
analogous to the conditions under which a person will learn a new text
editor or word processor, or a new computer interface! Assuming you don't
already know it, when was the last time you felt the urge to master vi?)
The next issue is the subsidiary one of whether Esperanto might be suitable
as a lingua franca. I think learning it would present no particularl
problems to someone already conversant with English or French, but I doubt
many people conversant in English or French would care to learn Esperanto to
avoid using either of the former, especially when it would be apparent to
any of the people in question that Esperanto was essentially a calque of
English and French, and not of one of their native languages. Esperanto
only looks like a genuine abstract of human language in general if you are
only familiar with European languages, and even if it were a genuine
abstract, it is a European cultural product.
FInally, Jon LIECHTY <ucs.indiana.edu!JLIECHTY> responded:
> P.S. What, after all, is an "immitation language"? Who, exactly, is
> "nobody"? I assume that no offense was intended, and I'm asking these
> things as an aside because, while they're off the subject, I simply can't
> ignore them.
Invented, artificial, or immitation (sorry about my use of a loaded word)
languages suffer in my view from the difficulty that they seek to replace a
rather poorly understood natural mental tool and cultural artifact with some
a priori created substitute. Since we have little idea what makes a language
suited to task, why would we want to handicap ourselves, potentially, by
switching to the artificial substitute? In particular, I suspect that
Esperanto only works because its speakers are able to borrow lexicon and
structures at need from other European languages they know. However, this
is my last word on the subject, and I refuse to get involved in any further
debate on the validity or utility (a separate issue) of invented languages.
There are lists for this, and there's a reason I don't subscribe to them.
Life is too short.
Here `nobody' or, rather `no one', referred to my suspicion that knowledge of
Esperanto is limited among the native peoples of Canada, perhaps even more
so than it is world wide. Again, I was guilty of using a loaded word. I
should have said `very, very few'. I also do not wish to debate, however,
the eternal question of how many people speak Esperanto, or, for that
matter, whether there are any native speakers of it.
I hope my unwillingness to debate the issues I am not willing to debate will
not prevent Jon from feeling welcome to post his information or opinions on
the subject! I do not wish to quash the debate, only to avoid participating
in it directly!
John Koontz (koontz@bldr.nist.gov)