Author: machjo

English and racism. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-5 13:14:28 |Display all floors

With pleasure!

"I can present more, but I believe that this alone should be enough proof that Esperanto is far easier to learn than English. And as you can see, unlike in English, your word base grows exponentially in Esperanto since the Esperanto dictionary doesn't include words, only roots. You create your own words according to the roots and grammar rules. So every additional root you learn can be used to create new words with all the already known roots."

Mi povas prezenti plus, sed mi kredas ke tio sole devus eti suficha da pruvo ke Esperanto estas multe pli facile lernebla ol la angla.  Kaj kiel vi povas vidi, ne kiel la angla, via vortbazo kreskas eksponente en Esperanto char la Esperanto-vortaro ne inkluzivas vortojn, nur radikojn. Vi kreas viajn proprajn vortojn lauh la radikoj kaj gramatikaj reguloj.  Do chiu plia radiko kies vi lernas oni povas uzi por krei novajn vortojn  kune kun la jam-konata radikaro.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-5 13:41:18 |Display all floors

Yes, English is invented.

Hi Bossel, and sorry, I have to disagree also.

"Of course, parts of languages can be invented, no discussion there. The evolution of language as such is a natural process, though. English came into being not through invention but through evolution."

I would argue that evolution and invention are not necessarily contradictory terms.  And again not a single word or rule of grammar in English today would exist had someone not invented it at some stage or other.

"Regarding, creation: Hmm, well, you could say language was/is created, since it is somehow "produced through imaginative skill"(an M-W definition). But this is usually not done deliberately."

Whether creation is done deliberately or not, creation is still creation.  In that sence the only difference between, say, English and Esperanto, is that one was created in a more ad hoc manner, whereas the other in a more planned fashion.

"Language is a cognitive process. That does not mean that every change in language is conscious. Language change can be triggered by one person or group through conscious adoption of a foreign (or invention of a new) word/phoneme/whatever, but the language changes only if the new word is also adopted by the majority of speakers. This adoption (if it happens at all) can be on a conscious level, but is more likely to be sub-conscious."

I would agree with this paragraph, but  then again, I don't see any difference between English and Esperanto in that respect.  New roots are being introduced into Esperanto all the time, sometimes conciously, sometimes subconsciously, but what's the difference in the end?  It's still a created word.  And just like in English it won't get widespread acceptance unless many in the community eventually choose to accept it.  And usually that will depend on whether there really is a need for such a root or word in the end.

"(Grammar) Rules only describe what happens naturally, just like laws of nature. Laws of nature are only an attempt at describing why nature behaves in certain ways, in no way are they deliberate creations of nature itself."

On the contrary, grammar rules are very deliberate.  As you may have noticed, many in society, for various social, political, historical and other reasons, will tend to prefer one form of English to another.  For example, many opine British English to be refined or snobish, Southern American English to be corse, lower class, rednecked, uneducated, etc.  Why?  Not because one form is intrinsically better than the other, but because of various stereotypes formed through various processes, in the same way as there is a debate over ebonics.  So if someone said "mouses" one day, due to constant drilling  or, if you will, "avlovian conditioning" in school, most would regard it as incorrect usage, and therefore would not allow the language to evolve in that manner.  Likewise, the fact that government itself has made it clear that ebonics will receive no government funding indicates clearly that language is a very human and social, not natural, process.  After all, who would argue that "avlovian conditioning" in school to prevent the natural introduction of words like "mouses", or more logical spellings to be introduced, is a natural and not deliberate process.  Without it, I can guarantee that spellings such as "colonel" would no longer exist today.  Constant dictation in school could likewise be viewed in the same light.  Therefore I must say that all languages are created in the end.

"I'm talking solely of spoken language, BTW, writing systems are a different matter."

"many words entered through Germanic, such as king (koenig), then through latin after the Romans conquered, such as "et cetera". Then when the Franks conquered England the English took more words such as "government"."
You're confusing the events in history a little bit, it seems."

My apologies on the historical errors on my part.

"English is a West Germanic language, it reached England only after the Romans already had left. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians & maybe some smaller tribes conquered "England" in the 5th century. Another conquest was in 1066, when the Normans (not the Franks) came & with them the 1st major influx of French words. Before the Normans, the Vikings (Norwegian & Danish) left their mark (in England & the language), esp. in the area of the Danelaw."

'"it's been proven by linguists that children naturally look for patterns in language."
I can't see how this could disprove that language change in general occurs naturally.'

As I'd mentioned above, seeing that children naturally look for patterns in language, then it stands to reason that for various social reasons, as mentioned above  relating to social class, stereotyping, etc, then the only way for irregularities to survive in the long term is through deliberate "avlovian conditioning" generation after generation.

In conlusion, therefore, I must say that both English and Esperanto are equally created languages, though Esperanto is planned, English is not.  That's perhaps the main difference.  And from that standpoint, if planning can make a language easier to learn, then is that such a bad thing?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-5 13:49:08 |Display all floors

English not so widespread.

"English was not invented & it can be spoken all over the world "

I've lived all over Canada and various parts of China.

Beware of statistics.  In Canada practically 100% of the population is studying English, yet more than 20% can't speak it.  In China practically 90% of the population is studying English, yet if you walk through the streets of most cities, you need to know Chinese.  In Europe, more than 93% are studying English, yet only 5 to 6% CLAIM to be funtional in it.

There was another study done once.  In Europe, They asked random people all over the continent if they knew a second language, well over 50% said yes, yet when these same people were given a competence test in the supposed second language to test basic competence, only about 43% proved to at least be sufficiently functional in it.  That's not to say fluent, never mind native like fluency.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-5 21:01:36 |Display all floors

Deviating tricks or outright stupidity---1

Re:  "Remember, "English" means the language INVENTED and SPOKEN by the ENGLISH people and NOT by some SUBSERVIENT FORMER COLONIZED SUBJECTS."

I request all learned forumites to judge which of the two examples below is the CORRECT way to split the above sentence into two sentences without change in the original meaning:-

a)  "Remember, "English" means the language INVENTED and SPOKEN by the ENGLISH people.
b)  "Remember, "English" does NOT mean the language INVENTED and SPOKEN by some SUBSERVIENT FORMER COLONIZED SUBJECTS."

a) English means the language invented by the English people.
b) English is spoken by the English people & not by some subservient former colonized subjects.

Compare this sentence example:-

"Bread is made from FLOUR and WATER and NOT from SAND and CEMENT"

Should it be split this way:-

a) "Bread is made from FLOUR and WATER"
b) "Bread is NOT made from SAND and CEMENT" ?

or should it be split this way ?

a) "Bread is made from flour."
b) "Bread is by water and not by sand and cement." ?

( Try your tricks on some HINDLISH-yapping BUMPKIN and not on me bossel BHAI !! )

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-6 02:20:51 |Display all floors

Esperanto, easy?? You must be kidding, machjo!!!

Maybe Esperanto is easy for Europeans and Latin Americans but I am certain it wouldn't be easy for most Chinese nor other people in the Far East. Haven't you noticed that even LEARNED Chinese people here in this forum DO NOT pay much attention to the LATIN spellings of the English words which they use and work with every day? How do you think they would do with words they can't even pronounce?

Here is a simple and common pronunciation example from Hongkong:-

" Come to counter seven, please" is pronounced as " Come to kun-ta say-fun, piss"!

Translate "Come to counter seven, please" in Esperanto and after I tell you how it is going to be pronounced, then judge if it is STILL Esperanto!!!

Use magic tools Report

bossel has been deleted
Post time 2004-4-6 10:32:30 |Display all floors

Oh my! I made a mistake!

Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-4-6 10:41:33 |Display all floors


I have Chinese Esperanto-speaking friends who taught themselves Esperanto, and they speak it like a native.  On the telephone I can't tell the difference between a Canadian a Chinese, a Pole or an Italian in Esperanto.  Yet every Chinese English speaker I have come across, no matter how fluent, will always have at least some accent.

Why?  Because Esperanto spelling is totally phonetic; in fact some of the people responsible fo creating Chinese Pinyin knew Esperanto, so the similarities between Esperanto and Pinyin are not coinsidental.  Also, because the grammar is so much simpler, the learner doesn't need to try to remember a million facts all at once, and always doubting if the grammar rules apply in each circumstance.  Therefore the few facts they do need to learn, they can focus on, and that way learn them well.  Also the root system and counting system in Esperanto bear some similarities with Chinese also.

As for "Come to counter seven, please."
"Bonvenu veni al la vendotablo sep."

Again, my Chinese friends could say it without distinction between them and me.

So before making any further comments about Esperqanto, learn more about it please.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.