1919 was almost a century ago, situation then was completely different to what it is now. The October Revolution triumph was newly minted and they were already showing their dark side. France was still a world power (militarily) with many colonies (few of which amount to much after a century has passed). The World was at it most violent point while French was the language of diplomacy. WWI was entirely a European thing. WWII was also an entirely European thing, until the US was dragged in to help its ally, England, saving Europe´s ass in the process. So much for diplomacy. The US also saved the Jewish people´s ass, when most of Europe, if not all, wanted them exterminated (they still do).
The British did everything in their power to come on top, so did Germany, France, Spain, etc. they just happen to actually wind up on top. Ingenious little bastards.
Regarding the return on the investment, are you actually saying that the return on the investment with English was poor? Really? Come on! look at the map.
Little England begot: The USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada just to mention a few. What did France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. begot? Anything good?
A failure of diplomacy. Well let´s see: The Berlin Wall, the Cold War, nuclear warheads in the Caribbean, should I go on?
But my point is that whether I am in agreement with all that or not.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LANGUAGE. It was an entirely human thing, it would have happened the same way if other languages were spoken by the same players.
So do not kill the messenger!
Look forward to the future, it looks better and brighter than ever before. In any language. (Well not Arabic)
I also want to thank you, and Robb, and all the others. You convinced me. I am going to learn Esperanto all over again! So that I can enlighten those Esperantists that still do not know the true.
It will be better with English!
PD. And Remuŝ, that is just propaganda, they do not answer any question nor they present real supporting evidence for any of their statements. it is just like religion and communism, they offer a lot, they give nothing and you have to believe in what they say, on faith!
14 days 3.4.2018 $12/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $13/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $14/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $15/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $16/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $19/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $24/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $27/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $15/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $16/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $17/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $18/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $19/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $22/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $27/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $33/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $18/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $19/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $20/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $21/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $22/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $25/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $28/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $38/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $21/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $22/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $25/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $27/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $30/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $33/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $39/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $47/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $27/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $28/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $30/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $33/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $35/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $42/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $50/page
Anagomezgarcia's Weblog | This is a blog for my …
Okay, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that my name is Cristina Gomez, and my parents immigrated to the US from Mexico. So I was born in the US, and have never been to Mexico in my life. Now, the language of the US is US English, right? But I (we are supposing) grew up speaking Spanish in my everyday life, and although I of course also learned English, I’m still more comfortable speaking Spanish. But by your definitions, we would have to conclude, that Spanish is my second language! Can’t you see how absurd that is?
Metaphor dictionary definition | metaphor defined
As an interpreter my work is iscreasingly about: first trying to understand what a non native speaker is saying in English, and in second place thinking about how to say it in French. And I’m slightly more impartial than my profession may suggest as I will easily reach the end of my working life before English becomes the official language of Europe. Besides you will first have to put down a series of revolutions against any government that tries to enforce this. My experience is that people are very attached to their mother tongue.
We're proud of having the most translations of this phrase online
I am not one to shy away from my mistakes, which by the way are plentiful. As I have shown herein in multiple occasions. In others, I simply do not believe I am mistaken, just by giving me a different point of view or opinion does not make mine wrong.
And I disagree with you regarding the longevity of the solutions obtained based on numbers. It is not a short term fix, on the contrary, in most cases, if not all, the solution will be a permanent one, but only if the numbers used were correct. of course.
I will agree with you that Esperanto is a good solution if used as Lingua Franca, I have said that before.
I do not agree with the over simplistic point of view that Esperanto is the best solution just because it is a simplified, regularized, constructed language which is easier to learn than other languages, including English. That may be true, but people still have to dedicate time to its learning, time to practice it and time to increase their vocabulary and learn how to use the new words correctly. The grammar may be simpler and easier, but still you have to study it to learn it. I mean, not even honest Esperantists believe that the language can be mastered in just a few weeks. That is simply not true and no amount of propaganda will make it so.
I also agree that any other language, which is not semantically limited, will also be a good solution. They just vary in the amount of effort a person has to invest to learn it. My opinion is that any language will be a good solution, the question is: How do we make 7 billion people learn the language?
By convincing them to learn the language. That is the tricky part. If people are not interested, there is no amount of “teaching” that will make them learn. That is what make Esperanto easier for the people who study it. They want to learn and it is for that reason they make the time and put the effort. That is true because there is not practical, monetary benefit attached to learning Esperanto. With other languages, including English, many people study it because they want to learn it for the sake of it, for those becoming proficient is just a matter of time. However, many others study English for the perceived, real or imaginary according to the specific case, practical or monetary benefits. They do not want to learn the language for the sake of it but for an expected benefit. For these learning will be more difficult.
And now, why I advocate English over Esperanto.
There is a lot more interest worldwide to learn English than to learn Esperanto, for whatever reasons.
There is a larger benefit package associated with learning English than with Esperanto, in the short and long term. The benefits do not go away with time; they just continue to grow for some or level off for others.
There is a considerably larger amount of people that already speak English, some better than others. There is a very small amount of people that already speak Esperanto, again some better than others.
A much larger initial investment is needed to take Esperanto to the position of World Lingua Franca than with English. There is a lot more already invested in English infrastructure.
There are a lot more people learning English, voluntarily and without the need of government subsidies, than there are Esperanto students.
There are a lot more countries with English as their de facto or official language.
English is already used as a communication means in most aspects of interaction among countries.
Esperanto is easier to learn than English. English is easier to learn than most other languages.
Esperanto grammar is easy, English grammar is easier than most other grammars.
Esperanto pronunciation is regular and predictable, English pronunciation on the other hand is a bitch.
Time and, generalized and standardized instruction will keep Esperanto pronunciation and grammar with little change, but will help regularize English pronunciation and probably simplify is grammar a little more.
A now some numbers.
There are over one thousand million people that already speak English to a certain level. There is less than 3 million Esperanto speaker that already speak Esperanto to a certain level.
There are trillions of dollars (or Euros if you wish) already invested in English infrastructure. There is little, almost not existing by comparison, investment in Esperanto infrastructure.
There are more people starting to learn English for the first time, every year, than the totality of the existing Esperanto speakers, just in China.
And I can continue but it becomes boring after a while.
So yes, I agree with you. Esperanto is a very good solution. If you are honest with yourself then you will have to agree with me that English is a much better solution. In the short term and in the long term. And once the goal is attained and every person in the World speak the same language the costs of maintenance are not much different. And the perceived, real or not, advantage that English native speakers are supposed to have will simply vanish.
Discrimination is a human thing, not a language thing, it will exist regardless of the language used, and will continue even after every person speak the same language. That is a different problem requiring a different solution. Taking advantage of one position against others is a human thing and will continue regardless of the language spoken, it requires a different solution.
The rest is just politics, so people pick their side based on their views.