# Auxlangs



## Leopold

Hi was doubting about posting this in the Other Languages forum or here. I've decided this is a culural issue.
 Well, i'd like to know which are the feelings of the forum people about auxlangs (international auxiliary languages, such as esperanto, ido, interlingua, volapuk, etc). I really have no idea if this kind of thing is still supported by someone in the EU or elsewhere in a serious way.
 Do you think it would be good to use an auxlang? Do you think that's impossible? Do you think it's better to use an already existant language? Which auxlang do you prefer? etc.

 If someone wants some more information i leave you here some (almost random) links about it:
http://www.kafejo.com/lingvoj/auxlangs/
http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue104/conlangs.html
http://vido.net/atlango/
http://www.langmaker.com/
http://interlingua.com
http://www.esperanto.net/
http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/
 etc etc etc

 Now i'll go to bed. Goodnight.

 L.


----------



## Lems

In the Middle Ages Latin was used as the international language. French already had it’s time and presently it is the English the language of choice. The number of people who speaks the Auxlangs is quite low compared to English. I don’t believe a language “imposed” as the international will work as such. 

That reminds me of a clever dean who did not pave the paths between the buildings of a newly established university but rather had all the campus covered with grass. Six months after it was operational he simply paved the paths chosen by the students and faculty members as shown by worn grass.    

Lems
______________________________
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.


----------



## Artrella

I don't like the idea of a universal language.  As Lems says it has to be imposed.  Why? Because of distance.  Would a country whose government think they are the *best in the world* share the same language as 3rd world countries? I don't think so.  We already have English as an auxiliar language, though they say it will be taken over by Chinese...    
I like differences. A universal language such as Esperanto or another one, will be something imposed artificially and I don't like to be imposed nor imposing anything.
Besides I LOVE LANGUAGES!!! If there were only one language, what would we do??? What would we study??? There would be no more foreros!!!!

No way!!!  Que vivan los idiomas; cuántos más, mejor!!!!!


Art    



PS: I like your signature Lems!!!! Muy buena!!!!


----------



## Leopold

Well, i don't think it would be an imposition, but a choice. And it does not have to be universal. It would be really difficult to create a language which was equally easy for everyone (asiatics, africans, europeans...). But if the aim is to be able to communicate easily among different languages with common roots, it would make everything simpler. I'm talking about functionality, not about letting that hypothetic language replace all the other languages. I mean, the fact that i speak English does not mean that i won't study more languages because i have enough since lots of people will understand it.
Take th EU, now we have more than 20 different languages, and everything has to be translated or interpreted to every single language. 
Understand me, I like it like that. It's chaoticly wonderful and everything. But that means lots of money and to be true, what people in the EU want is not to enjoy language, but to communicate clearly. The best way is of course the full translation, but that's more and more difficult, i think. 
In addition, there are people, that just are not good at atll at languages, or just don't have the time to learn it, etc. We have to consider that an auxlang, which is really easier than any other language one can learn, could let lots of people in those circumstances to be able to communicate in a simple (and hoping) efficient way.

Well, don't take me too seriously. This is just my everyday rambling time. 

L.


----------



## Artrella

> *Leopold*
> equally easy for everyone (asiatics, africans,....)




Leo, be careful with that!


Art


----------



## Lems

Artrella said:
			
		

> (...)
> 
> PS: I like your signature Lems!!!! Muy buena!!!!


Me alegro que le gusto, Art.   

Besote.

Lems

.


----------



## araceli

¡¿Se imaginan un arrorró en esperanto y/o ido?!?


----------



## araceli

Fuera de broma, yo apoyo la idea de Zamenhoff y otros, especialmente para usos comerciales, diplomáticos, etc.


----------



## walnut

I'm curious... Anybody speaks Esperanto? Is it fine to speak, I mean does it give the same pleasure as a non-artificial language? 
Silly question, but I really would like to hear the experiences of an esperanto (or volapuk, or...) -speaking forero.

Personally, I'm not interested in learning this kind of languages. Very difficult for me to imagine something more democratic than language and the way it's shared among people naturally speaking it. I feel there's something too abstract and idealistic in "creating" a language. The idea makes me feel a bit nervous, unsafe... 
Ciao! Walnut


----------



## lauranazario

I, on the other hand, find the possibility of learning a language like Esperanto utterly fascinating. There is an 'upside' to artificial languages... and that is everyone who is intent on speaking it would have to learn it from scratch, and that would be a marvelously equalizing factor... there would be no regionalisms, no nuances, no difference in usage and gramatical structure. You would be able to perfectly understand and communicate with a person who learned Esperanto in the Gobi Desert, in Antartica or Tierra del Fuego.

Of course, Esperanto and other 'created' languages should not and will not replace the languages we know and speak today... but imagine if key global negotiations could be carried out in one single language where no speaker would have the advantage or could hide behind the political double-speak!

At least I would like to think of it that way. 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Jessuki

Ok, the first thing I think of is the lack of time and money depending on the different countries (we are assuming that this created-official language would be talked in every single part of the world, right? I see problems of time and money spent in education. Basic education.. not to talk about a new created official language.. do you see my point?)

And secondly, I also see problems of concepts. I mean, different cultures/regions etc have different concepts. How would a created language treat that?

To give a 'silly' example: in Spain there is only one noun referring to the colour 'white', that is 'blanco'. But in Alaska, they have 30 words referring to different shades of white. You see? How many words would we have for 'white' in Esperanto, ? only one or 30? 
(I know I am not making myself clear, sorry    but 'a buen entendedor pocas palabras bastan' jeje)

I think this could be applied to concepts. 
Different societies =  different concepts = but same words for different concepts?

It would be a case of 'polisemia' so to say? 
punctuality, in esperanto:  xxxx
xxxx =  the english concept of punctuality?
           the spanish one?
           the argentinian one?

(just an example, dont take it as an stereotype)

Will all the african tribes and all the europeans have the same concept of family and family relationships (example: concept of divorce)? therefore, will all of them use the same word? I don't think so. The following step will be using that esperanto word but always specifying the speaker. "Yeah, I mean xxxx but in the european sense"

Really, I don't think I am making myself clear.. sorry  

Where I see the problem is using one word that includes all the different concepts of the different countries/societies.. I can't find any good example to show this.. 

Moreover, I will add the problem of connotations.. 

*feeling like a real mess*

Do you know about the sign/signifier/signified theory?
El significado y el significante. El significante es arbitrario y nos lo podemos inventar, pero qué pasa con el significado que cada cultura da a cada signo?

Aaaaah, qué lío!!! XD


----------



## Artrella

Jessuki said:
			
		

> Do you know about the sign/signifier/signified theory?
> El significado y el significante. El significante es arbitrario y nos lo podemos inventar, pero qué pasa con el significado que cada cultura da a cada signo?
> 
> Aaaaah, qué lío!!! XD





Saussure?? Yes, it's a little bit complicated. 
I agree with you... 
For example, in English you have 10000 different classes of "rain" whereas in Spanish we have 3 or 4... why? because their reality is that;  they have a lot of rain and we don't (at least in Argentina).  So they have to give many different names to that aspect of their reality.  We don't need that.  So it all depends on the reality of each people.



SIGNIFYING SYSTEM - FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE 


Bye!!  Art


----------



## Jessuki

Thanks Art! you've said in few words what I was trying to communicate!!    thanks for your help   


By the way, here you have another link   

http://www.criticism.com/md/the_sign.html#section-A-FINAL-WORD:-THE-INDETERMINANCY-OF-MEANING


Saludos!!


----------



## Artrella

Jessuki said:
			
		

> Thanks Art! you've said in few words what I was trying to communicate!!    thanks for your help
> 
> 
> By the way, here you have another link
> 
> http://www.criticism.com/md/the_sign.html#section-A-FINAL-WORD:-THE-INDETERMINANCY-OF-MEANING
> 
> 
> Saludos!!





Bueno Jessuki!! Muy bueno el link!!! Y lo de símbolo y signo está muy bien explicado por Umberto Ecco y Ernst Cassirer.

Besos, Art


----------



## Leopold

Jessuki said:
			
		

> Ok, the first thing I think of is the lack of time and money depending on the different countries (we are assuming that this created-official language would be talked in every single part of the world, right? I see problems of time and money spent in education. Basic education.. not to talk about a new created official language.. do you see my point?)
> 
> And secondly, I also see problems of concepts. I mean, different cultures/regions etc have different concepts. How would a created language treat that?
> 
> To give a 'silly' example: in Spain there is only one noun referring to the colour 'white', that is 'blanco'. But in Alaska, they have 30 words referring to different shades of white. You see? How many words would we have for 'white' in Esperanto, ? only one or 30?
> (I know I am not making myself clear, sorry    but 'a buen entendedor pocas palabras bastan' jeje)
> 
> I think this could be applied to concepts.
> Different societies =  different concepts = but same words for different concepts?
> 
> It would be a case of 'polisemia' so to say?
> punctuality, in esperanto:  xxxx
> xxxx =  the english concept of punctuality?
> the spanish one?
> the argentinian one?
> 
> (just an example, dont take it as an stereotype)
> 
> Will all the african tribes and all the europeans have the same concept of family and family relationships (example: concept of divorce)? therefore, will all of them use the same word? I don't think so. The following step will be using that esperanto word but always specifying the speaker. "Yeah, I mean xxxx but in the european sense"
> 
> Really, I don't think I am making myself clear.. sorry
> 
> Where I see the problem is using one word that includes all the different concepts of the different countries/societies.. I can't find any good example to show this..
> 
> Moreover, I will add the problem of connotations..
> 
> *feeling like a real mess*
> 
> Do you know about the sign/signifier/signified theory?
> El significado y el significante. El significante es arbitrario y nos lo podemos inventar, pero qué pasa con el significado que cada cultura da a cada signo?
> 
> Aaaaah, qué lío!!! XD


 Well, I don't think it would have to be used everywhere. I don't think an auxlang is necessary for everyone and everything. As Laura said it would be used in certain situations, such as international diplomacy, international commerce and other international stuff. It could even be used first just by people in charge of this situations as a way of making everything more equal, and eventually it could be acquired also by "common people". (I don't think is a crazy idea to ask the MP's the PM's and all this kind to pass some tests on basic culture and knowledge and *at least* a foreign language. Remember the ancient China)
 As i said i don't think that this auxlang should be imposed, it should be a choice. And it is not supposed to be a worldwide language, as for Asians, Africans and so on would find ido or interlingua or whatever as strange as English, Croatian or Magyar. The difference would be that these auxlangs are far easier than the other languages.
 And concepts. Let's see. I think that for diplomacy or international commerce there's no need for using so many sorts of white as in Alaska (by the way, some teacher told me one day that in fact they do not have so many names for white, but i'm not sure) or for explaining blood relations in an African tribal family. I really think that all that is beyond the point. It's obvious that i can explain (if necessary) in Spanish or English these ways of white or the African relation. Maybe i won't use a single word, but i'll be able to explain it. Simmilarly i can explain in Spanish the ways of raining in English, even if a don't have a single word for those circumstances. An auxlang is not meant to be an ubiquitous and almighty language. If i went living to Italy or to Sweden or to Myanmar it would be useless to speak esperanto or whatever, because no one would be giving away his own language. It's not (mainly, at least) about poetry or regional characteristics, but about communication. I'm communicating right now. In English. And there are probably lots of things i'm not saying 'cos i'm speaking English, instead of Spanish. Maybe i could express more nuances in Spanish, but anyway i'm communicating.
 So, if what i want is to communicate, wouldn't it be better if everyone would speak in the same second-language-condition? I mean, in an auxlang.

  I'm sorry about this horribly written post. But you all know you are always to feel free to correct me, if you feel like it. 

  L.

 PD. By the way, did you know there are some Esperanto native speakers??


----------



## kavaliro

walnut said:


> I'm curious... Anybody speaks Esperanto? Is it fine to speak, I mean does it give the same pleasure as a non-artificial language?
> Silly question, but I really would like to hear the experiences of an esperanto (or volapuk, or...) -speaking forero.
> 
> Personally, I'm not interested in learning this kind of languages. Very difficult for me to imagine something more democratic than language and the way it's shared among people naturally speaking it. I feel there's something too abstract and idealistic in "creating" a language. The idea makes me feel a bit nervous, unsafe...
> Ciao! Walnut


I speak Esperanto, and have for a few years now. I very much enjoy speaking it. To me it sounds like a cross between Russian and Italian. I find Esperanto to be vastly more expressive than English.  Honestly, I write to people in Esperanto than speak it, but I meet with other local esperantists 2 and sometimes 3 times a week, and there are people to chat with on Skype all the time, and My kids are learning to speak it as well. 

It was their choice to start learning, but of course I am very encouraging. Because Esperanto is so much easier to learn and so regular, learning it as a second language gives more bang for the buck. It's not "instant" gratification, but as languages go, it's close, and it gives them an early success in language studies, so they are more likely to learn more languages.

In the beginning, I was very gung-ho about Esperanto changing the world. Someday, it might. Now, I feel happy knowing a very culturally aware group of people from around the world, and I don't care so much about it's adoption as an international language. In a way, that would be nice, but it would disrupt the very beautiful culture that Esperantists share. I am content to watch Esperanto grow at it's own pace, as a "grass-roots" movement.

Esperanto is growing phenomenally, though not where you would expect. It's growth is in places like Brazil, China, and Burundi. There has been an explosion of new Esperanto speakers in Brazil. China has a high enough ratio of speakers that it grows on its own (plus, the government there encourages Esperantists), and Burundi, though small, has seen a large swell of speakers lately. There are more places experiencing huge growth, but those are the ones I am most familiar with. 

The culture of Esperantists is really the language's strength. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. At first, when you begin to learn the language, it's all about grammar and vocabulary, which are surprisingly simple, for all that some say it's not. Just compare it to English, or French, or Spanish, and you'll see it's quite easy. But then, once you're able to grasp the meaning of sentences, once you pick up a bit and really start learning to _speak_ it, you end up having this moment. Almost every Esperantist I know can tell you of the same experience. You're at a meeting, or conference, and you suddenly realize that your world just got alot bigger. You're a part of something that is bigger than yourself, something that _could_ change the world. Not necessarily that it will change the world, but it could. You're a part of something so rich and beautiful, that the whole world seems crisper, newer. Esperanto is very much alive and vibrant. 

And then, there is the painful truth, that on the whole, most people absolutely hate the idea of Esperanto. Those who don't hate it are mostly too lazy or lack the confidence to learn a second language. For some reason, linguists really hate Esperanto, and attack it without provocation regularly. That, I truly don't understand--linguists are supposed to love languages for the sheer sake of it, otherwise, why choose that as a profession? The success rate of people learning Esperanto compared to, say, English, should be more than enough for linguists to start accepting it. Yet they don't. So often, people attack Esperanto and Esperantists without knowing the first thing about it. I'm particularly fond of journalists who spend two weeks dabbling with Teach Yourself Esperanto at home by the fireplace, and then writing an article on it as if they actually knew something about it. A three-month student of Spanish or Russian wouldn't dare. At the very least, they would get their information from someone who was fluent in that language. I've seen with my own eyes people being verbally attacked in coffee shops because they speak Esperanto. More than once. You just sit there afterward thinking, "What the heck was that all about?" It's strange, how polarized people get about it, without knowing anything about it.

All in all, I'd compare the Esperanto Experience to being a gay man coming out of the closet. Life suddenly makes sense, you life gets more interesting and you are more connected with the world, but on some level, it feels like you're alone in the world because so many people attack you just because of it. You end up getting defensive of it, which only makes you seem like a kook. You often feel that the only time you get to be yourself and relax is when you're with other Esperantists. At some point, you learn to accept the bad with the good and become "zen" about the whole thing. By then, you're in the best position to actually tell someone about the Esperanto Movement, but too wise to do so. (Don't worry, I'm exaggerating a little bit... but just a little. All those statements are valid for me personally, but your milage may vary.)

When the topic comes up online, you often get people who say, "Oh, who needs an accusative case?" or "Esperanto is overloaded with adverbs," or any number of linguistic nay-sayings. Ultimately, those arguments don't matter. The language is easy to learn by any standard you wish to compare it to, and the rewards for knowing it outweigh every other constructed/auxilliary/artificial/whatever language in existence today. That's because of the well over 2 million speakers* you can meet from all around the world, because of the massive amount of literature in Esperanto, and simply the culture of the Movement. 

I would recommend to anyone that they should learn Esperanto as their second language before learning any other, and multiple studies have show n that this suggestion has merit linguistically. I would recommend that your children learn it, too, for the same reason. Even if you hate the culture and have no desire to see it become the international language of the world, it has merit simply in it's abilty to make learning a third, more difficult language, easier to learn. But above all, it's rewarding and fun all by itself. If you're interested, the best place to start nowadays is lernu.net.

*Some say Esperanto has less speakers than 2 million. Look it up on wikipedia if you want, but it was estimated by a professional at about 1.5 million a decade ago, long before the internet caused an explosion of new speakers. My personal guess would be 2.5 to 3.5 million speakers worldwide, of whom probably 150,000 to 250,000 are extremely active and use it daily, and the a large portion of the rest speak it occasionally, probably once a month or so. But really, there's no way to know, just as there is no way to determine how many chess players there are in the world. There's just not enough data to say how many there really are of us. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many, because there are enough of us that we can always find each other fairly easy no matter where we are. The only numbers that really count is the number of speakers local to your area that you can meet with on a regular basis, and the number of friends you make by mail, email, or chat. Everything beyond that is simply trying to prove that Esperanto matters, that it hasn't failed. And no one will believe unless they learn Esperanto for themselves, so attempting that proof is pointless. Just enjoy the language for yourself, and let the rest be what it will be.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Artrella said:


> I don't like the idea of a universal language.  As Lems says it has to be imposed... I like differences. A universal language such as Esperanto or another one, will be something imposed artificially and I don't like to be imposed nor imposing anything.



_'Esperanto is "in no way opposed to the national languages" and is intended for use alongside them. The first language you learn would be the dialect your parents are speaking. The second one would be the cultural language of which the dialect is part. The next language should be Esperanto to communicate with the rest of the world. 

As this language can be learned much more quickly, people will have time, if interested, to learn the language of their choice. You would observe a larger diversity in the languages studied. You would probably notice a larger interest in languages and find out that more teachers are necessary. All this is speculation. 
 Most Esperantists I spoke to are defending their dialects and cultural language. Detractors say Esperanto will kill all languages, though present no evidence of this.' 
_
NOTE:
This quote exceeds the permitted four lines. However, the author in his webpage says that:
You may extract pieces from this document and use it for any purpose, provided that you mention the source and refer the reader to this whole page:
http://users.pandora.be/raymond.gerard/esperanto/replies.htm
 


Artrella said:


> Besides I LOVE LANGUAGES!!! If there were only one language, what would we do??? What would we study??? There would be no more foreros!!!!


On the contrary. IMHO those _foreros_ who can only post in *Other Languages* forum would be able to communicate with many others.



Artrella said:


> Que vivan los idiomas; cuántos más, mejor!!!!!


I agree, that's why I am learning, among others, Esperanto.


----------



## Brioche

kavaliro said:


> I find Esperanto to be vastly more expressive than English.
> 
> In the beginning, I was very gung-ho about Esperanto changing the world.
> 
> I am content to watch Esperanto grow at its own pace, as a "grass-roots" movement.


 
Vasty more expressive than English? 
Vere?
Waringhien skribis en sia Parnasa Gvidlibro: _Sufiĉas malfermi dulingvan vortaron por konstati kiagrade la naciaj lingvoj estas pli precizaj ol la internacia_
Kun amiko kia,  ĉu malamikojn bezonas Esperanto?

How would you say "gung-ho" and "grass-roots" in Esperanto?


----------



## panjabigator

How about word pronunciation in Esperanto.  Do dialects exist? Are there idioms with one region and not with the other?


----------



## kavaliro

Brioche said:


> Vasty more expressive than English?
> Vere?
> 
> How would you say "gung-ho" and "grass-roots" in Esperanto?



"Gung-ho" means overly zealous according to webster, with an original meaning (now really lost in English) of "work together." Therefore, "gung-ho," (which is a borrowed word from the Chinese, because there was no equivalent in English, by the way,)  could be translated, "fervora" meaning zealous, or fervorega meaning overly or extremely zealous to the point of fanaticism (which I would personally choose), or even "kunlabora" meaning "works together." To illustrate my point further, could you say, "Those boys gung-ho'ed today?" Sounds pretty awkward doesn't it? You might say, "Those boys were gung-ho today." In esperanto, it's perfectly natural to say "Tiuj knaboj fervoregiĝis hodiaux," (lit. Those boys were extremely zealous today,) or even "Tiuj knaboj kunlaboris hodiaux," (lit. Those boys worked together today,) and no one who had been speaking the language for more than a year would have any trouble knowing exactly what you were trying to say in either case. In the (broken) English case, did the boys work well together, or did they  act overly zealously? You just don't know unless you ask for clarification. How about "They gung-ho(ly) marched."? In esperanto, "Ili fervorege marŝis." Though, I suppose you could say "They extremely zealously marched."

Grassroots: baza or fundamenta would suffice for the first definition, "basic or fundamental." However, the more common use of the word, as describing a political  or organizational movement, is "desuba,"  literally, "from under" or "bottom up." People often discuss the merits of "desubismo" vs. "desuprismo," "bottom-up-ism" or "grassroots-ism" vs. "top-down-ism" or (is there a specific word for "top-down-ism" in English?)  I confess that I didn't remember that word and had to ask, although I had heard it before, and would have instantly known it's meaning because of it's construction. Thanks, Don Harlow!

Sorry if I came across too defensive there. I was asked to defend my opinion and I did.  I do honestly believe it to be far more expressive than English.

Regarding dialects, no, unless you consider Ido a dialect of Esperanto, which it technically isn't since dialects are regional differences, and that doesn't really apply. Are there idioms with one region and not with the other? Hmm. No, not really. Some phrases are more commonly used in one place than another, true, but would still be universally understood. Any new phrase that's going to catch on spreads like wildfire. That happens. Generally what happens is, a phrase might get invented and used locally, but then at the next larger convention, such as the Tut-Teksasa Kunveno here in Texas or the ELNA Kunveno for North America, the phrase gets used and spreads upward and outward from there. Some are faddish like "Kio okazas?" (What's Happenin'?) and others stay a while longer. 

Pronunciation doesn't vary in Esperanto. You might have common mistakes or mispronunciations in certain areas, such as the difficulty native English-speakers have with verb transitivity, which does exist in English, but is so blurred that it might as well not exist. But those errors become much less frequent the longer you speak esperanto, so really they are only part of the learning process. Of course everyone tends to speak with an accent at first, which lessens over time, and tremendously as a person travels using Esperanto. Kinda like how a Frenchman speaking English is perfectly understandable but sounds French.

The most common differences in usage are between the youth and the old. For instance, the letter "W" has no equivalent in Esperanto. However, it is used in web addresses. This isn't a problem in writing, every keyboard or typewriter has a "W" key. But in speaking it, how do you say it? The old timers use "duobla-vo," literally "double v," but lately, within the last year or two, the esperanto youth have taken to saying "vavo" for "W" instead. So lernu would be "vavo vavo vavo punkto lernu punkto com." It's much easier to say, but hasn't spread everywhere yet. I believe it will, but who can say? The language has a life of its own. I would classify that as slang, not dialects. 

So I suppose the short answer to those questions is, Literally, no. According to the spirit of the question(s), only a little, and primarily based on the experience of the speaker.


----------



## Brioche

kavaliro said:


> "Gung-ho" means overly zealous according to webster, with an original meaning (now really lost in English) of "work together." Therefore, "gung-ho," (which is a borrowed word from the Chinese, because there was no equivalent in English, by the way,) could be translated, "fervora" meaning zealous, or fervorega meaning overly or extremely zealous to the point of fanaticism (which I would personally choose),


 
In the Oxford Dictionary gung-ho means _unthinkingly enthusiastic and eager, especially about taking part in fighting or warfare_, and was a motto adopted by the US Marine Corps.
The USMC incorrectly took it as meaning "work together" in Chinese, when it was actually an abbreviation for "Chinese Industrial Cooperative Society".

I don't believe *fervorega* conveys the notions of _unthinking or warlike_ eagerness; nor do *entuziasm[eg]a* or *verva*, Peter Benson's suggestions in _Comprehensive English-Esperanto Dictionary._

Esperanto can express some ideas very neatly, especially as a compound-word can be turned into verb, adverb, adjective or noun. But _vastly more expressive than English_ it is not.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

I have just studied esperanto for two years, but I'm sure e-o is expressive enough for creating a compound that captures this hung-go idea, isn't it?
¿What about batalfervora, batalverva, luktofervora, luktoverva, gungho'a? It must be better options than mine...

Pedro.


----------



## kavaliro

Brioche said:


> In the Oxford Dictionary gung-ho means _unthinkingly enthusiastic and eager, especially about taking part in fighting or warfare_, and was a motto adopted by the US Marine Corps.
> The USMC incorrectly took it as meaning "work together" in Chinese, when it was actually an abbreviation for "Chinese Industrial Cooperative Society".
> 
> I don't believe *fervorega* conveys the notions of _unthinking or warlike_ eagerness; nor do *entuziasm[eg]a* or *verva*, Peter Benson's suggestions in _Comprehensive English-Esperanto Dictionary._
> 
> Esperanto can express some ideas very neatly, especially as a compound-word can be turned into verb, adverb, adjective or noun. But _vastly more expressive than English_ it is not.


You know, up until taking up the challenge to translate gung-ho into esperanto, I always associated the word with manufacturing foreign cars (still do, honestly; Gung-ho was a great movie.) 

Compound words are very much a part of English, and any language. Consider: campfire, baseball, doorbell, sidewalk, lightbulb--all common everyday words consisting of two root words which convey a meaning neither of the words could convey alone. It doesn't stop there, though. An amazing number of English words are compound words borrowed from other languages, such as Greek and Latin, when English could not suffice on it's own: tele-vision, tele-phone, bi-cycle, auto-mobile, hypo-dermic--it would seem there are more words in this category than words with real, Old-English, Germanic roots. Compound words are a perfectly acceptable means of conveying meaning, by English standards.

So it should not come as a surprise, then, that gung-ho can be easily translated into esperanto as militfervorega (extreme-war-zealousness) or batalfervorega (extreme-battle-zealousness) and convey all the meaning you wish it to have, though for most purposes, I'd stick to fervorega, because the warlike quality of the word gung-ho isn't often applicable except in sports and war. Indeed, batalfervorega would explicitly convey that you intended to connote a connection to battle or combat into your thought, so is more expressive than gung-ho would be in English.

I am sure there are words and concepts that don't translate well into Esperanto. Gung-ho just isn't one of them. 

I don't mind sharing- here's one I had lots of trouble with: "I miss you." There's really not an exact translation of that thought into Esperanto. You could say "Mi sentas la manko de vi," lit. _I sense the lack of you, _or you could say "Mi nostalĝas pri vi," lit. _I am nostalgic about you,_ both of which convey the message, yet are both somewhat clumsy in my opinion.

I don't think anyone should be surprised if a few concepts are difficult to translate from any one language to any other. Try conveying the degree of politeness implied in a Japanese text to English (impossible!) or the sense of time from an English text to Chinese (difficult, maybe impossible). The fact (or rather, _theory_: look up the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) is, learning a language is really learning a new pattern of thinking. Each culture shapes it's language based on it's needs. The population of "Esperantoland" comes from cultures from around the globe. I'm sure each person could think of something just like my, "I miss you," but again, compared to the alternative, Esperanto performs most admirably.

Brioche, you might not agree with my opinion, but it is _just that_, only my opinion. I am not what I would consider fluent in Esperanto. Capable, yes. I can have a conversation with any Esperantist on more than just superficial subjects. Fluent, no. I'm not ready to go translate at the U.N. I still make lots of mistakes. So take what I write with a grain of salt. I'm not an authority on the subject, only someone with an opinion. The opinion of an Esperantist was asked for, and I gave it: I wouldn't trade my knowledge of Esperanto or the friends I've made because of it for a million bucks. I enjoy it so much I can't wait till the next chance I get to speak it with my friends. (Which is today, yay! I'm so excited!) 

In comparison, I was in the military for over a decade. I learned a lot and had lots of good times while I was in. But I wouldn't recommend the military to anyone. Get the experiences you need elsewhere, go work for the Red Cross or something. The military is not a good investment of your time or self. Esperanto, on the other hand, I would recommend to anyone. There aren't too many people in the world who would not benefit from knowing and using it. Even today, with only a couple million or so speakers worldwide. I believe it would make a great auxilliary language for the world.

Let me mention Ido, too:

Would Ido or some other language do better? Maybe so. I have considered learning Ido. I probably will in the near future. It's said Ido is "better" than Esperanto. Children often outperform their parents upon maturity. Perhaps Ido has reached a level where it's ready to take on "Dad." The biggest problem I see for Ido is that it doesn't have the culture and speaker base Esperanto does. The culture is the appeal of Esperanto for today's speakers. Not so much the language's merits as an international auxilliary language. A culture base is the biggest asset a language can have, and the lack of a strong culture base is, in my opinion, the only reason languages like Interlingua failed. I think if the number of speakers had been equal between Ido and Esperanto when I first started learning about them, I'd have chosen Ido. But now, I'd say the culture of Esperanto is why I keep with it, so without a similar culture I might not have stayed with Ido. As for it's merits as a language, I can't say. The only real reason I haven't started dabbling in Ido is that it's confusing to try and learn two languages at once: there's a tendency to mix the two, especially if they are similar. Better to learn them one at a time, except in the case of children, who don't really have that problem.

Ironically, the argument Esperanto speakers generally have against Ido is the _exact same argument_ English speakers have against Esperanto: culture base/population. Funny, isn't it? And yet, as an Esperanto speaker, I _still_ believe Esperanto is a better choice than English as an international language because it's easier, which is the exact response Ido speakers give toward Esperanto! Oh, such irony! So because of that, I'd say give Ido a chance, too. By all appearances, Esperanto use is growing phenomenally. But Ido is growing more, relative to it's current size, I hear. 

So who knows what the eventual outcome will be? English's momentum could come crashing down instantly: all it would take is another big stock market crash, and English's dominance would be over in a matter of a decade. Again, just opinion. Personally, I'd rather see a language get decided upon in an international forum such as the U.N. as the international auxilliary language before something like that happens, because afterward would be too late to make a decision. I like Esperanto, but if another language with similar merit were chosen, I wouldn't mind learning a third (arguably fourth) language at all. Maybe Ido _would_ be better suited. Esperanto is grass-roots enough that it would survive even if it weren't selected. 

I apologize for such long posts. I hope I haven't been a bore. It's just that it's my favorite subject. 

amike (friendly),

kavaliro


----------



## Brioche

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> ¿What about batalfervora, batalverva, luktofervora, luktoverva, gungho'a? It must be better options than mine...
> 
> Pedro.


 
The *worst possible solution* would be adding a new word.

Unfortunately there are any number of lazy Esperantists who are only too happy to "improve" the language [read: make it more like their own mother tongue] by adding an Esperanto ending, and calling it _international._

Esperanto already has many, many unncessary words. It doesn't need any more.

The whole point of Esperanto is that it should be an easily learnt language for international communication between the world's peoples and cultures. Larding it with excess baggage won't help solve the language problem.

When I'm emperor of Esperantoland, anyone who wants to add brand-new word into the dictionary will have to provide everyone with a new dictionary.

Anyway. 
I'll accept that Esperanto can be _as expressive as_ English.
You'll never convince me that Esperanto is _*vastly* more expressive than English. _


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Brioche said:


> The *worst possible solution* would be adding a new word.


You are right.


Brioche said:


> I'll accept that Esperanto can be _as expressive as_ English.
> You'll never convince me that Esperanto is _*vastly* more expressive than English. _


 That's great! Isn't it? By the way, esperanto's syntax is easy and powerful. I love my own language, Spanish, but I do love the easiness of expression in esperanto. For example, I really get the poetic meaning of "la vento lipe karesas," however,  it is rather difficult for me to translate it [poeticly] into Spanish. 

Pedro.


----------



## Brioche

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> For example, I really get the poetic meaning of "la vento lipe karesas," however, it is rather difficult for me to translate it [poetically] into Spanish.
> 
> Pedro.


 
Translating between any two languages is difficult. See any number of comments in these forums on the topic. 

Many phrases which sound poetic in one language fall flat when translated.

A chap from the former East Germany was giving a talk about life before and after the fall of the Wall.  At one stage he said "my house is like my skin" - which has no resonance in English, but in German "Mein Haus ist wie meine Haut" has a wonderful cadence.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Brioche said:


> Translating between any two languages is difficult. See any number of comments in these forums on the topic.
> 
> Many phrases which sound poetic in one language fall flat when translated.
> 
> A chap from the former East Germany was giving a talk about life before and after the fall of the Wall.  At one stage he said "my house is like my skin" - which has no resonance in English, but in German "Mein Haus ist wie meine Haut" has a wonderful cadence.


I agree. In fact, is that _lipe _in "la vento lipe karesas", light an expressive, I like so much.

Saluton,

Pedro.


----------

