THIS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN STAGNATING FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS [probably at that
time the number of speakers were higher than today].
THE VERY BIG RIVAL IS ENGLISH. AND THIS LANGUAGE [in any of its deformated or simplified form in the future], UNFORTUNATELLY IS AND IN THE FOLLOWING COUPLE OF YEARS WILL BE PREDOMINATING ESPERANTO. IT IS A STEADY FACT.
TILL WE ALL THAT WE ARE ON THIS WEB SITE LIVE, ESPERANTO IS AND GOING TO BE THE LANGUAGE JUST FOR SOME SCATTERED GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. TILL I DIE [and all of you as well] IT NEVER RICH THE SPREADING OUT OF ENGLISH.
ESPERANTO WANTED AND WANTS TO BE THE WORLD'S LANGUAGE - AND THAT'S ITS PROBLEM NOWADAYS.
ON THE OTHER HAND - INTERSLAVIC LANGUAGE - JUST WANTS TO BE LANGUAGE FOR ALL SLAVIC NATIONS AND VOLUNTARY FOR THOSE FOREIGNER WHO WOULD LIKE TO LEARN IT.
AND IN THIS I SEE THE MAIN ADVANTAGE OF THIS LANGUAGE.
Exactly. This also shows how wrong are the Slovio-ists' stupid talks "do you want to know why Esperanto didn't succeed and Slovio will". Of course, if you want to succeed in a smaller field than your "rival" does, you will succeed faster.
the main difference (disadvantage) of languages like Esperanto, Ido etc. compared with languages like Slovio, Interlingua and Folkspraak is that by learning the latter ones you will gain a far good knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of Slavic or Romance or Germanic languages.
Yes, this is a disadvantage if you want to use Esperanto for a purpose it wasn't intended for (i.e. a language for a certain language family). In the same way, the disadvantage of Slovio is too Slavic, non-neutral vocabulary and too difficult grammar, if I want to use Slovio for a purpose it wasn't intended for (i.e. an international language).
Ay Gabriel! Again: Slovio i an international language to be used for all people with a Slavic background or for people who want to learn or are interested in Slavic languages.
GABRIEL, TEBE TREBA VSETKO ASI VYSVETLOVAT " PO LOPATE " CIZE DO DETAILU.
EUGENIUSX TO MYSLEL TAK, ZE JE TO ZREJME JAZYK SICE INTERNACIONALNY, ALE PRE LUDI S " SLAVIC BACKGROUND ", CIZE V PODSTATE SA TO DA POVEDAT ZE JE TO URCITYM SPOSOBOM JAZYK "INTERNATIONAL", PRETOZE MA VYZNAM AKO JAZYK MEDZINARODNY, CIZE MEDZI SLOVANSKYMI NARODMI.
Gabriel:
A language that is not for all people all over the world is not to be called international.
===
You do mix up the words inter-national and all-national.
---
Webster´s dic.:
inžteržnažtionžal adj.
1. between or among nations; involving two or more nations: international trade.
2. of or pertaining to two or more nations or their citizens: a matter of international concern.
3. pertaining to the relations between nations: international law.
4. having members or activities in several nations: an international organization.
5. transcending national boundaries or viewpoints: an international benefit; an international reputation.
–n.
6. (cap.) any of several international socialist or communist organizations formed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Cf. First International, Second International, Third International, Fourth International, Labor and Socialist International.
7. (sometimes cap.) a labor union having locals in two or more countries.
8. an organization, enterprise, or group, esp. a major business concern, having branches, dealings, or members in several countries.
9. an employee, esp. an executive, assigned to work in a foreign country or countries by a business or organization that has branches or dealings in several countries.
Yeah, inter-national = between nations. But why to use such misleading word when all the nations in question are Slavic? To say "Slovio is an international language" just means that Slovio may want to spread its sphere of influence beyond Slavic borders. Otherwise it would be called "inter-Slavic".
You are very stubborn. A nation does not consequently speak only one language. Slovio is an international and an inter-Slavic language and Esperanto is a Romance-Slavic-German language and an international one. An all-language language, you are thinking about, does and cannot exist.
Lojban is a copy-cat from Loglan both created in the USA. Its vocabulary is made from: English, Hindu, Russian, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic. So only the last two are not Indoeuropean languages.
The Lojban speaking community consists of about 50 active members who are more or less involved in writing, reading and communicating in the language. Many more people who get interested in Lojban first later become inactive due to various reasons, including lack of time, and lack of rich educational materials (especially for non-English speaking people). Most active members are native English-speakers living in the United States, but some are from Norway, Argentina, Russia and other countries.
prenta = pre like English PERson, ren like Chinese "ren" - person, and ta from Turkic languages
"Person" is understadnible for about 3 billion people,
"ren" is understandible for about 1.5 billion people,
"prenta" is understandible for about 50 people.
Cool language.
I looked at Lojban grammar... Well, I can't believe that somebody can be fluent in it. Though I must admit that its words sound great, and I guess aren't too difficult to remember. But mostly I was disappointed in the language -- it rather made me believe that universal predicative logic model can't be practically useful.
And this "neutrality" concept... Nobody but bunch of Chauvinists would like it. This "let everyone will suffer" idea sounds too Bolshevistic. If you are not able to accept advantage of some language(s) you shouldn't start international language construction at all.
BTW, one of the reasons why I won't ever seriously study something like Esperanto, is because I don't have any perspectives with it. This language has artificially depleted lexics, and narrowed ways of expressing thoughts. Maybe it can be used for writing of some scientifical texts, or some VERY simple phrases, but it's hardly suitable for newspapers, not to mention "real" literature and everyday speech. Sure I know I ain't perfect in English, but at least I CAN read great books in it, and theoretically it isn't impossible for me to write one too. Progressing in English is the road that leads you to unlimited possiblities; but progressing in Eperanto... well, you just can't progress in Esperanto.
SORRY, BUT IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE WHAT YOU ARE WRITING.
NEVERTHELESS ENGLISH HAS SOME ADVANTAGES [SPREAD ROUND THE GLOBE, EASIER GRAMMAR STRUCTURE COMPARING TO SOME OTHER NATURAL LANGS]. BUT IT'S ALL.
I DO NOT SPEAK ESPERANTO BUT IF THERE IS SOME CHOICE FOR PEOPLE ON THE EARTH
TO CHOOSE WHICH OF THESE TWO LANGS SHOULD BE THE ALL-MANKIND LANGUAGE,
I WOULD CERTAINLY PREFER ESPERANTO TO ENGLISH.
JUST ONE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ESPERANTO SAYS ABOVE ALL :
- IT'S INDEPENDENT AND TOTALY NEUTRAL.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME OTHER ADVANTAGES AGAINST ENGLISH [EASIER AND MORE LOGICAL GRAMMAR, COMBINING WORDS WITHOUT LIMITS [that English cannot absolutely
achieve without loosing logical structure and meaning], PRONUNCIATION WITHOUT PROBLEMS, WRITING AS YOU HEAR, ETC.
I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THAT ESPERANTO IS IDEAL LANG [it can be even more simlified as it is now - e.g. getting rid of the article that is for nothing when all substantives are ended with -o, etc.] BUT THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS GOT SO LONG HISTORY WITH QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT OF SPEAKER, LITERATURE, ETC.
THE OTHER LANGS THAT CAME AFTER IT JUST COPIED ITS PRINCIPLES.
The point is it CAN'T be a language. It isn't the matter of its current state, it's the matter of its permanent structure -- it was MADE to be a poor language. Sure, it's just what protectors of minor languages want, 'cause such language never can be a real rival for any natural language. I can imagine my children to be native English speakers, but I can't imagine my children to be native Esperanto speakers, 'cause it would mean them to be degenerates (see Orwell's "1984").
IT'S INDEPENDENT AND TOTALY NEUTRAL
In other words it's Anglophobic and ignoring the natural languages -- I don't see how it can be an advantage.
I don't have much practice in Esperanto but I can say that usually Esperantists at very bad at it. Mostly Esperantists use something which is very bad translation of their natural languages. The principles of Esperanto make this language very difficult to be developed and used. E.g. I used somewhere on this site the expression "ghuu la muzikvideo" -- this is a piece of "Esperanglish". First of all "muzikvedeo" requires "-n" ending here; then, "video" just can't be Esperanto word (what it means?). There should be something like "muzikfilmeton", but it's so ugly that even Esperantists don't use it.
And don't confuse regular language with easy language. The most easy languages are pidgins like Lingua Franca Nova -- because they don't require any knowing of lingistics at all.
Esperanto is a hundred years old, but still a project, not a language. And I would rather say a hopeless project.
Hellerick, you don't know Esperanto... how is having words like forgesas = forget and havas = have Anglophobic? Especially when birdo is pronounced beer-doh, but still kept as a word.
Also, it is a rich enough language for anything you want. Then again, so are hundreds of other languages. I want to learn Esperanto because it's easier to learn than other languages and I could probably learn more of it than another language.
LOOK, YOU ANALFABET, NEITHER MUSIC NOR VIDEO NOR FILM ARE ENGLISH WORDS.
ORIGINAL ENGLISH WORDS DO NOT !!! LITERALY EXIST.
ENGLISH IS COMPOUND OF VARIOUS LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS AROUND THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT DEVELOPED FROM FRENCH, LATIN, SCANDINAVIAN LANGS [VIKINGS], OLD SAXONY GERMAN, SOME VERY FEW WORDS FROM CELTS.
ORIGINAL LANGS ARE VERY OLD PRAGERMAN, LATIN, GREEK, VERY OLD PRASLAVIC LANG,
ON EUROPEAN CONTINENT. AND OF COURSE SUCH LANGS AS ALMOST DIED OUT GALIC, GOTHIC, SOME OF CELTIC DIALECTS, AND LANGS AROUND BALKAN PENINSULA [ILIRIAN, ETC] VERY MISTIFICAL IS BASK LANG.
it was attested in Old English as wćter, which comes from a Proto Germanic *watar which comes from a PIE *wed- root
which means that since the introduction of Germanic tribes into that area and the ancestors of some Englishmen of the European stock have been saying water or its cognate since several thousand years ago!
Esperanto was made to be a rich language. In English, I can only use expressions that are used by native speakers, too. In Esperanto, I can use any expression that is legal within the limits of grammar.
1984's Newspeak is a criticism of Basic English and totalitarianism, not of Esperanto.
I know neither what's wrong with "muzikvideo", nor what's ugly about "muzikfilmeto".
I don't have much practice in Esperanto but I can say that usually Esperantists at very bad at it.
Non-native speakers of English are usually very bad at it.
And don't confuse regular language with easy language. The most easy languages are pidgins like Lingua Franca Nova -- because they don't require any knowing of lingistics at all.
This is certainly a good possibility, too.
Esperanto is a hundred years old, but still a project, not a language. And I would rather say a hopeless project.
getting rid of the article that is for nothing when all substantives are ended with -o
I can see that you write in English and you haven't got many problems to make the difference between "cat" and "the cat". So why are you still thinking that Esperanto "kato" and "la kato" have the same meaning?
You can say either THIS CAT or THE CAT which means the same meaning
That is the same as you would say : THE, THIS, THAT
If you point with you finger and say : " THE PEN IS MINE or THIS PEN IS MINE or THAT PEN IS MINE" - it means the same what you want to say.
So where is the difference among - THE, THIS, THAT.
Each of them means in Czech - TEN, TA, TO, TENTO, TATO, TOTO [and moreover
THE means TYTO, TIETO, TENHLE TEN, TAHLE TA, TOHLE TO etc.
And the same it is in Esperanto - if you have all substantives ended up with -o
then you do not have other determination for substantives to be recognized among the other grammatical cathegories.
I'd understand if you had some problems with understanding "the" ... but if you think that "this" and "that" have the same meaning, you should learn English; the difference is present in Slavic languages.
The phrase "the cat", as well as "la kato" in Esperanto, means "that cat you already know", not "substantival cat", that's why the article isn't superfluous in Esperanto.
And this "neutrality" concept... Nobody but bunch of Chauvinists would like it. This "let everyone will suffer" idea sounds too Bolshevistic. If you are not able to accept advantage of some language(s) you shouldn't start international language construction at all.
Yeah ... slaves asking for liberty were chauvinists, sufraggetes were chauvinists etc.
I looked at Lojban grammar... Well, I can't believe that somebody can be fluent in it. Though I must admit that its words sound great, and I guess aren't too difficult to remember. But mostly I was disappointed in the language -- it rather made me believe that universal predicative logic model can't be practically useful.
I mostly agree. A grammar of an international language should be done more by linguists than by logicians.
But as an mathematical experiment, Lojban is certainly an interesting project.
BTW, one of the reasons why I won't ever seriously study something like Esperanto, is because I don't have any perspectives with it. This language has artificially depleted lexics, and narrowed ways of expressing thoughts. Maybe it can be used for writing of some scientifical texts, or some VERY simple phrases, but it's hardly suitable for newspapers, not to mention "real" literature and everyday speech. Sure I know I ain't perfect in English, but at least I CAN read great books in it, and theoretically it isn't impossible for me to write one too. Progressing in English is the road that leads you to unlimited possiblities; but progressing in Eperanto... well, you just can't progress in Esperanto.
Yes, English has got a rich lexicon, many beautiful ways to express any thought, including real literature, and the possibilities to progress are unlimited ... but all these advantages are only available either to native speakers or to very talented non-native speakers. Other can't profit them.
To me, it resembles Czechoslovak nationalism after World Word II. For Czechs and Slovaks, it sufficed not to have collaborated with Nazis in order not to be punished. But Germans and Hungarians had to have actively collaborated with anti-Nazis in order not to be punished.
ENGLISH DOESN'T HAVE THE BIGGEST WORDS STOCK OF ALL LANGUAGES. IT IS JUST SAID
BY SOME NOT-KNOWING BLINDED PEOPLE DEVOTED JUST TO ENGLISH LANG.
IT HAS JUST THE SAME BASIC VOCABULARY AS OTHER EUROPEAN LANGS.
BUT BECAUSE ENGLISH USES A LOT OF SYNONYMS IS SEEMS TO BE THE RICHEST VOCABULARY OF ALL.
LOOK BETTER AT ENGLISH DICTIONARIES AND YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT ONE MEANING IN E.G. SLOVAK OR CZECH LANGS HAS ITS SEVERAL WORDS OF THE SAME MEANING IN ENGLISH.
IF WE TOOK JUST WHAT WE ACTUALLY NEED FOR OUR CONVERSATION THEN WE WOULD FIND THESE WORDS IN ALMOST EVERY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD.
OF COURSE, SLOVAK OR CZECH OR POLISH OR RUSSIAN WOULD HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORDS AS ENGLISH HAS IF THESE LANGUAGES WOULD USE 2 - 3 OTHER WORDS [SYNONYMS] FRON OTHER LANGUAGES IN THEIR OWN ONES[e.g. along with word "bezpecne" we would use e.g. "opasno" and "sigurno".
LET'S IMAGINE WE WOULD DO THIS : approximately 350 000 - 400 000 words would be doubled or sometimes even trippled. THAT MEANS WE COULD HAVE MORE THAN
1 000 000 words that are presented as English words stock at the moment.
AND I DO NOT EVER CALCULATE WITH DOZENS OF THOUSANDS OF PHRASES, IDOMATIC EXPRESSIONS AND SLANG WORDS THAT COULD BE USED IN THIS COMMON LANGUAGE.
BUT I ASK : " IS IT REALLY NEEDED FOR COMMON CONVERSATION IN ONE HUMAN'S LIFE ?"
AND SUCH THING ENGLISH HAS BEEN DOING FOR MORE THAN 500 HUNDRED YEARS !
[and has been boasting of "largest dictionary" ever been !!!]
Look up what the French, Latin, Greek, Old Germanic, and Scandinavian word are in English.
