Print

Print


Wow,
Sounds so good, with "simple" explanation and "big" words to make it look official.
Yet, it is all untrue.
If a person can read or speak a language, then it has nothing to do with "only the educated" 
can recognize the words.
This is the most senseless argument against a language that can be understood at first sight 
or hearing that I have ever read.

Can you really believe that a language that is totally unfamiliar is easier to learn than one that 
is familiar or somewhat familiar?

This is an old and ineffective argument at best.

Let's have something REAL for a change.

Bob

On 28 Feb 2007 at 17:35, Donald J. HARLOW wrote:

> [Comment by Gaston Waringhien: In the February (= March) number of
> "L'Esperantiste" an excellent article by Beaufront against several
> attempts, analogous to those of Rosenberg (Idiom Neutral), Molenaar
> (Panroman), Blondel et al.]
> 
> A VERY LOVELY TRAP: IMMEDIATE COMPREHENSIBILITY
> 
> ... To attain immediate comprehensibility for the educated, one must
> of necessity use the most international form of the chosen elemenent
> and as a result accept the multitude of meanings which it contains
> in 
> our languages, in which they do not correspond to each other. One 
> must in addition abandon the prefixes and suffixes that multiply the
> words, by which Esperanto gives us a vocabulary so easily
> acquirable. 
> One must even fall into an error yet more important in practice and
> go to the situation [tio] that the words will no longer have endings
> clearly characteristic for their type, role, mode and tense, as in
> the Espereanto vocabulary. Noun, adjective, verb will no longer have
> their own physiognomies and will be able to be confused with each 
> other. Finally the words, no longer being linked among themselves by
> a severely methodical derivation [devenigado], will have to be 
> learned separately [c^iu speciale].
> 
> If a sentence written in such a system can be better understood 
> immediately by an educated person than the corresponding sentence in
> Esperanto, the cause is not that the system is better, but only that
> *the educated person in question previously knows all the words
> found 
> in it* ...
> 
> But are there then only educated people in the world, or peoples
> more 
> or less Romance speaking? ... Is the international language made 
> first for the educsated class, or for people with an average and
> even 
> basic education? Will we make of it the good of a small spiritual 
> elite, or the good of all people implicated in international 
> relations? The whole question lies in this ...
> 
> ... And in the end, is *reading a text* of a language at first sight
> the same as knowledge, possession of that language? Must one not
> also 
> write it? Speak it? I awate the fabricators of "prim vist", of
> "prima 
> vizion", etc. in this double experiment. Jes, I want to see their 
> disciples taking pains before their excellent, *too excellent* 
> dictionaries, because they put heavy pressore on memory, take pains
> before the multitude of meanings, before that multitude of imprecise
> and multiple endings for some grammatical categories of words, take
> pains before imprecisions which the word order of the sentence does
> not always clarify, *because of too great a grammatical poverty*, 
> take pains before yet other matters ... Let's wait for them at
> public 
> courses, and there we will see whether understanding at first sight
> and KNOWING A LANGUAGE are the same thing.
> 
> In reality they unconsciously offer to themselves and to others a 
> trap ... No, certainly, the Esperanto speaker does not understand
> his 
> entire text "a prim vist", "a prima vizion" etc.; he will need one
> or 
> two hours of learning to acquire the grammatical elements which will
> give him the key of that text and of the others. But when that is 
> done, he will learn the language as though in play and will not need
> toload his memory with *doubly useless cargo*. He will easily
> recover 
> the words to write or speak. Contrariwise the "primavistans" ...
> will 
> struggle in constant  imbalance to write or speak; they will more 
> quickly understand (*some*), but *they will need endless time to
> learn* ...
> 
> 
> 
> -- Don HARLOW
> http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html
> Opinions (in English): http://www.harlows.org/don/opinions/
> Esperanto (in English): http://www.harlows.org/don/esperanto/
> Literaturo (Esperante):
> http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date:
> 2/28/2007 4:09 PM
>