Linguistics

506 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laymen to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

Stay on-topic. Specially for more divisive subjects.
Post sources whenever reasonable to do so.
Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

lvxferre@mander.xyz

Esperanto: The artificial language that aimed to unite humanity (bigthink.com)

submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/linguistics@mander.xyz

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Currently Esperanto is in a weird "double dilemma":

it's weakly designed, but languages with a better design barely have speakers;
it's spoken by a relatively low amount of people, but the other options are all languages associated with national identities.

With the Eurocentrism being part of the first dilemma - yes, it could be solved by better design, but every Esperantido (including Ido, that you mentioned) has only a fraction of the L2+ linguistic community behind Esperanto.

While not everything, I feel like a lot of issues can (and should) be addressed by its linguistic community; I see the -iĉ- masculine suffix as an example of that (addressing the "males are default" social issue that "leaked" into the language).

[–] senloke@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I generally have a problem with it the statement that Esperanto is poorly designed. When considering that it does enough things right. That it uses internationalisms, that it can be sung, that it gives enough expressivity, that it's mechanical enough to be learnt by it's grammar, etc.

It always sounds as if Esperanto is Latin with a thousand of exceptions, designed like french with spoken language does not equal the written text of the language, etc.

When in fact the opposite is the case. People then point to one of the current language projects, which are supposedly "better" in one dimension or another. That's just optimizing to some standard of perfect.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

By "poorly designed" I'm conveying "full of sub-optimal decisions that introduce unnecessary complexity and unintended consequences". Justin B. Rye has a full rant on that; I'd like to pick specifically the following issues:

excessively large consonant set, full of uncommon distinctions like /w/ vs. /v/, /x/ vs. /h/, /ts/ vs. /tʃ/
almost no concern for phonotactics
over-reliance on vowel alternations to convey morphological distinctions
case marking and articles at the same time, requiring you to learn two systems when one could do

In special, Esperanto as defined in the 16 rules is full of assumptions on how a language works that boil down to "you should know it, because it works like in European sprachbund languages". And sometimes those assumptions break even for those European languages.

Later auxiliary constructed languages show a lot of improvements in this regard. And while they do focus often on one or another aspect, as you hinted, often the result is cleaner.

That it uses internationalisms

The source of the internationalisms is often a disputed point on itself. It relies for example a lot on Romance and Latin vocab, even when it doesn't make much sense (e.g. "sango" comes to my mind).