Machjo

English is not my native language, yet owing to my fluency in the language and exposure to its people and culture, I feel that it is now an inseparable part of my culture. I feel the same about Esperanto. So I'm living proof that your theory is wrong. Looking at it that way, since English is in fact much more difficult to learn, it's less likely to be seen as anything more than a tool by most non-native speakers, unlike a language like Esperanto that does allow for fluent expression for most learners, thus allowing for more intimate friendships than does English, which is limited to a kind of broken Pidgin for most.

I know. Most people who are unfamiliar with world federalism often don't understand that there are many kinds of world federalists. I'm a highly decentralist one.

You do have some good points there. So let's take a concrete instance. When King Sae Jeong chose a team of scholars to create the Korean script, designed to be easy for all to learn so as to spread literacy, the elites did oppose it for the most part. But a few devoted enthusiasts, mainly among the general populaiton and a few of the caring and socially progressive elites, kept it alive for about 300 years until Japanese occupation promoted Korean nationalism. Soon, it became a nationalist symbol since, unlike the Chinese characters, was truly a Korean invention. And then it spread quickly. So, how would we emulate that with Esperanto or a similar language? Well, it's been created already and has already established a stable community of speakers. Now the only quesiton is what will be that 'Japanese occupation' that will push it to victory? I don't know the answer, but I think that even among the 'elites', some don't know English, so it might start with them: http://www.ais-sanmarino.org/

I would oppose a world civil police force. That should be national. So your view of a world government and mine are quite different then. Your view seems to be just one central government. I'd oppose that. I'd be more in favour of a decentralized world federation. We seem to have very different concepts there.

Remember though, that we'd also have national police forces worldwide for such an army to contend with. An army is heavily armed, capable of destruction. But a police force is generally more numerous and better-placed to police an area. The army could destroy the population, but would then have to live among it.

I should mention too that not only do I know French and English, and spoken mandarin, and have studied a spattering of Arabic and Persian, but know Esperanto too. But I also recognize that not everyone has the same opportunity to learn difficult languages, and this is where a language like Esperanto coudld put us on a more equal footing.

And an interesting article here: http://www.learnlangs.com/blog/2009/07/31/...-esperanto-now/

No, but it's also easy for US soldiers to portray any other national group as terrorist if need be, since they don't necessarily fight side by side with them. In an international force, that would be next to impossible without the risk of infighting. This means that such a force could be used only when the cause is just not only in truth but also in appearance.

Oui. Je parle le français et l'anglais couramment , et j'ai étudié un peut d'arabe et de persan également (même si je ne parle que peut de ces deux dernier, faute de temps). Je peut foncionné en mandarin parlé aussi.

No, but the armies tend to be ethnically quite homogeneous within.

Tai qiguai. Wode hanzi bu xing, danshi wo keyi yong Pinyin. Yong Hanyu de hou, wo zhidao youde ren bu ganjue 4 bu xing, danshi 13 keyi. Yingwen fanguolai. Danshi, wo keyi you lianzhong yuyan he duo zhong yuyan he duozhong wenhua, bu shi ma? Shijieyu yiyang. Wo keyi hui yingyu he Shijieyu he xuexi yingwenhua he Shijieyuwenhua, bu shi ma?

Another point: An international military force would also be open to global recruitment, thus making it difficult for such a force to be used for any kind of imperialist expansion.

I had read an article the other day in an Aboriginal paper I'd managed to get my hands on that had peaked my attention. It had commented on the fact that Aboriginal communities across Canada are hoping to use this as a stepping stone to demand more rights for their languages too. Where this goes is a different matter, but it is interesting that they are now using this as a rallying point.

The Act is far from perfect, but there are two things I like about it: 1. It's a step forward, and 2. It makes for a precedent for other Aboriginal languages across Canada.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus...inaljun09-e.pdf Here are a few provisions of the Act below. As far as I can tell, no, it will not require each civil servant to know these languages, but those who do will likely be given hiring priority. In terms of exactly which rights Nunavut‟s new Official Languages Act would guarantee in respect of English, French and the Inuit Language, the Act provides that:  Debates in Nunavut‟s Legislative Assembly may be conducted in any of the three official languages (section 4(1)).  Records and journals of the Legislative Assembly shall be published in English and French, and may be published in the Inuit Language as well, if the Speaker requires it to be done (section 4(2)).  All Acts of the Legislative Assembly shall be published in English and French and both versions are equally authoritative. They may also be published in the Inuit Language if the Commissioner in Executive Council required this to be done, by order. In addition, the Legislative Assembly may, by resolution, designate an Act in the Inuit Language to be authoritative (sections 5(1), 5(3) and 5(4)).  All statutory instruments must be published in the Nunavut Gazette in English and French in order for them to have force and effect, and may be published in the Inuit Language by order of the Commissioner in Executive Council. The Commissioner in Executive Council may also require an Inuit Language version of an instrument to be published in the Nunavut Gazette (section 7).  Individuals in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings may use any of the three official languages for the purposes of participation and pleadings. Persons participating in civil proceedings are also entitled to request interpretation services in their official language of choice and are entitled to be informed of that right (sections 8(1) to 8(3)). A judicial or quasi-judicial body can also order interpretation to be provided for the public if the body considers the proceedings to be of general public interest, or if it finds it desirable to order this for the benefit of members of the public in attendance (section 8(4)).  Persons appearing before a judicial or quasi-judicial body are entitled to request and receive final decisions, orders or judgments from that body in the official language of their choice (section 9(1)).  Final orders, decisions and judgments will be translated into the other official languages if the judicial or quasi-judicial body determines a question of law of general public interest. They will also be translated into another official language if a question of law of specific interest or importance affecting the official 11 language community in question is decided, or if the body determines a question of significant interest or importance to a participant who used the official language in question during the proceedings (section 9(2)).  Territorial institutions are required to provide all signs, notices to the public and instruments in all official languages, and administrative heads of these institutions are charged with establishing and maintaining operational policies to ensure that this is done (section 11).  Members of the public in Nunavut have the right to communicate with and receive services from territorial institutions in the official language of their choice, from the head office of the institution, at minimum, and in other offices of the institution where there is a significant demand for communications with and services from the office in question in the language, or, if, due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications and services be available in the official language in question (sections 12(1) to 12(4)).  The Commissioner in Executive Council may also order a service to be made available in one or more official languages in the event of special concern about language loss or assimilation, on the grounds that delivering a service in a particular official language is likely to have a revitalizing impact on or promote the use of a language indigenous to an affected area or group (section 12(5)).  The provisions in section 12 of the Act with respect to communications with and services offered by territorial institutions apply to both oral and written communications (section 12(6)).  Administrative heads of territorial institutions have a duty to make an active offer of service to members of the public in accordance with the provisions outlined in sections 12(2) to 12(5) of the Act (section 12(7)).  Administrative heads of municipalities also have a duty to ensure that service is provided in an official language by that municipality if there is a significant demand in that community for communications with and services in that language (section 12(8)).

That's a positive step forward in my opinion.

Interesting article: http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.p...=74〈=en

We wouldn't need to make them illegal; all we'd need to do is no longer acknowledge them in the law. They could exist, but the government would give no party money, only the candidate's name appears on the balot, but not his party's name, no more party caucuses in the House of commons, but simpply a caucus of the House to which all MPs could participate, etc. Even the PM, cabinet ministers, and even Canada's ambassador to the UN could be elected by the House. But, alas, so much liberty would scare the hell out of party leaders.

My answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

I fully agree that a culture need not necessarily be an ethnic culture. Esperanto does have a culture. It may not be as developed as English culture, but then again, English culture was not very developed either when all educated Englishmen preferred to write in Latin and looked down on their own mother-tongue, as is common in many colonized minds today with regards to English. This does not mean English culture then didn't exist, but rather simply that it wasn't as developed as Latin, but the potential was always there, as is the case with any language. Fully agreed. I'd add to that that no one would ever force anyone to use the international language all the time. The point of it would be to serve as an auxiliary language when no other common language was shared, a pivot language, or bridge language if you will. I think you're exaggerating here, but I will still agree with you in principle, that world unity has become necessary if we want to advance and not fall behind in the world of today. The nation state has developed as far as it can in the face o modern technologies. It's time for the next step, just as it was when we had to go from the city state to the nation state.

That depends. I'd rather use different terms. Instead of competitive, I'd rather think of a company as efficient. To take an example, when the government banned cigarette advertising, cigarette companies actually benefitted from it! Sure they became less competitive in that they no longer advertised. But on the other hand, since the others couldn't advertise either, ti didn't matter, thus saving money. So no, competition and efficiency are by no means the same thing. Same with lawyers. Let's say a lawyer finds something against his client. Will he have the incentive to dig further into it? In a collaborative system, you could have two lawyers together, simply guided by conscience to find the truth whatever it is, not to try to prove a case and build the evidence around that. It's @ss backwards. In politics, let's say we could write in the name of whom we want on the ballot. Maybe we'd get people in Parliament who don't really want to be there, but whom we chose for their character and competence. And like jury duty, would be there to serve us. Also, in a competitive system, were' more likely to have competitive candidates, who also refects itself in foreign military policy. The whole system is highly inefficient. Let's not confuse efficiency with competitiveness.

Sorry, I don't know Klingon. But I'd like to know: did you find it easier than French? And by how much?

There is already a cultural industry in Esperanto, including Esperanto publishers and and Esperanto music CD industry. For example: http://www.esperanto-panorama.net/unikode/muziko.htm Now if the UN expected its ambassadors to know Espernato, for instance, would it need to force people to learn it? It would automaticvally mean that anyone who wants to wok for the UN would be wise to lern Esperanto. Because it's easy, many could learn it on their own. Seeing that some governments allow it in their schools already, that would increae its popularity by a litltle. I'm not saying it would change overnight, but just as the Raj made English attractive in the British administration, so UN policy could make Esperanto attractive at least at the U, causing the beginnings of a shift. You seem to be suggesting that unless change should occur overnight, it can't occur at all. You do realise don't you that most stable change is gradual, not sudden. That's because of a lack of government support in most countries. And I'd hardly call musicians just plain academics. They may be academics, but musicians too. So it's certainly not limited to academia. Have you ever participated at an international conference, or talked to people who have. I have a few times, and can say that most stories I've heard involved native English speakers talking the whole time, with the rest sometimes even being at a loss.

If Chinese replaced English as the top dog, then everyone would want their kid to learn Chinese, with, of course, few succeeding again. And of course Chinese publishers would be quick to cash in on dictionaries, textbooks, etc. etc. etc. Even the Chinese-language music and film industry as everyone struggles to learn Chinese. Also, you might not be aware of this, but while Esperanto roots are mostly European with some Hebrew (the initiator happened to be Jewish), the grammar is quite uniquely its own. As I'd said before, a Chiense could learn Epsperanto in less time that he could Japanese! So while your statement might be true in relative terms, Esperanto culture is still far more universal than English culture which is mainly dominated by Anglo-American values. Also, you seem to be going around in circles, saying that we should promote English because it's a major language. Well, of course it'll continue to be a major language if we continue to promote it. If, just like in British India, the UN suddently required its ambassadors to know Esperanto, ofr example, evdn if it didn't impose the language anywhere else, any parent looking forward to his child one day becoming an ambassador would suddenly want him to learn Esperanto. In the time of the Raj, English was not very juseful in daily life, but it didn't matter because of the symbolic prestige of the language in the government. The same woudl apply here. It would be the prestige factor in its use at the UN. In British India, that's how English started. Now there is a difference here though. Unlike English, Esperanto is much easier to learn. this means that whereas India is still only 4% English speaking after 200 years of English, Esperanto would spread beyond the elites to the general population too. Why do you want to maintain an injustice?

When the British established the Raj in India, the only thing they really did language-wise was to impose English on government institutions. Yet that's all they had to do, because once that was in place, it was natural that any parent who hoped for a government or legal career for his child would learn English. We see the same in Xinjiang, where the Chinese government has been so 'magnanimous' as to allow children to study in their mother-tongue up to highschool, after which teaching in their language is legally prohibited in university. It's essentially the same principle of giving the appearance of freedom without giving real freedom. So yes, they try to learn it in the hopes that it will benefit them, but as statistics show, for most, it will be but wasted time and money, and that includes for the poor. It's essentially psychological manipulation. It's clear that whatever language is at the top of the pyramid is the ones all will gravitate towards. The problem is when it becomes a great big pyramid scheem with the ones at the top (English teachers, English interpretors and translators, English-language book publishers, universities in English-speaking countries where the teachers go to improve their English, etc.) benefit from the poor parents spending much of their disposable income to get their children to learn English, with about the same chance of success as winning the lottery! In case you didn't know, pyramid schemes are illegal in Canada. Yet we defend them in international language policy.