Riverwind Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I could go on, but I think this shows quite clearly that Esperanto is far easier to learn than either English or French.Verb conjugations are a nuisiance but they are not the hardest part of of learning a language because one can get them wrong an still be understood. The hardest parts of learning a language are learning the 5000 or so word volcabulary and pronoucing/hearing sounds which one did not learn as a child. I noticed that Esperanto uses l and r sounds which will create problems for native speakers of languages like Japanese that do not distinguish between the two sounds. Esperanto works on redundancy. It relies on set roots that can be combined without restrictions other than universally applicable grammar, capable of creating new words instantly.Creating compound words on the fly leaves a lot to the imagination which undermines Esperanto's usefulness as language. People from different cultural backgrounds would come up with completely different interpretations of the same words. If Esperanto depends on these 'made up words' then it will not succeed until it has a large supporting culture that would expand the volcabulary and assign exact meanings to compound words required to express complex ideas.And if you knew a few languages, you'd likewise be aware that some languages recycle roots much more frequently than others thus allowing for greater root repetition over the course of learning new words and thus accelerating the learning of the language.If you want an language that is only capable of expressing basic concepts then then recycling roots would be useful. However, real languages express complex ideas and will often combine roots to make metaphors to express abstract concepts. These metaphors may make sense if you already know to the word but won't help you if you only know the root. More importantly, re-using roots excessively will make the language harder to understand as the vocabulary grows because there will a huge number of almost identical words.Had you known a few languages, you'd be aware that not all languages are equally easy to learn. Some can be much easier to learn than others.As I already said, the ease of learning is a secondary issue. The usefulness of the language once it is learned it is the primary concern for most people. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Machjo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Don't bet on the latest thrill! Granted, there is a branch of Judaism that accepts the Torah only. I forget the name of that group though, but it's true that they would reject Zephaniah (as he comes after the Torah) but would accept Genesis, as it's within the first five books of the Bible comprising the Torah. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
benny Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Granted, there is a branch of Judaism that accepts the Torah only. I forget the name of that group though, but it's true that they would reject Zephaniah (as he comes after the Torah) but would accept Genesis, as it's within the first five books of the Bible comprising the Torah. Monotheism (one God), one government: I hope you see the link. Quote
Machjo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Monotheism (one God), one government: I hope you see the link. I only brought up religion here because it was mentioned. However, I could not see a world government functioning without, at minimum, national governments and local governments too. For any world federation to work, it would need to be decentralized. And yes, one God, one government, but nothing says that government could not be 'layered'. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
benny Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I only brought up religion here because it was mentioned.However, I could not see a world government functioning without, at minimum, national governments and local governments too. For any world federation to work, it would need to be decentralized. And yes, one God, one government, but nothing says that government could not be 'layered'. Layers of government are already overseen by international organizations. Quote
GostHacked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Layers of government are already overseen by international organizations. Almost 4000 posts, and you were just hitting 2000 about a month or so ago. Good job. Quote
benny Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Almost 4000 posts, and you were just hitting 2000 about a month or so ago. Good job. About the topic now!? Quote
Machjo Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 Layers of government are already overseen by international organizations. I guess I used the wrong word. How about 'leveled', as in levels of government. We should point out too that an international organization is not necessarily a government. Even the UN is technically an international intergovernmental organization comprising national governments, and not an international government, meaning that while it can pass resolutions, it can't usually pass 'laws' per se without nations each signing on to it; and its resolutions are non-binding and generally unenforceable, making the UN a paper tiger of sorts. This is where I see the need for a world government. Seeing how intertwined our nations have become, we need a world government to deal with those issues that national governments cannot deal with particularly efficiently. However, there would still be many things that national or even local governments could do better than a world government, and that's why I believe that a decentralized federal model would be the only way to go. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) I guess I used the wrong word. How about 'leveled', as in levels of government. We should point out too that an international organization is not necessarily a government. Even the UN is technically an international intergovernmental organization comprising national governments, and not an international government, meaning that while it can pass resolutions, it can't usually pass 'laws' per se without nations each signing on to it; and its resolutions are non-binding and generally unenforceable, making the UN a paper tiger of sorts.This is where I see the need for a world government. Seeing how intertwined our nations have become, we need a world government to deal with those issues that national governments cannot deal with particularly efficiently. However, there would still be many things that national or even local governments could do better than a world government, and that's why I believe that a decentralized federal model would be the only way to go. World governance is already a "feel good" discussion topic in Summits but international cooperation in deeds is too fragile and will remain so I think. Edited August 5, 2009 by benny Quote
Machjo Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 World governance is already a "feel good" discussion topic in Summits but international cooperation in deeds is too fragile and will remain so I think. That's exactly why we'd need a decentralized world government with the world level having the power to enforce its laws. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 That's exactly why we'd need a decentralized world government with the world level having the power to enforce its laws. But a need cannot be artificially induced. Quote
Machjo Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 But a need cannot be artificially induced. The need is here already. And yes, it was artificially induced unintentionally through the invention of the telgraph. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
benny Posted August 5, 2009 Report Posted August 5, 2009 The need is here already. And yes, it was artificially induced unintentionally through the invention of the telgraph. If there was a need, this topic would be more popular. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.