Posts tagged with "discussion"

Linguistic Relativity and Esperanto

Posted by Transparent Language 7 Comments
Jan 29 2010

Have you ever heard of the philosophical concept of linguistic relativity? If not, there’s the possibility that you’ve already thought about it yourself! Come to think of it, according to the theory, you’ve been thinking about it your whole life, probably without realizing it. According to the theory, the thoughts you are capable of thinking are heavily influenced by your first language. It’s a rather intuitive concept, in my opinion. If you were to compare the way color is expressed in English and in Russian, for example, you might notice an extreme difference in phrasing. In English, we say “the sky is blue.” In Russian, the literal translation of the Russian equivalent is to say “the sky blues.” That is to say, there is a verb devoted to being a particular color. Imagine how much either language alters your perception of the world!

It makes me wonder what implications Esperanto could have as an artificial language. Since most of us learn it as a second language (or so I figure), we already have our own linguistic biases when we turn to Esperanto. What of the person who learns Esperanto as a first language? How profoundly must it affect someone’s way of thinking, to think in a manner that is constructed – planned, in effect – by another human being?

Thinkers have already judged Esperanto in regards to linguistic relativity. The brilliant George Orwell was said to have drawn the inspiration for the totalitarian language “newspeak” in his novel 1984 from his experiences with Esperanto. Clearly a pessimistic interpretation, wouldn’t you say?

What do you think? How could Esperanto as a native language influence one’s thinking? Could it? Does it perhaps defeat the purpose of Esperanto to learn it as a first language?

Esperanto and Horror Fiction

Posted by Transparent Language 1 Comment
Oct 20 2009

Since Halloween approaches, a friend of mine asked me to write a critical essay of the horror genre. It’s still in the works, but I’ve done a bit, including something on the film Inkubo. Here’s an adapted snippet of it that’s pretty relevant to our continued discussion of Esperanto.

You might remember a post some months ago where we discussed Inkubo as an example of Esperanto cinema. For those of you who missed it, Inkubo is a black-and-white horror film starring, of all people, William Shatner. The entire movie is spoken in Esperanto. While the use of Esperanto makes the film far more interesting for Esperantists, I’ve been thinking recently that using the language could be useful for the horror genre as a whole. Allow me to explain.

Two goals were met in Inkubo by using Esperanto. For one, since many audiences would neither have heard nor spoken Esperanto, the presence of the language creates an uncomfortable, even otherworldly, feeling. The language is left a mystery to these audiences, and as such, the film becomes much more terrifying for lack of understanding. Secondly, the general incomprehensibility for these audiences would help establish the point that, in a true horror tale, language and dialogue are merely ancillary to the horror at hand. The spectacle of terror that film presents is the important aspect.

If we subscribe to either of the two aforementioned goals, I can foresee plenty of uses for Esperanto in horror fiction. Once the language catches on, the incomprehensibility idea will dissipate. However, using Esperanto would be thematically effective. If a horror film in Esperanto is presented to an Esperanto-speaking (or at least understanding) audience, the horrors therein can be said to be as universal as the language. True horror, I imagine, would be a terror that transcends all linguistic and cultural barriers – much like Esperanto. As such, a film with Esperanto at the helm could result in a greatly enhanced horror effect.

Esperanto and Cultural Combination

Posted by Transparent Language 6 Comments
Sep 26 2009

Here’s something to think about today. If Esperanto happened to become the world’s second language, as we all hope it someday will, do you think that it would cause a homogenization of cultures? Or perhaps it would consume every culture and unite it under the single banner of Esperanto culture?

My neighbor, a student of history, asked me to consider the above. He reasoned that language constitutes a large part of a culture’s identity, and if so, it is possible that multiple cultures when utilizing a shared language might experience some blending of their respective cultures. The result on a large scale could be a single, motley culture that arises from the combined aspects of various ways of thinking!

On the other hand, there is always the chance that world cultures could remain relatively stagnant as they are. The sole change from having Esperanto be the world’s second language could be that a definitive Esperanto culture would arise at last – and it would be the aggregate of all the world’s cultures! It’s a bit difficult to envision, I admit, but perhaps it’s not too improbable.

Per usual, any thoughts? There have been some good points made in previous discussions. Let your voice be heard!

Linguistic Evolution and the End of Esperanto

Posted by Transparent Language 4 Comments
Sep 24 2009

It’s a simple fact that languages, given time, will evolve. If ever you have the chance, take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary, and track the evolution of any random word. Sometimes, the years required for a word to radically alter its meaning are few – take today’s contradictory-seeming definitions of the word “oversight,” for example. One definition means a moment of neglect in which crucial details are missed; the second refers to near-omniscient monitoring of an institution!

The thought of evolving languages always creeps into my mind when I think of Esperanto. I love the language, and want to see it succeed. Yet I cannot help but wonder whether, if it did become the global second language, how long it would last before it evolved differently in varying parts of the world. Perhaps it would take some time…Decades, centuries, eons, I don’t know. Eventually, though, Esperanto would evolve, and again we would have the same diversity of languages that once more begs for a middle ground among them.

Then again, since Esperanto is not intended to be everybody’s first language, there is always the possibility that it would evolve considerably slower that a widely-spoken first language, especially given the contexts in which Esperanto would be used. I imagine may of us have a vision of Esperanto being used in world governments, and as such, it would be a tool for conducting official business. Under those circumstances, perhaps Esperanto would be better off in a static state. Politicians would likely not opt to use words that have come into the regional parlance, but are utterly meaningless to someone from a different milieu.

What do you all think? Is the quest for a global language destined to revert back to the same place from whence it started? Or will it be more tenable once it is finally attained?

Purism or Pluralism?

Posted by Transparent Language 8 Comments
Jun 24 2009

Based on an insightful comment from Pascal Blondiau in regards to “krokodili” the other week, I find myself asking whether or not I want to see Esperanto evolve or not. Moreover, if the language needs to change, I wonder how we should go about changing it. Before you read any further, I highly recommend reading Pascal’s commentary. It is well argued, and I hadn’t considered many of his points before.

All set? Then let’s begin a new discussion!

We all want Esperanto be an international language, something that everyone can speak so that everyone may be heard and understood. Under the most ideal circumstances, people the world over would speak, use, and comprehend Esperanto. However, if the entire world spoke Esperanto, I can only assume that various native languages would creep into the vocabulary, producing words like “krokodili.” With this as the case, it isn’t a far stretch of the imagination to think that Esperanto would develop regional words that are spoken only in select places. After further divergence, one would end up with essentially different languages – thus defeating the purpose of a universal language!

The alternative would be to keep non-Esperanto words from entering the Esperanto vocabulary. This solution would ensure that Esperanto remains neutral (in theory) among the world’s native languages, and that new words wouldn’t be too cryptic for Esperantists. Unfortunately, I can see this approach having its own drawbacks. A rigid, purist method like this one risks stagnating the development of the language. Imagine how limited poetry would be, for example, if word usage was completely set in stone!

I can’t say there’s an easy solution to the problem of pluralism versus purism. Perhaps a balance between the two would be best, but I cannot say for sure. What do you all think? Where do you stand on the issue?

Back to the Top