Maybe not in qc, but in france we stillsay "si", and if someone uses "oui" instead, he just won't be understood (too ambiguous, & one would repeat the question.) And as for the Académie & conservatism, it just isn't true, yes they decide, but who cares. French has, I believe the richest and fastest evolving slang.
What you describe as for japanese is a phonetic distorsion of borrowed words. In {at least}, there's also a sense distorsion, and these words become more precise. For Example, in french, Deal means "Drug Deal", whereas you'd use marché for any other kind of deal. Therefore, borrowing languages become more and more nuanced, whereas english keeps as poor. That's why, if a natural language becomes universal, it will necessarly become the poorest language. Yet, If it's an artificial language, the ability to make new words as needed will let him be as rich as possible, but it will keep very prosaic, and could only be used for translation, and not for conversation. If there's a good solution, it's 1st language native, 2nd Esperanto, as easier to learn than english.
Esperanto can have as much nuances as you want since you always use metaphors/descriptions. If you know the definition of aword, it IS this word you've to use. Therefore, if there's stg you can't translate in esperanto, you can't translate it in any language. The same thing may be said in differents ways, and suffix are sometimes almost redundant, allowing better nuances than natural languages:for example franco (french guy) isn't franciano (anyone living in france)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not in qc, but in france we stillsay "si", and if someone uses "oui" instead, he just won't be understood (too ambiguous, & one would repeat the question.) And as for the Académie & conservatism, it just isn't true, yes they decide, but who cares. French has, I believe the richest and fastest evolving slang.
What you describe as for japanese is a phonetic distorsion of borrowed words. In {at least}, there's also a sense distorsion, and these words become more precise. For Example, in french, Deal means "Drug Deal", whereas you'd use marché for any other kind of deal. Therefore, borrowing languages become more and more nuanced, whereas english keeps as poor. That's why, if a natural language becomes universal, it will necessarly become the poorest language. Yet, If it's an artificial language, the ability to make new words as needed will let him be as rich as possible, but it will keep very prosaic, and could only be used for translation, and not for conversation. If there's a good solution, it's 1st language native, 2nd Esperanto, as easier to learn than english.
Esperanto can have as much nuances as you want since you always use metaphors/descriptions. If you know the definition of aword, it IS this word you've to use. Therefore, if there's stg you can't translate in esperanto, you can't translate it in any language. The same thing may be said in differents ways, and suffix are sometimes almost redundant, allowing better nuances than natural languages:for example franco (french guy) isn't franciano (anyone living in france)